The judgment emphasizes the protection of wild life and the necessity for permission for mining operations within the sanctuary, interpreting the relevant legal provisions and considering the implications of the 2002 amendment to section 29 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition for quashing the orders dated 31. 3. 2005, 16. 5. 2004 and 17. 5. 2004 passed by respondent nos. 1, 5 and 6 respectively and for commanding respondent no. 1 to extend the period of lease beyond 12. 3. 2006 for the period during which the respondents had prohibited the petitioner from operating that lease and also commanding the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners operation of lease dated 12. 3. 2003.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that in the year 1963-64 a notification under section 4 of the Indian forest Act, 1927 was issued by the State government constituting plot No. 1 total area 2626. 81 hectare of village Kanach and plot no. 366 total area 1828. 79 hectare of village pakri (District Mirzapur) as Reserved Forest. Thereafter on 10. 8. 1982 a notification under section 18 (1) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 was issued constituting kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary consisting of several Van Blocks. An area of 921. 8 hectare of Kanach Van Block and an area of 1406. 7 hectares of Pakri Van Block was also included in this notification. Boundaries of the Sanctuary were also described in this notification. In accordance with the direction of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Vanwasi Sewa Ashram (PIL No. 1061 of 1982) decided on 20. 4. 1986 the settlement proceedings were undertaken and under these proceedings an area of 452. 18 hectare of aforesaid plot no. 1 and an area of 489. 15 hectare of plot no. 366 were separated from the reserved Forest and this land was declared as the State owned revenue land.

( 3 ) ON 17. 1. 2003 an auction notice was published for extracting sand and morum from plot no. 1 of village Kanach measuring 200 acres and plot no. 366 of village Pakri measuring 175 Acres. A public auction was held on 25. 2. 2003 and the petitioners highest bid of Rs. 2,89,29,400/- as accepted by the Collector after obtaining approval of the state Government. Thereafter a lease deed was also executed on 12. 3. 2003 for a period of three years. Thereafter on 13. 3. 2003 the petitioner applied for using 5. 7 Kms. Forest Land for transportation of minerals and this permission was granted to him by the Divisional Forest Officer after obtaining approval of the Mukhya Vanya Jeev pratipalak, UP. Lucknow for the period of one year from 23. 4. 2003. The petitioner also deposited a F. D. R. of Rs. 2 lacs towards the security deposit.

( 4 ) THE petitioners allegation is that the above lease was granted during the regime of Ms. Mayawati. When the Samajwadi party came into power, then, under the pressure of Sri. Parmeshwar Dayal M. L. A. of that party, who is on inimical terms with the petitioner, the Mines Officer in pursuance of the Collectors order dated 1. 11. 2003 in which it was alleged that the petitioner was doing mining work in the Reserve Forest land passed an order on 6. 11. 2003 stopping the mining operations. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 50600 of 2003 and in that writ petition this court granted an interim order permitting him to carry on the mining work. However, the plaintiff was not permitted by the opposite parties to continue his work, and under political pressure, the Government issued an order on 7. 4. 2004 to initiate proceedings for cancelling the petitioners lease on the ground that Prabhagiya Van Adhikari in his letter dated 24. 2. 2004 had informed that the lease area lies within the Wild Life sanctuary. Then a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Collector on 8. 4. 2004. Before these proceedings could be decided, the Van Kshetra Adhikari, Dala range, Sonebhadra and Van Kshetra adhikari Guram Range, Sonebhadra passed orders on 16. 5. 2004 and 17. 5. 2004 respectively prohibiting the petitioner to transport minerals from the leased area on the ground that he was transporting minerals through the forest land. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed Civil