Back
2024 Supreme(UK) 599
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ritu Bahri, C.J., Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
Ramesh Kamboj - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (Pil) No. 129 of 2022
Decided On : 23-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel.
For the Respondent: Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, Ms. Monika Pant, learned Standing Counsel
IMPORTANT POINT
The court dismissed the writ petition as no evidence was found of private mining activities in forest areas, affirming that all mining is conducted by the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation.
Headnote:
(A) Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Writ petition seeking details of mining permissions in forest areas - The court found no evidence of private individuals conducting mining activities in the forest areas of Uttarakhand, as all activities are regulated by the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. (Paras 3, 4, 9)
(B) The court noted that prior approval from the Central Government is required for any non-forestry activity on forest land, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory regulations. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to stop alleged illegal mining activities by private individuals in Uttarakhand's forest areas. The respondents clarified that no permissions had been granted for such activities.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that no private mining activities were occurring in the forest areas, thus no further directions were necessary.
Issues: The main issue was whether private individuals were conducting unauthorized mining activities in forest areas.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since no evidence of private mining activities was presented, the writ petition lacked merit.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ritu Bahri, C.J.
The petitioner, in this writ petition, is seeking a direction to the respondent-authorities to give the details of the persons to whom permission has been granted for carrying on mining activities in the rivers flowing inside the forest area throughout the State of Uttarakhand and with a further prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to stop such activities being carried on by the private individuals for extraction of mines and minerals in the forest area where till date the Forest Development Corporation is carrying on mining activities.
2. Pursuant to this notice, this writ petition was filed on 18.09.2022.
3. All the respondents have filed their separate counter-affidavits. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2-Deputy Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun dated 08.09.2023. In Paragraph-12 thereof, it has been specifically stated that the UFDC had never issued any sub-lease or license to any private individual for mining in any river of the State, including Kosi river. It is also stated that one Writ Petition (PIL) No. 160 of 2014 titled 'Ranjeet Singh Gill v. State of Uttarakhand and others' was decided by this Court on 16.12.2014 and that order (Annexure-A9) is still being implemented, whereby the private individuals were restricted from carrying out any activity in the forest area. Even the SLP filed against the order dated 16.12.2014 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. In this PIL, only general allegations have been made and no specific incident has been mentioned as to any private individual carrying out mining activity.
5. Another affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 3-Regional Manager, Western Region, Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam, Ramnagar, District Nainital dated 12th September, 2023. In Paragraph-11 of this counter-affidavit, it is stated that the Uttarakhand Forest Development is carrying out the mining activity in the reserve forest area, as such till date there is no such policy to allot the mining activity in the reserve forest area to the private individuals.
6. Another counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 1-Additional Secretary, Industrial Development (Mining) Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun dated 18.09.2023. In Paragraph-11 of the counter-affidavit, it has again been stated that the State Government has not permitted and is not permitting any private person to undertake mining activity in the river-bed and river bank flowing in forest area through the State of Uttarakhand, except the mining activities which are being carried out by Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation as per regulation in force in Uttarakhand.
7. Another affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 4-Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Dehradun dated 14.09.2023 and in Paragraph 4 of this affidavit, it has been stated that the 'land' is a subject matter of State Government; the forest areas and the legal boundaries thereof are determined and maintained by the concerned State Government; and the State Government has the primary responsibility to determine the status of any parcel of land, giving due regards to gazette notifications, provisions under State and Central Acts and concerned judgments and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Paragraph-5, it is further stated that prior approval of the Central Government under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is required for carrying of any non-forestry activity on forest land.
8. Since mining is a non-forestry activity, permission under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is required, to carry out mining activity. Respondent No. 1 vide its letter dated 19.05.2023 has requested the State Government to furnish a factual report vis-a-vis contention raised in the present petition for further necessary action. The letter dated 1st March, 2023 (Annexure SCA-4/1) has been placed on record, which has been i
