Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J.
M/s. Balaji Metal and Sand Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The Forest Divisional Officer – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 5786, 12395 of 2021
Decided On : 02-03-2022
Mining - Quarry Lease - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - [MINING] - [Quarry Lease] - [Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, M/s. Balaji Metal and Sand Manufacturer (P) Ltd., challenged the show-cause notices directing them to stop mining activities in the quarry lease area. The petitioner argued that they had obtained all necessary permissions and clearances and that the notices were without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the show-cause notices were issued without proper verification of facts and without considering the validity of the existing mining lease. The court held that the notices were illegal, arbitrary, and beyond the authority of the issuing departments.
Issues: Validity of show-cause notices, applicability of environmental protection notifications, and the legality of directing the petitioner to stop mining activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that any Act, Rules, Notifications will apply prospectively unless specified otherwise. It also highlighted the principle that a current law should govern current activities and that retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle of law.
Final Decision: The impugned notices/orders were set aside, and the writ petitions were allowed, leaving it open to the authorities to conduct a survey duly putting the petitioner on notice and thereafter take necessary action if the land allocated for mining purposes is found to be in violation of any laws.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner and the issue involved in both the writ petitions is common. Therefore, they are clubbed together and disposed of together by this common order.
2. The petitioner is one M/s. Balaji Metal and Sand Manufacturer (P) Ltd. has filed W.P. No. 5786 of 2021 assailing the proceedings of the respondent No. 1 i.e. the District Forest Officer, Kamareddy, vide proceedings in showcause notice in Rc. No. 4437/2020/S5, dated 06.01.2021 directing the petitioner to stop the mining activity in the subject land, and consequently, sought for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner-company to carry on its business in the quarry lease area in terms of the work order and lease deed, dated 16.02.2016.
3. Subsequently, the very same petitioner-company filed W.P. No. 12395 of 2021 assailing the letter of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kamareddy, vide letter No. 2422/QL/2015, dated 31.12.2020, directing the petitioner-company to stop the entire quarrying operations in the quarry lease area.
4. The case of the petitioner-company is that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad vide proceedings No. 2159/QL/2015, dated 28.12.2014 granted quarry lease in favour of the company for excavation of Mineral - Building Stone and Road Metal in an extent of 8-165 Hectares in Sy. No. 240 of Santhaipet Village, Tadwai Mandal, Nizamabad District for a period of 15 years. By virtue of the same, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Nizamabad, after execution of Lease Deed in Form-G, was pleased to issue Work Order vide proceedings No. 2422/QL/2015, dated 16.02.2016. The validity of the lease is till 15.02.2031. For the purpose of carrying out the mining operations, the petitioner- company has obtained all necessary permission/clearances from various departments, purchased the adjacent patta land and installed transformer. The company started commercial activity excavating the mines in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short ‘Act’) and the Rules made there under, by investing huge amount of Rs. 5.00 crores. While so, the Forest Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, by show-cause notice, dated 06.01.2021, directed the petitioner-company to stop further quarrying operations till the Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) demarcation is completed. The company was further informed that the quarry lease area held by the company falls within the jurisdiction of ESZ of Pocharam Wild Life Sanctuary as per Gazette Notification and as per Wild Life Act, 1972. Further, the company was required to show cause as to why it should not be prosecuted in Court of law for violations of provisions of Wild Life Act, 1972, Bio-diversity Act, 2002. In response to the said show-cause notice, the company submitted a reply, dated 25.01.2021, to the Forest Divisional Officer, followed by representation, dated 12.02.2021 to the Monitoring Committee under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, headed by the District Collector, Kamareddy, and the District Collector, Nizamabad, with a request to permit the quarrying and crushing activity as it is catering to the domestic needs of local residents. Challenging the said show-cause notice, dated 06.01.2021, the company has filed W.P. No. 5786 of 2021. Thereafter, the petitioner-company has challenged the proceedings of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Kamareddy, vide Letter No. 2422/QL/2015, dated 31.12.2020, directing the petitioner-company to stop the entire quarrying operations in the quarry lease area.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-company, the learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, the learned Government Pleader for Forests and Sri. Zakir Ali Danish, the learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Northern Power D
The judgment emphasizes the principle of prospective application of laws and the requirement for proper verification of facts and consideration of existing legal rights before issuing directives.
The court emphasized the importance of proper consideration, adherence to principles of natural justice, and compliance with Section 77 of the Mines Act, 1952 in matters related to quarry leases and ....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the potential impact of quarrying on the surrounding ecosystem and wildlife, as well as the existence of an alternate remedy under Rule 36-C. The de....
The court established that prior judicial findings and inspections must be respected, and any new claims of violations require proper notice and participation of the affected parties.
The court affirmed the right to interim relief for stone removal from a quarry operating outside the Eco-Sensitive Zone, balancing environmental regulations with the entitlement of the quarry owner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
