Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shakshi Nehru Yuwa Mandl vs Government Of India on 17 May, 2012
Author: Tarun Kumar Kaushal
Bench: Tarun Kumar Kaushal
1
W.P. No.710/2011
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
DIVISION BENCH : HON. SHRI JUSTICE KRISHN KUMAR
LAHOTI
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE TARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL
Writ Petition No.710/2011(PIL)
Shakshi Nehru Yuwa Mandal
Vs.
Government of India and others
For Petitioner : Shri Vishal Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents :Shri P.K. Kaurav, Dy. Advocate General
No.2, 3 and 5
For Respondent No.4 : Shri Sandeep Singh, Advocate
For Respondent No.6 : Shri R.S. Jaiswal, Sr. Counsel assisted by
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, Advocate
ORDER
.05.2012 Per: T.K. Kaushal, J.
This public interest litigation has been preferred by petitioner NGO seeking a relief to issue directions to the concerned government authority to restrain the respondent No.6 from illegal mining activities on land comprising khasra No.412 of Village Jhiti, Tahsil Sehora, District Jabalpur. This petition has been preferred on the basis of strength of pronouncement 2005 AIR SCW 5380 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others wherein it has been observed that in cases of rampant illegal mining, strict action against the Revenue Department and Forest Department has to be taken by the State Government.
2. It is submitted by the petitioner that despite moving various applications addressed to the competent authorities complaining the 2 W.P. No.710/2011 disturbance of pollution due to illegal mining activities of Respondent No.6, appropriate action is still awaited. This controversy has been considered and examined by us in W.A. No.629/2011 (Santu & another Vs. Union of India & others) wherein working permission granted by the Revenue Department and Forest Department to carry out the aforesaid mining work have been produced by respondent No.6. It has also come on record in the said petition that Pollution Control Board has also initiated prosecution. Though it is alleged that prospective consent had been considered and accorded for enhanced capacity. Since the State has already constituted a Committee of 7 members headed by Executive Director of Mining Corporation who is looking into the complaints and grievances of the persons of local area, therefore, no further direction is required to be issued in this petition.
3. On the basis of reasonings and observations given judgment passed by us today in W.A. No.629/2011, we deem it fit and proper not to issue any direction to the respondents.
4. In view of the aforesaid, in our considered opinion, since the State Government has already taken cognizance against alleged illegal mining activities and has constituted the Committee, no directions are required to be issued in this petition. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Tarun Kumar Kaushal)
Judge Judge
AK/