Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
V. Satyam Reddy And Others vs The Union Of India, And Others on 12 September, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996AP175
ORDER
1. Two practising advocates of this Court have filed this Writ Petition by way of public interest litigation, questioning the legality of the permission accorded by the 7th respondent, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests', Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to the 11th respondent herein, namely Sri Yerri Naidu (Military Naidu), M.L.A., Chodava-ram, to carry out preliminary experiments, survey-cum-exploitation of the valuable precious stones in the districts right from Visakhapatnam to East Godavari including parts of Srikakulam and Khammam, vide letter Ref. No. 12806/95/F2,dated 19-4-1995 and seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi, to order enquiry through the Central Bureau of Investigation to ascertain the actual quantum of mineral wealth exploited by the 11th respondent and the consequential damage to the reserved forest areas and also to fix up the responsibility on the concerned persons who violated the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to order for prosecution of the persons for the alleged violation of the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in accordance with Section 3A of the said Act and further to direct the third respondent herein i.e., the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Chief Secretary, to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the value of the minerals exploited by the 11th respondent from him as well as appropriate amounts towards the damage caused to the forest areas by virtue of the illegal mining operations conducted by him.
2. The petitioners allege that the said permission was accorded by the 7th respondent to the 11th respondent at the instance of Sri N. T. Rama Rao, the then Chief Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh, who is impleaded as the 4th respondent in his official capacity and as the 9th respondent in his individual capacity. The 7th respondent i.e., the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, is also impleaded in his individual capacity as the 10th respondent.
3. It is stated inter alia in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the tribal areas in Visakhapatnam and Srikaku-lam districts, which form part of the reserved forest, contain valuable treasure of precious stones worth over Rs.5000 crores, that the 11th respondent has been indulging in illicit mining operations in precious stones for some time past, that no action was taken against him despite complaints since he happened to be an M.L.A. beloning to the ruling party having close contacts with the Hon'ble Chief Minister, that anticipating that these illicit operations being carried by him may result in penal action under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the 11th respondent brought pressure on the 10th respondent through the 9th respondent to accord permission to him for the purpose of exploitation of the mineral wealth and that accordingly the 10th respondent issued the impugned letter dated 19-4-1995 permitting the 1 Ith respondent to carry out preliminary experiments and survey-cum-exploitation with the assistance of the Department of Mines, Mining Corporation and also protection from the police. It is further alleged that after the grant of the said permission the 11th respondent has been indiscriminately exploiting the forest areas for the purpose of collecting precious stones worth crores of rupees without any check on his illicit mining operations, that no accounts are being furnished to the departments with regard to the quantum of the mineral exploited, that precious stones, which were exploited, are being shared by respondents 9 to 11 causing substantial loss to the exchequer and that in this process the reserved forest areas have been destroyed by felling the tree growth indiscriminately. It is also staled that the said permission accorded to the 11th respondent is illegal and is in violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, that the 7th respondent has no power or jurisdiction to grant such permission and that the said action is wholly arbitrary, illegal and mala fide. The petitioners have also referred to certain newspaper reports highlighting this scandal and have characterised it as the biggest scandal of this century in this Slate. The petitioners have accordingly filed this writ petition seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
4. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the official respondents of the State Government, has opposed admission of the writ petition. He has also produced the relevant records before me. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as welt as the learned Advocate General.
5. Before adverting to their respective contentions, it is useful to refer to the impugned proceedings of the 7th respondent dated 19-4-1995 which reads as follows:
"FOREST DEPARTMENT Ref. No. 12086/95/ Office of the Prl.
F2 Dated: 19-4-1995 Chief Conservator of Forests, Andhra Pradesh, Aranya Bhavan Hyderabad.
Dr. C N. Rao, K.F.S., Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests.
Sub: SEMI PRECIOUS STONES -- Mining in Forest areas meeting the Hon'ble Chief Minister of 19-4-1995 instructions --Regarding.
The Hon'ble Chief Minister having been appraised of the illegal mining for semi precious stones, which is said to be going on last 2 years right from Visakhapatnam to East Godavari District, including parts of Srika-kulam and Khammam. He has been informed that these semi precious stones are very costly and there is potentiality which will yield about Rs. 5000 crores. The Hon'ble Chief Minister was unhappy that such illegal mining on a large scale which is going on for last 2 years could not be stopped nor has it been brought to his notice. The details of these semi precious stones with sample have been shown to him by Special Chief Secretary, Industries as well as Director of Mines and Geology. Sri Yerri Naidu (Military Naidu) who is M.L.A. has specifically informed that he and his people if permitted would be able to bring out valuable stones from these areas even in 10 days time, which will fetch over lakhs of rupees.
As a preliminary to detailed investigation, survey and action to be taken the hon'ble Chief Minister has agreed to permit the M.L.A. and his men to carry out preliminary experiments survey cum exploitation for about 10 days with the assistance of the Department of Mines, the Mining Corporation and with protection from police. If the areas are in the Forest, the Forest Officers are expected to also co-operate in this experimental investigation work. Detailed instructions or orders are being sent by the Government, propably the Collectors, even if there is any delay in receiving communication from this office in this regard, you may issue necessary permission and instructions to the staff not to obstruct in this investigation work, but be present and send a report as to the actual quality and type of semi precious stones that have been removed and if so, from which part of the forest and other details like, extend of the area, depth of area and whether any trees have been felled, etc. Sd./-Dr. C. N. Rao, Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that according to Section 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, no person shall undertake any prospecting or mining operations in any area, except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a prospecting licence or as the case may be, a mining lease granted under the Act and the rules made thereunder. He further contended that in so far as major minerals are concerned, the State Government is the competent authority for grant of prospecting licences or mining leases. In so far as minor minerals are concerned, the concerned Deputy Director of Mines and Geology is the competent authority for grant of quarry leases. So far as black granite and colour granite are concerned, the Director, Mines and Geology, is the competent authority for grant of quarry leases. Thus the 7th respondent has no power or jurisdiction at all to grant either prospecting licences or mining lease/quarry lease in respect of the minerals under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder. As such the impugned proceedings of the 7th respondent dated 19-4-1995 is wholly without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose or that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned by, managed or controlled by the Government or that any forest land or any portion there of may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. He also submitted that S. 3-A of the said Act specifics that whoever contravenes or abets the contravention-of any of the provisions of S. 2 shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a period which may extend to 15 days. Section 3-B of the said Act envisages that where any offence under this Act has been committed by any department of Government, the head of the department or by any authority, every person who, at the time the offence was committed was directly in charge of and was responsible to, the authority for the conduct of the business of the authority as well as the authority shall be deemed to be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. The counsel argued that ex facie the impugned proceedings of the 7th respondent is clearly in violation of the aforementioned provisions of law and it is manifestly illegal. He further contended that it is clear from a plain reading of the said proceedings, that the same was issued at the instance of the. Chief Minister and no further proof of mala" fides is required. He, therefore, submitted that a prima facie case is made out for admitting the writ petition.
7. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General has submitted with reference to the records produced by him that no such permission was, in fact, accorded to the 11th respondent as alleged by the petitioners, that on 19-4-1995 a meeting was held by the Chief Minister in which 20 high-ranking dignitaries and officials including the Ministers for Finance and Revenue, Forest and Environment, Mines and Geology, Government Chief Whip, Chief Secretary, Director of Mines and Geology, Director General of Police, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests etc., participated and it was decided that the Director of Mines and Geology should constitute a team for investigation and prospecting for potential deposits of semi-precious stones in the districts of Khammam, East Godavari and Visakhapatnam, that the team should chalk out a programme and undertake investigation/prospecting and report the findings within 15 days, that based on the results of preliminary investigations and prospecting, a regular team for prospecting the total potential for semi-precious stones in the potential areas of likely occurrence in accordance with the plan of action should be constituted with the representatives of D.M.G., G.S.I., M.E.C.L. and Forest Department with necessary police protection and assistance from forest department, this team must complete their exploration efforts/ prospecting exercises and submit a report within a full working season on the potential in the relevant areas, and that pending the above action effective steps should be taken to prevent the illegal mining, transfer or sale of the semi-precious stones by greater vigil by the Forest, Police and the Department of Mines and Geology. It was also decided at the said meeting that in view of his local knowledge Sri Yerri Naidu, M.L.A., Chodavaram (11th respondent) should be associated with the prospecting learn. The minutes of the said meeting was produced before me. Pursuant to the decision taken at the said meeting, a special team for investigation/prospecting was constituted on 21-4-1995 by the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology bearing No. 24986/P1/94 dated 21-4-1995 comprising of the following seven members:
1. Dr. P.K. Basu, Director of Petrology Division, Geological Survey of India, Hyderabad.
2. Dr. K.N. Rao, Senior Geologist, Petrology Division, Geological Survey of India, Hyderabad.
3. A Representative of the Forest Department to be designated by the Prl. Chief Conservator of Forest.
4. A Representative of the Revenue Department to be designated by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam.
5. Sri Subba Rao, Senior Geologist, A. P. Mineral Development Corporation, Hyderabad.
6. Sri P. D. Satyanarayana, Asstt. Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam.
7. Sri M.'S. Jayaram, Jt. Director of Mines and Geology, Directorate of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad.
The 11th respondent was also associated with the special team. The special team commenced its business on 25-4-1995 and carried on its exploratory work for three days, i.e., on 25th, 26th and 27th of April, 1995 in the course of which a total number of 61 pieces of semi-precious stones valued at Rs.27,792/-only were collected and the same were placed in sealed boxes and sent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh by the District Collector of Visakhapatnam. Thereafter the area is guarded well and no further quarrying from the area is reported. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the estimates of the precious-stones stated to be available in the area as given out by the petitioners based on some newspaper reports are highly exaggerated and in fact, the Government received some reports from reputed geologists to the effect that the deposits of the semi-precious stones in the said area are not economically viable for mining and marketing. The learned Advocate General has drawn my attention to aletter dated 15-3-1995 addressed by Prof. K. Sreeramachandra Rao, Head of the Department of Geology, Andhra University, to the Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam to the said effect. On the basis of these records, the learned Advocate General argued that the impugned proceedings dated 19-4-1995 issued by the 7th respondent is unauthorised and it is contrary to the decision taken at the meeting held on 19-4-1995. He submitted that the 7th respondent must have issued the impugned proceedings acting under some misapprehension or in overzealous manner for which the Government cannot be blamed. He also sub-milted that as soon as the Government came to know of the same through newspaper reports published on 28-7-1995, the Government called for his explanation in Memorandum No.917/SC.IFS/95-1 dated 31-7- 1995. In the wake of the said memorandum the 7th respondent, by his proceedings in Rc. No. 12806/95/F2 dt. 1-8-1995 informed all concerned that his earlier proceedings dated 19-4-1995 (which are impugned in the writ petition) are cancelled and must be deemed to have been cancelled from the date of communication of the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology dated 21-4-1995. The 7th respondent also submitted an explanation to the Government in this behalf of 4-8-1995 stating that he issued the impugned proceedings dated 19-4-1995 without waiting for the communication of the minutes of the meeting held on 19-4-1995 in view of the urgency of the work of investigation within the stipulated time and expressing his regret for the discrepancy which was purely unintentional. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the Government have taken action against the 7th respondent by transferring him. He further submitted that the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 112 Industries and Commerce (Ml) Department dated 1-8-1995 constituted a fact-finding committee comprising of the floor-leaders of ail political parties in the Legislative Assembly for making a detailed enquiry about the various aspects relating to this matter and the report of the said fact finding committee is awaited. The learned Advocate General also submitted that when some questions were raised in Parliament regarding this matter, a detailed report has been called for from the Government of Andhra Pradesh by the Central Government and in that connection a detailed report was submitted to the Central Government in this behalf vide Rc.No.12806/95/F2 dated 13-8-1995 addressed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, A.P., Hyderabad to the Principal Secretary, Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, with a request to transmit the same to Government of India. The said report also reiterates the aforementioned facts relating to the meeting held on 19-4-1995, the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology dated 21-4-1995 and the cancellation of the impugned proceedings dated 19-4-1995 etc. On the basis of the material referred to above, the learned Advocate General submitted that a special team comprised of Government officials only was deputed for the purpose of carrying out experimental prospecting operations by the Government and as such there is no violation whatsoever of the provisions of either the Mines and Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act or the Forest (Conservation) Act. Thus accord ing to the Advocate General, no illegality or irregularity whatsoever has been committed as alleged by the petitioners and the action taken by the Government is above board and bona fide and there arc absolutely no valid grounds whatsoever to entertain this writ petition or to embark upon a roving enquiry into the matter. He also contended that the writ petition is filed with ulterior motives to embarrass the Government and he also questioned the locus standi of the petitioners to file the writ pet it ion and, therefore, submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
8. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners being public spirited citizens are certainly interested in exposing the grave illegalities committed by the respondents in a matter which is of great public interest and as such they have locus standi to file the writ petition, that the Government is only trying to cover up the matter by making the 7th respondent a scapegoaf, that even assuming that the impugned proceedings dated 19-4-1995 is cancelled on 1-8-1995, the 11th respondent has continued his illegal mining operations till 1-8-1995 and appropriated huge quantities of valuable mineral causing loss to the public exchequer, that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for admitting the writ petition and that this is not a case for dismissing the writ petition in limine and the respondents should be called upon to file their return.
9. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration now is whether, on the materials placed before the court, a prima facie case is made out for entertaining the writ petition or whether it is a fit case for dismissal in limine.
10. Before going into the merits of the rival contentions, it is necessary to deal with the preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate General about the locus standi of the petitioners to file this writ petition. I am afraid, this argument merits no serious consideration in view of the expanding horizons of the concept of locus standi and the principles enunciated by the apex court regarding public interest litigation in a number of judgments. In S.P. Gupta v. President of India, , the Supreme Court held as follows:
"Whenever there is a public wrong or public injury caused by an act or omission of the State or public authority which is contrary to the Constitution or law, any member of the public acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of such public wrong or public injury. The strict rule of standing which insists that only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury can maintain an action for judicial reddress is relaxed and a broad rule is evolved which gives standing to any member of the public who is not a mere busybody or meddlesome interloper but who has sufficient interest in the proceeding..... What is sufficient interest to give standing to a member of the public would have to be determined by the court in each individual case. It is not possible for the court to lay down any hard and fast rule or any strait-jacket formula for the purpose of defining or delimitting 'sufficient interest'. It has necessarily to be left to the discretion of the court."
In the same case, the Supreme Court has also observed that the individual who moves the court for judicial redress in cases of this kind must be acting bona fide with a view to. vindicating the cause of justice and if he is acting for personal gain or private profit or out of political motivation or other oblique consideration, the court should not allow itself to be activised at the instance of such person and must reject his application at the threshold. In the case of Bihar Legal Support Society v. Chief Justice of India, , the Supreme Court laid down, "ordinarily only a person whose rights are violated can move a court for redress. However, where there is likelihood of any Government action injuring the interests of many persons, any one may move the court for relief." In R. v. Commr. of Police, Metropolitan E.P., Luckburn (sic), (1973) 1 WB 629, Lord Denning observed, "if there is a good ground for supposing that a government department or a public authority is transgressing the law or is about to transgress, in a way which offends or injures thousands of Her Majesty's subjects, then in the last resort any of the offended or the injured can draw it to the attention of the Court of law and seek to have the law enforced." After all, as observed by the Supreme Court in Chaitariya Kumar v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1936 SC 825, advancement of public interest and avoidance of public mischief are the paramount considerations in the administration of justice and the Court cannot close its eyes and persuade itself to uphold the publicly mischievous executive actions which have been exposed.
11. It is not necessary to multiply the citations since the above principles are well settled and they need no reiteration. In the instant case, the petitioners, who are members of the legal profession, are seeking to draw the attention of the court to certain irregularities and illegalities alleged to have been committed in relation to the exploitation of the mineral wealth of the nation and conservation of forests which are undoubtedly matters of public interest. There is no reason to doubt their bona fides or to think that they arc acting out of political motivation or other oblique considerations or for personal gain. I have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the submission of the learned Advocate General on the question of locus standi.
12. Coming to the main question whether a prima facie case is made out for entertaining the writ petition or not, it is useful to briefly refer to the circumstances leading to the present controversy.
13. Certain areas of the districts of Sri-kakulam, Visakhapatnam and East Godavari are found to contain valuable deposits of semi-precious stones like Cats-eye, Garnet, Moonstone and Alexandrite etc. Though the estimates of the value of these deposits are conflicting and varying, with some estimates putting the value as high as Rs. 5,000 crores whereas according to some estimates these are no! economically viable for mining and marketing, the reports of the presence of these deposits seem to have triggered off a veritable 'gem-rush' to these areas leading to illicit mining operations on a large scale by the local population during the last two or three years. Reportedly these operations have attracted traders from the States of Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan to the area offering substantial amounts of money to the people indulging in these illicit-Operations. The officials of the forest and revenue departments were unable to check or prevent these illicit operations which even resulted in several deaths due to the unscientific methods employed by the local population for digging indiscriminately causing accidents and land slips. On receipt of reports about these illegal operations from the local authorities, the Government convened a meeting of the officials and the Ministers of the concerned departments in the presence of the then Chief Minister Sri N.T. Rama Rao on 19-4-1995 with a view to discuss the steps to be taken to deal with this problem. The said meeting was attended by 20 top-ranking dignitaries and officials including the Ministers for Finance and Revenue, Forests and Environment and Mines and Geology, Chief Secretary to Government, Director General of Police, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Director of Mines and Geology and others. According to the minutes of the said meeting, which is produced before me, it appears that it was decided that the Director of Mines and Geology should constitute a team consisting of geologists from A.P. M.D.C. and G.S.I. for investigation and prospecting for potential deposits of semi-precious stones in the districts of Khammam, East Godavari and Visakhapatnam, that Sri Yerri Naidu, M.L.A., Chodavaram (11th respondent) should be associated with the prospecting team in view of his local knowledge, that the team should chalk out a programme and undertake investigations/prospecting and report its findings within 15 days, that necessary protection and support must be provided by the Superintendent of Police, and the Divisional Forest Officer to the learn and that in forest areas forest officials must be associated in the prospecting operations. It was further decided that a law should be enacted to prevent illegal mining of semiprecious stones both in revenue and forest lands and their transport and sale and for this purpose the D.M.G. was directed to submit an appropriate draft for consideration of the Government by 10th May, 1995. It was further decided that based on the results of the preliminary investigations and prospecting as above, a regular team for prospecting the total potential for semi-precious stones in the said areas with a plan of action should be constituted with the representatives of the D.M.G., G.S.I., M.E.C.L. and Forest Department which should complete [heir exploration efforts/prospecting exercises and submit 3 report within a full working season on the potential in the relevant areas. It was also decided to secure the assistance of UNDP/Government of India for scientific exploitation of semi-precious stones, training of personnel and setting up of Gemmological Laboratory, Library etc. It was finally decided at the said meeting that pending the above actions, effective steps should be taken to prevent the illegal mining, transfer or sale of the semi-precious stones by greater vigil by the Forest, Police and Department of Mines and Geology.
14. In the wake of the said meeting the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (7/ 10th respondent) has addressed the impugned letter dated 19-4-1995 to the Conservators of Forests, Rajahmundry, Visakhapatnam and Khammam with copies of the same marked to the Divisional Forest Officers of Kakinada, Visakhapatnam, Narsipalnam, Srikakulam, Khammam and Bhadrachalam South Divisions informing them that the Hon'bie Chief Minister has agreed to permit Sri Yerri Naidu (Military Naidu) M.L.A., and his men to carry out preliminary experimental survey-cum-exploitation for about 10 days with the assistance of the Department of Mines, the Mining Corporation and with protection from the police and with the co-operation of the forest officers in forest areas and instructing them to issue necessary permission and instructions to the staff not to obstruct in this investigation work but be present and send a report as to the actual quality and type of semi-precious stones that have been removed and if so, from which part of the forest and other details like extent of the area depth of area and whether any trees have been felled etc. Apparently this letter is not in tune with the official minutes of the meeting held on 19-4-1995. Whereas according to the minutes the decision taken at the meeting was to constitute a team of officials for carrying out experimental investigation and prospecting operations with which Yerry Naidu, M.L.A., should also be associated in view of his local knowledge, the impugned letter of the 7/10th respondent reads as if permission is granted to Yerry Naidu and his men to carry out the operations and the officials are required to co-operate with them and not to obstruct them in their work. The 7/10th respondent offered an explanation for this apparent inconsistency in his letter dated 4-8-1995 addressed to the Chief Secretary to Government in reply to the Government Memo dated 31-7-1995 calling for his explanation in the matter. The 7/10th respondent explained that in view of the urgency of the work of investigation within the stipulated time and to keep (he forest officials in readiness to associate themselves with the investigation and prospecting work in the forest areas, he issued the impugned letter of instructions on the same day without-waiting for the communication of the minutes of the meeting held on 19-4-1995, that he did so in his anxiety for speedy implementation of the decisions taken by the highest authorities of the Government, that it was also specifically stated in the impugned letter that detailed instructions or orders are being sent by the Government and expressed his regret for mentioning that the Hon'bie Chief Minister agreed to permit the M.L.A. and his men to carry out preliminary experimental survey-cum-exploitation for 10 days which has given scope for misunderstanding and creation of controversies by the vested interests. Even though the explanation offered by the 7/10th respondent is not very convincing and gives room for some suspicion, I am inclined to give the benefit of doubt to him and accept his explanation in view of the fact that pursuant to the decision taken at the meeting held on 19-4-1995, the Director of Mines and Geology, A.P., Hyderabad, in his proceedings No.24986/P1/94 dated 21-4-1995 constituted an official team of 7 members as stated above for the purpose of carrying out preliminary investigation and prospecting operations and the same was duly communicated to all concerned. The said proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology dated 21-4-1995 clearly shows that the team constituted was an official team consisting of geologists of the Geological Survey of India, a representative of the Forest Department, a representative of the Revenue Department, a senior geologist of the A.P. M.D.C., Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam and Joint Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad. The said proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology also specifically states that Yerri Naidu, M.L.A., Chodavaram will associate with the team. The said proceedings has set out in detail the guidelines that may be observed by the team. It also directed that adequate police protection force shall be provided by the District Collector/Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam, to the team. The team so constituted has carried on the prospecting operations for three days from 25th to 27th of April, 1995 in the course of which a total number of 61 pieces of semi-precious stones were reported to have been collected. The same were got valued by an expert valuer from Orissa who estimated their total value at Rs. 27,792/- only. The stones were kept in sealed boxes and sent to the Government. It appears no further operations were carried on and the area is being guarded. The preliminary investigation report submitted by the prospecting team in this behalf is also placed before me. In the said report the members of the team taking into consideration the geological set up, the mode of occurrence of the pegmatite as thin veins (as noticed in the present occurrence) concluded that it is not easy to ascertain the economic potentiality of the semi-precious stones as its distribution and concentration is quite erratic in the pegmatite. They finally suggested that the present area may be chosen as a 'test area' and they recommended to carry out detailed petrographic studies of the pegmatite and the host rock khondalite to establish the possible petrographic path finder minerals, large scale mapping of such khondalite zones to locate pegmatite body and pitting and trenching to be carried out in the pegmatite zone (weathered area) for the possible recovery of semiprecious stones, I have no reason to doubt the genuineness and authenticity of the official minutes of the meeting dated 19-4-1995 or of the proceedings of the Director of Mines and Geology dated 21-4-1995 constituting the team of experts which has been duly communicated to all concerned immediately and the preliminary investigation report submitted by the said team. It is also not suggested by the petitioners that they are all fabricated or got up documents. As a matter of fact, when some questions were raised in Parliament in regard to this matter, a detailed report was submitted in this behalf to the Central Government reiterating all the above facts. A copy of the said report also has been placed before me.
15. On an examination of all the materials produced before me, I am prima facie satisfied that no permission as such was granted to the 11th respondent to 'carry out any prospecting/mining operations. But he was merely associated with the experimental prospecting operations carried on by the official team constituted by the Director of Mines and Geology of the State Government as mentioned above. According to the second proviso to Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, nothing in sub-section(1) of Section4 shall apply to any prospecting operations undertaken by the Geological Survey of India, the Indian Bureau of Mines, the Atomic Minerals Division of the Department of Atomic" Energy of the Central Government, the Directorates of. Mining and Geology of any State Government (by whatever name called), and the Mineral Exploration Corporation Limited, a Government company within the meaning of S.617 of the Companies Act, 1956. It, therefore, follows that there has been no" violation of the provisions of the said Act or the rules framed thereunder in the instant case by reason of the experimental investigation/prospecting operations carried on by the official team constituted by the Director of Mines and Geology. There is also no material to establish that there has been any violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The various reports placed before me show that no trees in forest area have been felled in the course of the prospecting operations undertaken by the official team. According to S. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. According to the explanation to the said section, "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for --(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes. According to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests in regard to the application of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, investigations and surveys carried out in connection with development projects such as transmission lines, hydroelectric projects, seismic surveys, exploration for oil drilling etc., will not attract the provisions of the Act as long as these surveys do not involve any clearing of forest or cutting of trees, and operations are restricted to clearing of bushes and lopping of tree branches for purpose of sighting. If, however, investigations and surveys involve clearing of forest area of felling of trees, prior permission of the Central Government is mandatory.
16. Having regard to the fact that the operations carried on by the prospecting team did not involve felling of trees in any forest area, I am of the view that there has been no violation of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act as well in this case. As the whole case of the petitioners rests on the allegation that permission has been illegally granted to the 11th respondent and the same has been found to be incorrect, the whole basis for the writ petition goes.
17. There is absolutely no material whatsoever in proof of the allegation that pursuant to the alleged permission, the 11 th respondent has exploited and misappropriated huge quantities of semi-precious stones worth rupees several hundreds of crores. This allegation appears to be exaggerated and baseless in view of the report of the prospecting team which discloses that only 61 pieces of semi-precious stones were recovered and their value was estimated at Rs. 27,792/-. Having regard to these facts, I do not think that there is any justification for this Court to order for any investigation by the C.B.I, into this matter as sought for by the petitioners. It is stated that the State Government has already appointed a fact-finding committee comprised of the floor-leaders of all political parties in the Legislative Assembly including the leaders of the opposition parties as well. It is not clear whether any report was submitted by the said fact-finding committee so far. Of course, the appointment of any such commit tee by the Government is not a bar for this court to order any independent investigation in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, I am not inclined, on the facts of this case, to make any such order.
18. For all the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that no prima facie case is made out for admitting this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the concerned statutory authorities empowered in this behalf from making any further investigation into this matter and from taking appropriate action in accordance with law if any violations come to light.
19. Petition dismissed.