Back
2018 Supreme(Megh) 26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, S.R. Sen, JJ.
Shella Action Committee – Appellant
Vs.
State of Meghalaya and Ors. – Respondents
PIL No. 2 of 2013
Decided On : 19-09-2018
For the Appellant : B.M. Roy Dolloi, Adv.
For the Respondent: H.S. Thangkhiew, Sr. Adv and N. Mozika, Adv.
The court emphasized the importance of evidence-based claims in PIL petitions and highlighted the detrimental nature of a negative approach in impacting progress and prosperity.
Headnote:
Foreign Exchange Management Act - Violation of Mines Act, 1952 - Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 - The court dismissed the PIL petition filed by a registered society, finding it to be without merit and tainted with ill design. The mining operations by the respondents were found to be beneficial for the economic growth and welfare of the people of the area. The petitioner's negative approach was deemed detrimental to progress and prosperity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered society, filed a PIL alleging violations of various acts by corporate bodies and the headman of Shella village. The case was transferred to the current court from the Gauhati High Court. The respondents contended that the petitioner had no record of social activities and personal grudges, and the land transfer was legal. The court considered the written submissions of the parties and found the petitioner's claims to be unsubstantiated.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's claims to be without merit and tainted with ill design. It concluded that the mining operations by the respondents were beneficial for the economic growth and welfare of the area. The petitioner's negative approach was deemed detrimental to progress and prosperity.
Issues: The issues included the petitioner's status as a registered society, allegations of land transfer violations, and the impact of mining operations on the welfare of the area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims, the positive impact of mining operations on the area, and the detrimental nature of the petitioner's negative approach.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the PIL petition with costs, finding it to be without merit and tainted with ill design. The dismissal was without prejudice to any pending or future suits regarding land title disputes.
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.
1. The petitioner claim to be a registered society formed to protect the poor, illiterate and indigenous people of Shella village so have filed the instant petition projecting therein that the respondents No. 7 (Lum-Mawshun Minerals Pvt. Ltd.) and 8 (Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd.) are two corporate bodies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 whereas, respondent No. 9 (Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd.) is a corporate body incorporated in Bangladesh with its headquarter at Dhaka.
(a) The respondent No. 9 is doing business at Dhaka having cement factory located at Chatak whereas, respondents No. 7 and 8 excavate and obtain mineral from Meghalaya, India and supply the same to the respondent No. 9.
(b) The income acquired therein and taxes levied are paid to the Government of Bangladesh, thus, deprive the State of Meghalaya and Union of India from receiving its due share of taxes, causing serious loss of revenue and also irreparable loss to the indigenous people residing within the Sixth Schedule area.
(c) The State respondents are doing business in violation of the provision of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and
(d) The respondents No. 7 and 8 are excavating minerals in gross violation of the Mines Act, 1952.
(e) The respondent No. 10 (Headman of Shella village) is not entitled to exercise any right over the land of the village except that being a judicial officer to exercise judicial power when a case is brought before it.
(f) It is alleged that an area of 4,36,643 square meter of land have been allegedly sold and leased out in Shella and Tynger village areas rich minerals such as limestone, silt stone, shale and other minerals.
(g) It is alleged that the respondent No. 10 has granted purported certificates to 89 (eighty nine) villagers who are not the real owners of the land. On the strength of such certificate, 87 (eighty seven) persons have sold forever and other 2 (two) have leased out the land not belonging to them they have got title deeds in favour of the respondent No. 7 who is not working for the welfare of the tribal and there is no scheme to promote interest in the field of education and industry. Respondent No. 10 has also granted 4 (four) certificate to himself.
(h) Respondents No. 7 and 8 are operating as subsidiary companies of the respondent No. 9. They have been operating right from the year 2004 in violation of Sections 16, 19 and 20 of the Mines Act, 1952. Finally, it is prayed that transfer of land in favour of the respondent No. 7 and also permission for transfer of land from respondent No. 7 to respondent No. 8 dated 13.03.2006 may be cancelled. Furthermore, respondents No. 7, 8 and 10 may be restrained from excavating minerals from the land in question or conveying the same to respondent No. 9.
2. The petition originally was filed before the Gauhati High Court and registered as PIL No. 40 of 2007, same was admitted on 16.05.2007, interim direction was issued, "not to create any fresh encumbrance on the land in question'. Vide order dated 17.06.2008, the proceedings were deferred in reference to the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 23.11.2007. Then, vide order dated 04.06.2010, it was recorded that the matter being pending before the Supreme Court, therefore, the proceedings stand adjourned sine die. The matter pending before the Supreme Court was disposed of on 06.07.2011.
3. The petition was transferred from Gauhati High Court to this Court as it is reflected in the order dated 03.05.2013.
4. Vide order dated 05.03.2014, the proceedings of this PIL were closed on the ground that the issue raised in the petition stand answered in the case of "Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & ors: (2011) 7 SCC 338, a view was taken that no more directions are required to be passed.
5. A review petition was filed by the petitioner which has been allowed vide the o
