IMPORTANT POINT
Approaching the court within a reasonable time is crucial, and delay and laches may lead to the dismissal of petitions.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents for grant of approval for diversion of 13.99 hectares of forest land in favour of the petitioner and further prayer has been made by the petitioner to quash and set aside the impugned letters/communications dated 26.02.2020, 25.09.2003 and 06.11.2003 passed by the respondents.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was operating mines and he was having a valid licence to operate the mines but the mining operations were stayed by the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202/1995. Counsel submits that on 15.10.1997, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of his mining lease and at the same time, a request was made for approval of diversion of 13.99 hectares of forest land in favour of the petitioner. Counsel submits that inspite of passing of considerable time, the respondents never communicated the decision taken by the authorities with regard to the grievance of the petitioner, although, the petitioner approached in the office of the respondents on many occasions but except assurance nothing was done in writing. Counsel submits that ultimately, the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice to the respondents on 15.12.2019 and for the first time, he received a communication from the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 26.02.2020 wherein it was mentioned that the proposal of the petitioner was rejected by the Ministry way back in the year 2003 by passing the impugned orders dated 25.09.2003 and 06.11.2003. Counsel submits that these orders were never communicated to the petitioner and no reasons have been assigned in the impugned orders as to why the proposal of the petitioner was rejected. Counsel submits that no reasoned speaking order has been passed and under these circumstances, such action of the respondents has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted and the writ petition is liable to be accepted.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the proposal offered by the petitioner was declined by the respondents way back in the year 2003 and the petitioner was sleeping over his rights for a considerable time of seventeen years and after a delay of more than one and half decade, the petitioner woke up from slumber and approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Counsel submits that instant writ petition suffers from delay and laches. Counsel further submits that though in the impugned order dated 25.09.2003, detailed reasons were not assigned but before passing the aforesaid order, separate proceedings were initiated on 10.07.2003, wherein it was found that there were violations on the part of the petitioner and all such violations were mentioned in the fact sheet dated 10.07.2003. Counsel for the Union of India submits that Ministry was not under any obligation to communicate the order impugned to the petitioner, as there was no direct correspondence between the Union of India and the petitioner because such matter was traveling through State, and the State Government was communicated about passing of the impugned order well within time on 2003 itself. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not vigilant, that is why he was sleeping over his rights for more than seventeen years, hence this petition is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Laxmi Narayan Das (Dead) through LRs. and Ors., reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 527. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. This fact is not in dis