Prohibition of mining activities in forest areas and the need for strong vigilance by state authorities to prevent illegal mining.

JUDGMENT

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the initial stage submits that he withdraws the prayer No. (iii) and (iv) of the writ petition.

2. I have considered the submissions, the petitioner in the writ petition has prayed as under:-

"(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 and 2 to notify Eco Sensitive Zone surrounding the outer boundary of Kaila Devi Wildlife Sanctuary;

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to give full assistance and support of the State Authorities to the respondent No.1 and 2 to facilitate notification of Eco Sensitive Zone surrounding the outer boundary of Kaila Devi Wildlife Sanctuary expeditiously;

(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.4- Mining Department to extend the lease period of petitioner equal to the period when the mining operation remain closed due to Court order. Further more, to extend the lease period by virtue of provisions of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 upto 50 years;

(iv) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.4- Mining Department to refund the dead rent excessively charged from the petitioner;

(v) Any other appropriate order or direction which is deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and in the interest of justice;

(vi) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

3. From the perusal of the aforesaid prayers, it is apparent that the petitioner on one hand has been praying for creating an Eco Sensitive Zone in and around Kaila Devi Wildlife Sanctuary and at the same time he has prayed for directing the Mining Department to extend the lease period of petitioner equal to the period when the mining operation remained closed due to the Court's order. Thus, a conclusion can be drawn that the mining operations being conducted by the petitioner, are in and around the wildlife sanctuary, and this petition is essentially questioning the method and manner of keeping the matter pending before this Court relating to creating of Eco Sensitive Zone and till Eco Sensitive Zone shall be created. The petitioner, who is now praying for withdrawal of prayers No.3 and 4 cannot pray for extending the lease period.

4. The State of Rajasthan is already suffering immensely due to illegal mining activities being conducted several times. The Supreme Court as well as this Court has been directing the State authorities to take steps for stopping illegal mining activities especially near the forest areas as well as in the Eco Sensitive Zones. The petitioner appears to have been granted mining lease way back on 08.08.1991 which deems to be treated as cancelled in terms of Supreme Court orders in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1997) 2SCC 267, where the Supreme Court has specifically laid down not to continue mining activities in forest areas. Such mining activities, therefore, cannot be allowed in and around forest areas even if there has not been any demarcation of the Eco Sensitive Zone to outer boundary of Kaila Devi Wildlife Sanctuary. The Mining Department and the State authorities including the forest authorities are required to keep strong vigil that no illegal mining activities are conducted in the garb of area being outside the earmarked territories of forest, which falls in the Eco Sensitive Zone area.

5. In the circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition, it is directed to the State authorities to take notice of the aforesaid order and take appropriate steps in this regard.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.