JUDGMENT

1. Present petition seeks review/clarification of the orders passed on 15.04.2019 and 09.07.2019 passed in WP.14921/2018.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

3. WP.14921.2018, in which the orders under review were passed, was filed as a PIL raising the public cause that the mining lease for extraction of stone and making gitti by crushing plant granted by the respondents within 300 meters of the stop dam built for irrigation purposes has caused hairline cracks in the wall of the said stop dam prejudicing the very existence of dam and also jeopardizing the irrigation prospects of farmers of the area.

4. The said Writ Petition i.e. WP.14921.2018 stood disposed of on 13.11.2018 in the following terms:

' 6. There is no material on record to show that such requirements and terms and conditions of the permission granted by the Director, Mine Safety, have been followed. Petitioner has also not taken pains to implead the lessee as a party. However, looking to the fact that there are serious allegations in regard to breach of stop dam due to use of excessive explosives and excessive exploitation of the mining lease, this Court is of the opinion that directions issued in W.P.No.4133/1005 (PIL) as enumerated above will have to be observed by the authorities and an action taken report will be submitted jointly by Water Resources Department, Mines and Minerals Department of the State Government, Collector Gwalior and M.P. Pollution Control Board alongwith office of Director, Mine Safety, Govt. of India, so to protect the interest of the farmers and prevent any further damage to the stop dam. Report will also be furnished by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, as to the steps taken by them to close the breached area of stop dam and mechanism to prevent breaches in the stop dam in future. "

5. While disposing of WP.14921.2018, the Court directed the respondents to file compliance report on or before 20th Feb. 2019 and listing of WP.14921.2018 under caption 'Reporting Compliance'.

5.1 Thereafter, the writ petition was listed on 22.02.2019 under caption 'Reporting Compliance' and was listed repeatedly before the Bench on various occasions including on 15.04.2019 when this Court passed the first order under review directing that no mining activity will be carried out in the vicinity of 500 meters radius of the Dam until further orders. Whereafter, the second order under review dated 09.07.2019 was passed consigning the WP.14921.2018 to record room after being satisfied with the compliance report filed by the State with further opportunity to the petitioner to revisit the Court in case deficiencies/shortcomings are found.

6. The error apparent on the face of record pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioners who are three in number who were though not party before the writ court but are the quarry lease-holders, that they have been granted leasehold rights after following the due process of law beyond the prohibitive area of 100 meters from the dam which is required to be maintained as per Rule 5(2)(d) of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules 1996 ('1996 Rules' for brevity).

6.1 For ready reference and convenience, clause (d) of subrule (2) of Rule Rule 5 of 1996 Rules is reproduced below:

'5 . Restrictions on the ground of [trade quarry] or quarry case.-

(1) xx xx xx;

(2) No quarry lease, or [trade quarry] shall be granted in respect of an area:-

(a) xx xx xx;

(b) xx xx xx;

(c) xx xx xx;

(d) except for the mineral sand or bajri, within a distance of 100 meters from river banks, reservoir, canal, dam, any natural water course or any water impounding structure and 50 meters from nalla. "

6.2 On the anvil of aforesaid Rule which restricts mining operations around within 100 meters radius of a reservoir/dam, it is submitted by the review petitioners that the quarry lease granted to them is beyond 100 meters of the stop dam and has thus been granted after following due process