[Citation : 2011(4) RLW 3447 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Dinesh Bothra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Mishra, CJ.)
HON'BLE ARUN MISHRA, CJ.
HON'BLE ALOK SHARMA, J.
Dinesh Bothra
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
D.B. Writ (PIL) Petition No. 10304 of 2010, decided on 19.08.2011
Writ petition allowed.
i;kZoj.k laj{k.k fu;e] 1986] fu;e 5¼3½( i;kZoj.kh; lek?kkr fu/kkZj.k vf/klwpuk 2006 & igys i;kZoj.kh; lek'kks/ku gkfly fd;s fcuk [kuu xfrfof/k;ksa gsrq [kku ykblsal dk vkoaVu & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & [kuu yht ds ekeys esa tgkW i;kZoj.kh; lek?kkr fu/kkZj.k vf/klwpuk 2006 ds vuqlkj lek'kks/ku dh vko';drk gks rks] ogkW [kkuksa dk vkoaVu vuqKs; ugha gS] dksbZ [kku yht fu"ikfnr ugha dh tk ldrh rFkk bZ-vkbZ-,- vf/klwpuk] 2006 ds rgr ;Fkk vkns'kk/khu okafNr igys i;kZoj.kh; lek'kks/ku gkfly fd;s fcuk dksbZ dCtk lqiqnZ ugha fd;k tk ldrk rFkk blds foijhr dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh Lo;a voS/k gS & bZ-vkbZ-,- vf/klwpuk 2006 vkKkid gS rFkk 1986 ds fu;eksa ds fu;e 5¼3½ ds rgr tkjh laoS/kkfud izHkko j[krk gS & lek'kks/ku dh eatwjh ls iwoZ ;fn [kuu {ks= vkoafVr djus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gS rFkk dCtk lqiwnZ djus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gS rks bZ-vkbZ-,- vf/klwpuk dk lEiw.kZ iz;kstu gh foQy gks tk;sxk & okafNr lek'kks/ku gkfly fd;s fcuk Hkwfe dk dksbZ Hkh vkoaVu djus] ;k dksbZ [kku yht fu"ikfnr djus ;k dCtk lqiwnZ djus ls izR;FkhZx.k dks vo:o fd;kA ¼in la- 24 ls 26½ ;kfpdk Lohdkj dhsA
2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is a Journalist and student of LL.B. Final Year also. The Government of India has published a notification dated 14.09.2006 specifying the requirement for environmental clearance for establishment, expansion or modernization of any project or activity as covered under the said notification. It has been issued in exercise of the powers under Rule 5(3) of the Environmental Protection Rules, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as “Rules of 1986”). The said notification imposes restrictions and prohibitions on new projects or activities or on expansion of modernization of existing project or activities based on their potential environment impact as indicated in the Schedule appended to the notification dated 14.9.2006, unless a prior environmental clearance has been taken from the Central Government or the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (in short “SEIAA”) as the case may be. The said notification provides the categorization of project/activity looking to the spatial extend as well as the level of impact on human health and environment. The Clause 2 of the notification provides that in case, the project/activity falls under category 'A', the concern regulatory authority will be Ministry of Environment & Forests and in case of category 'B', the concerned authority will be SEIAA.
3. The State Government had issued an advertisement on 4.3.2009 inviting applications for quarry licenses for mining of sand-stones mineral in the Sihanda area of Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur. The State Government is going to allot a huge area for undertaking mining activities to the other individuals. The Department of Mines has taken a decision for undertaking mining activities upon a land admeasuring 201.06 hectare. Therefore, in view of the mandatory nature of the notification dated 14.9.2006, the respondent Department is certainly required to take a prior environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests as the same falls within category 'A' project/activity. So far, no environmental clearance has been accorded to the Mining Department for the proposed mining activity at Sihanda area. The process of allotment has been started by Mining Department, which is in violation of the mandatory notification dated 14.9.2006 issued by the Government of India.
4. The petitioner had filed representation on 7.9.2010. The quarry licenses are being issued by the Mining Department and they are finalising bids. It would become impossible to check the mining activity and the same would be in violation of EIA Notification of 2006. Hence, the writ petition has been preferred.
5. In reply filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3, it is contended that first, the grievance ought to have been raised by the petitioner before the State Government and Pollution Control Board. It is also stated that necessary parties have not been impleaded in the writ petition. Small quarries are being allotted, as such, petition is based on wrong interpretation of the notification dated 14.9.2006, which is not attracted. There are as many as 1117 quarry licences each comprising of an area of 60 X 30 metre (0.18 hectare) and consent is required to be obtained of the Rajasthan Pollution Control Board only. In substance, the reply is that EIA Notification of 2006 is not attracted to the small ares, which are to be alloted. However,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.