Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 903
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
M/s. Shipra Power and Fuel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Industry, Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos. 3737, 3485, 3646, 3649 and 3677 of 2019
Decided On : 03-12-2020
For the Petitioners:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General.
Headnote:
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 - Rule 69 and 27(2) - Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Section 24-A and 29 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(g) - Land - Mining Leases - Environmental Degradation - Whether principle has to be applied or not is to be considered bearing in mind express language and basic scheme of provision conferring the power - Whether said land is forest or non-forest in nature – Held, Respondent no.5 was exercising power of Collector and as such he was obliged to provide opportunity of hearing to petitioners before issuance of impugned letters terminating respective mining leases of petitioners – Court is of considered view that once respondents allowed petitioners to resume mining operation, before taking any decision affecting right of petitioners; they were again required to serve show cause notices so as to enable them to sufficiently explain allegations and thereafter respondent no.5 was required to pass reasoned order in accordance with law after taking into considerationrelevant provisions as well as factual materials laid before him - Impugned letters issued by respondent no.6 to petitioners whereby stone mining leases of petitioners have been prematurely terminated, are quashed having been issued in violation of principles of natural justice and without entering into merit of case, present batch of writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to respondent no.5 to issue fresh show cause notices to petitioners specifically mentioning allegations levelled against them and on receipt of their respective reply, to pass appropriate informed orders in accordance with law taking into consideration available materials - Said exercise shall be completed by respondent no. 5 within four months from date of present order - Petitions disposed of.
ORDER :
The cases are taken up through video conferencing.
2. The present batch of writ petitions have been preferred for quashing the letter no.1010 dated 28.06.2019 followed by consequential letter no. 1020 dated 28.06.2019 [in W.P.(C) No. 3737 of 2019), letter no.1011 dated 28.06.2019 followed by consequential letter no. 1015 dated 28.06.2019 [in W.P.(C) No. 3485 of 2019], letter No. 1012 dated 28.06.2019 followed by consequential letter no.1017 dated 28.06.2019 [in W.P.(C) No. 3646 of 2019], letter No.1013 dated 28.06.2019 followed by consequential letter no.1016 dated 28.06.2019 [in W.P.(C) No. 3649 of 2019) and letter No. 1014 dated 28.06.2019 followed by consequential letter no. 1018 dated 28.06.2019 [in W.P.(C) No. 3677 of 2019] whereby the respondent no. 6-the District Mining Officer, Chatra has communicated the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra (the respondent no. 5) regarding premature termination of stone mining leases granted to the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 1 to constitute Standing Site Inspection Committee to determine the nature of the land situated at village Karmali, Khata No. 01, Plot No. 02 (Part), District – Chatra, Jharkhand (hereinafter referred as the said land).
3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petitions is that the mining leases were granted to the petitioners for a period of 10 years and they were doing the mining activities after getting requisite permissions from the competent authority as also by paying the royalty to the State Government. During the period of subsistence of the lease, some complaints were received from certain NGOs against the mining activities being done by the petitioners over the said land claiming that the said activities would cause the environmental degradation and also give rise to land dispute etc. Thereafter, a three-member committee was constituted by the respondent no.5 to verify the allegations made by the NGOs. The committee submitted its report on 11.07.2018 stating the nature of the said land as “Gair Majarua Khas Jungle” which was purportedly concealed by the then Circle Officer, Huntergunj in the earlier report. It was further reported that the mining area was within 500 meters of the human habitat. Thereafter, respective show cause notices were issued to the petitioners alleging that the nature of the said land was “Jungle Jhari” and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India reported in (2011) 7 SCC 338, no mining operation was permissible in the said area. It was further alleged that the mining area was within 500 meters of human habitat. The petitioners replied the respective show causes notices and claimed that the nature of the said land was changed from “Jungle Jhari” to “Tand” which would be evident from the different government records like Register-II, sale deeds and revenue receipts existing much prior to the commencement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (in short “the Act, 1980”) and as such the said land would not be treated as “Jungle Jhari” within the meaning of ‘forest’ under the provisions of the Act, 1980. It was further replied that the land of the petitioners were not identified as forest land by the Committee constituted vide Notification No.2520 dated 26.07.2001 issued by the Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand in compliance of order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) No.202 of 1995. It was also replied that issuance of 30 days’ notice by the respondent no. 6 for premature termination of stone mining lease on the ground of the said land allegedly having been recorded as “Jungle Jhari” land in revenue records did not violate the terms and conditions of mining lease. So far the allegation of suppression of fact regarding existence of human habitat within 500 meters area is concerned, it was r
