Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ACJ., Satyen Vaidya, J.
Dalip Singh And Another - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Hp And Others - Respondent
CWPIL No. 43 of 2023
Decided On : 22-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Mr. Govind Korla, Addl. A.Gs., Ms. Priyanka Chauhan and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Dy. A.Gs. for respondents-State. Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate, for Respondent No. 6. Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 8. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No. 9 and 11.
Mining activities cannot be halted without specific allegations of statutory violations, emphasizing the need for a balance between environmental protection and development.
Headnote:
(A) Himachal Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) and Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2015 - Rule 57 - Public Interest Litigation regarding sand mining operations - Petitioners sought to halt mining activities citing environmental concerns and potential threats to local communities - Court noted absence of specific allegations of statutory violations and emphasized the need for a balanced approach between development and environmental protection. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 19)
(B) Sustainable Development - Importance of balancing environmental protection with development activities - Court highlighted that development should not compromise the environment and vice-versa, stressing that mining can only be halted if statutory violations are proven. (Paras 11, 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed by two Panchayats seeking action against sand quarries operating in their area, alleging threats to life and property due to soil erosion and landslides caused by mining activities. The official response indicated no illegal mining was occurring and that inspections were conducted regularly. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition as there were no specific allegations of statutory violations, and the balance between development and environmental concerns must be maintained. (Paras 12, 19)
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could stop mining operations in the absence of specific statutory violations. (Paras 10, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mining activities could not be halted without clear evidence of statutory violations, emphasizing the principle of sustainable development that requires balancing ecological protection with necessary development. (Paras 11, 14, 19)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, ACJ.
This Public Interest Litigation, purportedly at the instance of two Panchayats, has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-
“(i) By issuing writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take action immediately on the resolution passed the Panchayats (Annexure P-3 and Annexure P-4) and to take action on the representation of the petitioners (Annexure P-7).
(ii) By issuing writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make immediate inspection on the spot and to ascertain the extent of danger to the life & property of people at large by the sand quarries being allowed to be operated in the area by the private respondents and other quarry operators.
(iii) By issuing writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue directions to stop operation of sand quarries being operated upon hillock of Solan-Subathu road as shown in site plan (Annexure P-1).”
2. It is averred that the villages of the Panchayats are located by the side of the road, which road runs from Solan towards Subathu and all the villages are on the same hill/mountain and scattered above and below the same road. There is agricultural land around the villages in the form of fields which are the source of livelihood of the majority of the people residing in these villages and the same hillock is running around 8 kms from Solan on the same road. At the top of the same hill, there are so many sand quarries, which are being operated by different persons for extracting sand, stone etc. Since these quarries are located on the upper part of the same mountain are being operated through heavy JCB machines, the same is causing not only destruction to the area but has become a potential threat for the villagers residing downstream due to soil erosion and land slide and damage to the houses, landed property etc.
3. The official-respondents have filed the reply to the petition wherein it is averred that the mining area of the respondents No. 9 and 10 was inspected and it was found that there was no mining activity being carried out in the area in question and further no damage has been caused to the road near the mining area, however, due to sudden heavy rainfall far-away gullies had over-flooded and blocked the said road for few hours only. There is no damage to the agricultural land down hill of the said road.
4. It is further averred that as per the provisions contained in Rule 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) and Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2015 , the respective lease holders are bound to carry out the mining activities in a scientific and systematic manner as per approved mining plan as well as in accordance with the terms and conditions of the mining lease. As such, in order to ensure mandate of said provision on field, the Mining Officer visits the mining lease area from time to time.
5. As regards this case, respondent No. 5-Mining Officer, Solan had visited the mining lease of respondent No. 9 in the month of August, 2023, where he did observe certain irregularities and issued Show Cause Notice dated 19.08.2023 to both the lease holders with the direction to submit their replies within 15 days.
6. The Mining Officer after considering the reply of the lease holders, issued order dated 08.11.2023 to both the lease holders as per the mandate of the provision contained in Rule 57(3) (supra) with a direction to compound the offence otherwise the prosecution shall be initiated against them.
7. In compliance to the said orders, both the lease holders compounded their offence with the fine of Rs.50,000/- each. It has further been averred that the mining leases can only be made operational, if the respective lease holders do away with the irregularities, which were observed by the Mining Officer.
8. It needs to be noticed that no further irregularity or illegality has co
