Jharkhand High Court
Md. Firoz Alam vs Chief Conservator Of Forest (Central) on 14 November, 2022
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 693 of 2011
........
Md. Firoz Alam .... ..... Petitioner
Versus
Chief Conservator of Forest (Central),
Eastern Regional Office, Bhuvaneshwar & Others .... ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............
For the Petitioner : None.
For the Respondent / State : Mr. Gorang Jajodia, A.C. to
Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II.
........
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for the respondent / State has no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.
05/14.11.2022.
Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the respondent / State, Mr. Gorang Jajodia, A.C. to Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II is present.
Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 24.08.2010 passed by the respondent, whereby and whereunder, the application of the petitioner for reconsideration of the mining lease for the minerals Feldspar and quartz has been rejected, assigning the reason that the same has been rejected twice by the Government of India.
It appears from the writ petition that petitioner has applied before the Divisional Forest Officer, Chatra South Forest Division for granting the mining lease over the piece of land, measuring area one hectare + 0.344 Hec (safety zone) diversion in respect of mining activities of the Feldspar and Quartz minerals, in the village - Kasari, P.S. - Simaria, Thana No. 108, District - Chatra, appertaining to Plot No. 331 and 332 (P) vide proposal dated 15.07.2002.
It further appears from the writ petition that his proposal was sent to the respondent no. 2, the Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand for taking necessary action to get prior permission from the Government of India under the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 vide Memo No. 76 dated 07.01.2003.
-2-It further appears from the writ petition that on the basis of recommendation, the respondent no. 2, the Secretary, Department of Forest & Environment, Government of Jharkhand recommended the proposal of the petitioner and sent the same to the respondent no. 1, Chief Conservator of Forest (Central), Eastern Regional Office, Bhuvaneshwar (Orissa) vide Memo No. 100/2000/6647 dated 20.12.2003, stating therein that to take necessary action under section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 to give permission / approval by giving all details as contained in column no. 1 to 12 with regard to the same.
It further appears from the writ petition that after submitting the proposal the respondent no. 2 asked for explanation on three points, vide its Letter No. 12/21/44/2004 F.C.E. dated 23.01.2004, which are contained in the same as Point Nos. 1, 2 & 3.
Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Gorang Jajodia, A.C. to Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II has submitted, that a counter- affidavit has been filed by Divisional Forest Officer, Chatra South Forest Division, Chatra, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Roy, son of Late Vakil Roy on 27.09.2011, whereby it has categorically been mentioned that Government of India has rejected the proposal of the petitioner twice, on the basis of wildlife concerns. The mining activity under this proposal was envisaged as polluting the river system feeding Law-along Wildlife Sanctuary and disturbing the elephant corridor, as such, the writ petition may not be allowed.
Considering the counter-affidavit by the State that the Government of India has already rejected the proposal of petitioner with regard to mining lease, twice, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-