JUDGMENT :

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

In this appeal, the appellant - original petitioner seeks to challenge judgment and order dated 18th April 2011, passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 4570 of 2011, whereby, learned Single Judge rejected the petition and refused to grant any relief, as prayed for by the appellant - original petitioner.

2. The present appeal depicts a very sorry state of affairs at the end of the State Government as well as the appellant. It has been repeatedly said that the Right to Live is a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it includes the Right to Enjoyment of Pollution-free Water and Air for full enjoyment of life. Further, by 42nd Constitutional Amendment, Article 48A was inserted in the Constitution of India in Part IV stipulating that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the Forest and Wildlife of the country. Article 51A, inter alia, provides that, it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including Forest, Lakes, Rivers and Wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. Article 47, which provides that, it shall be the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public health is also relevant in this connection. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also said in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 463 that, 'life, public health and ecology has priority over unemployment and loss of revenue. The definition of 'sustainable development' which Brundtland gave more than 3 decades back still holds good'. However, this appeal has, altogether, a different story to narrate, where, there is complete and absolute disregard to the provisions of the Constitution and other statutory Rules and Regulations.

3. The facts, relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal, can be summarised as under:-

3.1 In the year 1982, the appellant herein preferred an application for grant of Mining Lease in respect of land bearing Survey No. 453/1 paiki, situated at Village: Patanvav, Taluka: Dhoraji, District: Rajkot under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1957') read with provisions of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1960') for 675 acres and 09 gunthas. Record reveals that, in the year 1982, lease for an area, admeasuring 162 acres was granted in favour of the appellant - original petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 3rd July 1991, additional area of 358 acres was also allotted in favour of the appellant - original petitioner for the purpose of mining. Record reveals that the State Government, vide order dated 3rd July 1991, was pleased to sanction the grant to the appellant - original petitioner an area, admeasuring 196 acres on certain terms and conditions. The terms and conditions, as reflected from the order, are reproduced herein below:

"(1) Out of the total area of survey No. 453/1 which is 675 acres and 9 gunthas 325 areas of forest land should be demarcated and may be set aparat and the matter regarding making lease deed of Forest Area should be considered after the approval of the Forest & Environment Deptt. of the Government of India.

(2) There are two temple in the Forest/Revenue Area. A condition in the lease deed of revenue area should specifically provide that Shri Vyas shall see that road/walkway passing through the revenue land do not create any hindrance in way of persons coming for worship of the diaties in the temple. They should also see that sufficient margin is left and same is taken for safety of people visiting the temple from hazards of the mining operating.

The land is vicinity of temples now new existence in Forest and found in forest future should be excluded from mining and proper case will have to be taken by Shri Vyas to prevent any damage to the monuments by b