Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2010
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani, JJ.
Bhanwar Lal – Appellant
Versus
Namrata Vrishni & Ors. – Respondents
D.B. Writ Contempt No. 384/2021 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10946/2012
Decided On : 24-02-2022
Arjun Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant
Sunil Beniwal, AAG, Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Priyanka Borana, Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sachin Saraswat, Sajjan Singh, Deepak Chandak on behalf of Pankaj Sharma, AAG, D.L.R. Vyas and Rajesh Hara, Mining Engineer, for the Respondents
The validity of mining leases cannot be examined in a contempt petition.
Headnote:
Contempt - Illegal Mining - The court found that the respondents cannot be held liable for contempt as the mining activities were being carried out within the stipulated area of mining leases and not beyond. The court clarified that the validity of the mining leases cannot be examined in the contempt petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a PIL alleging illegal mining in a village. The petitioner later filed a contempt petition alleging that the private respondents were engaging in illegal mining activities despite a stay order by the court, causing damage to the village buildings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents cannot be held liable for contempt as the mining activities were within the stipulated area of mining leases. The court clarified that the validity of the mining leases cannot be examined in the contempt petition.
Issues: Allegations of illegal mining, contempt of court, validity of mining leases
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents cannot be held liable for contempt as the mining activities were within the stipulated area of mining leases. The court also clarified that the validity of the mining leases cannot be examined in the contempt petition.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit, and the court discharged the rule.
JUDGMENT
Sandeep Mehta, J. - (In D.B. Writ Contempt No. 384/2021)
1. The petitioner and few others filed PIL Writ Petition No. 10946/2012 alleging that rampant illegal mining was being carried out in the Village Bhetala, Police Station Bagra, District Jalore. After considering the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner, this Court vide order dated 17.12.2012 passed the following interim order:-
"In the meantime, no illegal mining in area in question will be carried out."
2. The PIL aforesaid was admitted on 25.10.2013 and interim order dated 17.12.2012 was confirmed to last till disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner has filed the instant contempt petition alleging that inspite of the stay order passed by this Court, the private respondents are indulging in rampant illegal mining activities and hence, the buildings in the village are being damaged. It has been prayed to restrain the mining activities and to punish the contemnors for willful disobedience of this Court's orders dated 17.12.2012 and 25.10.2013.
3. The respondents have filed reply to the contempt petition wherein, it is asserted that no illegal mining whatsoever is being carried out by any of the private respondents who are holding valid mining leases. The mining activities were commenced after procuring the environmental clearance.
4. Shri Arjun Singh Rathore, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently contended that the very grant of mining leases and the environmental clearance to the private respondents is illegal and hence, the mining activities being undertaken in and around the village Bhetala, PS Bagra, District Jalore should be restrained. At para No. 1 of the contempt petition, the petitioner has made following averments:-
"That the land of Khasra No. 693 of Village Bhetala is recorded as Pahad and Parvat for grazing field in the revenue record. The Mining Department has allotted the mines bearing Mine No. 31/2010 measuring 1 hectare to Smt. Kamla W/o. Shri Shiv Kumar, Mine No. 30/2010 measuring 1 hectare to Shiv Kumar S/o. Shri Omkar, Mine No. 89/1991 measuring 1 hectare to Inanniya Export Private Ltd., which is situated in the middle of Village Bhetala and was being used for mining purpose and consequently blasting is taking place. The houses and school building is situated adjacent to said hill and due to blasting the stones are raising high and stones are dangerous for the villagers, houses and school building raising stones high and due to blasting walls of the houses and school building cracked."
5. Evidently, from a bare perusal of the pleadings made in the contempt petition, it is clear that the petitioner admits that the respondents have been allotted mining leases in the area in question. Shri Arjun Singh, counsel representing the petitioner candidly conceded during the course of arguments that the mining activities are being carried out within the stipulated area of mining leases and not beyond. However, his fervent contention was that the very grant of mining leases to the private respondents is illegal.
6. Counsel representing the respondents have refuted this submission of Shri Arjun Singh and urged that the mining leases were granted much before filing of the writ petition. However, because of the change in statutory provisions, for some period, the mining activities had to be put on hold while the respondents procured the mandatory environmental clearance. The mining activities were commenced after the respondents completed the mandatory compliances required by law.
7. Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the respondents cannot be held liable for disobedience or willful contempt of this Court's interim order which was clearly to the effect that no illegal mining shall be carried out on the area in question. It is not in dispute that the mining activities are being undertaken on
