SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(MP) 424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
Abhay Gohil and P.K. Jaiswal, JJ.
Jaipal Singh and others
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
W.P. (PIL) No. 4133 of 2005
Decided On: 13.04.2007

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S.B. Gupta
For Respondents/Defendant:Vivek Khedkar, Government Advocate for Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, Vishal Mishra for Respondent No. 4 and V.K. Bharadwaj for Respondents No. 5, 6 and 8

The conservation of soil is implicit in the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the State has a duty to take all necessary steps to conserve agricultural land and its soil from degradation.

Headnote:

Public Interest Litigation - Mining Lease - M.P. Minor Mineral Rules - Rule 5, 57, 59 - Conservation of Soil and Agriculture Land - Pollution Control - Environmental Protection

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to stop the arbitrary and illegal grant of Mining Lease and establishment of crushers without following the procedure prescribed in the Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. They contended that the mining operations and establishment of crushers would damage the agricultural land, affect the fertility of the soil, and violate their fundamental rights of livelihood.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State Authorities had granted the quarry lease after fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. The Pollution Control Board had also granted permissions and imposed conditions to prevent environmental damage. The court directed the State and respondents to take necessary steps to conserve agricultural land and soil from degradation. It also issued specific directions to the leaseholders and the Pollution Control Board to ensure compliance with environmental protection measures.

Issues: The main issue was the protection of agricultural land and soil from the potential damage caused by mining operations and establishment of crushers.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conservation of soil is implicit in the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized the duty of the State and respondents to take all necessary steps to conserve agricultural land and its soil from any kind of degradation. The court also directed the State to constitute an expert committee to study the impact of mining operations and crushers on agricultural land and soil, and to formulate specific policies for the establishment of crushers.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with specific directions to the State and respondents to conserve agricultural land and soil, and to ensure compliance with environmental protection measures. The court also directed the State to constitute an expert committee and formulate specific policies for the establishment of crushers.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Gohil, J.

1. This Public Interest Litigation Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of mandamus in the matter of arbitrary and illegal grant of Mining Lease without following the procedure prescribed in the Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 by the State Authorities and permitting to establish crushers by respondents.

2. As pleaded in the petition, the petitioners are agriculturists and they are public spirited persons. Their contention is that in village Paragon Tehshil Datia, the AKS showing the Survey Nos. 72/1, 72/2 and 73 are adjacent to Survey No. 78, 80, 81, 14, 13, 12 and 16 and the Survey No. 15 and 324 which are hillock has been taken up by the State Authorities for the grant of mining lease for establishing crushers and this Survey No. 15 and 324 are surrounded by agriculture land and mining officer has granted lease to the Respondents No. 5 to 8 and to some other persons for a period of 10 years and land bearing Survey Nos. 311, 376, 380, 382 as has been shown in AKS is agricultural land belongs to the petitioners. Their contention in nutshell is that for excavation of the flagstone from the hillock and installation of crushers is to be blasted or broken up manually for preparation of various size of Gitti and to filter by way of revolving of the Mesh which emits huge amount of dust which will blow in air and later on would be settled in nearby agriculture field and the aforesaid crushed dust of the stone will damage all the standing crops and will also hamper the growing of seeds and drastically it will reduce the fertility of the land and as a result of settling of the crushed dust in the agriculture field will totally damage the cultivation and reduce the agricultural value of the land and soil and ultimately the agriculturist would be crop less and this will affect their fundamental rights of livelihood. It was further contended that if it is necessary to permit the installation of crusher, the same should have been permitted only after providing safeguard so that the same may not cause any damage to the agricultural land. It was further submitted that the Collector before granting lease has not taken into consideration the interest of the agriculturists and petitioners. Representation dated 5-9-2005 (Annexure-P/8) was also submitted to the Collector, District Datia indicating therein that the petitioners and other villagers have no other source of income except the agricultural land and if the mining lease is granted and crushers are allowed on spot, it will cause loss to the agriculturists. Earlier also a representation dated 2-12-2004 (Annexure-P/9) was submitted. A panchanama was prepared which is Annexure-P/10. It was also submitted that adjacent to the hillock, forest area is also situated and the mining operations will affect the forest area. Under Rule 5 Chapter II of M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, no grant of quarry can be made. As per Rule 5(2)(b) of Chapter II of M. P. Minor Mineral Rules. 1996, no quarry lease or trade quarry permit shall be granted in the forest land without the permission of appropriate authority as prescribed in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, within a distance of 75 metres from any bridge, National or State Highways, Railway line or 50 metres from any public place. No mining operation can be permitted within 5 km. Radius of the protected forest boundaries. As per Rule 45 of the M. P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996, the activities will cause damage to the flora of the area, therefore, such permission is against the rules. The blowing dust will settle on the field and ultimately will reduce the productivity and make the land uncultivable and will also create ecological and other environmental imbalance. No Objection Certificate has also not been given by the Pollution Control Board and prayed that:

(i) the process for mining lease of crushing purpose on spot may kindly be directed to be stopped and suitable orders and direct
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top