Himachal Pradesh High Court
Atma Ram & Another vs State Of H.P. & Others on 14 July, 2017
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1324 of 2016 Reserved on : 3.7.2017 Date of decision : July 14, 2017 .
Atma Ram & another ...Petitioners.
Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.r 1
For the Petitioners : Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with Mr. Anup Rattan and Mr. Romesh Verma, Additional Advocates Geneal.
Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice Petitioners have prayed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:
"(i) That order dated 23.05.2012 (Annexure P-
2) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant renewal of mining lease, which has been granted in favour of petitioners vide Letter No.Udyog (Chh) 7-
24/85 dated 13th June, 1986 Annexure P-1 by respondents for a period of 50 years in Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 23:58:45 :::HCHP...2...
accordance with Section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015, in favour of petitioners."
2. Order dated 23.5.2012, so passed by the .
Principal Secretary (Industries) to the government of Himachal Pradesh, is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
3. Certain facts are not in dispute. On 13.6.1986, mining lease came to be granted in favour of Atma Ram (petitioner No.1), for a period of ten years.
Just prior to the completion of the said period, mining operations came to be suspended, in view of certain orders passed by this Court. With the controversy having been settled, for the remaining period of lease, since Atma Ram was not in a position to continue with the mining operations, he assigned his rights in favour of Jalam Singh Fauji (petitioner No.2), which permission never came to be accorded by the State. Consequently, petitioner Atma Ram approached this Court by filing CWP No.6946 of 2010, titled as Atma Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, and this Court only directed the respondents-authorities to consider the representation, which he would be making.
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 23:58:45 :::HCHP...3...
4. The authority below has refused the permission, inter alia, on the ground that (a) the purpose of lease was only for setting up the manufacturing unit of .
hydrated lime and not cement industry, for which the extension was sought, (b) in any event, such mining operations could not have been allowed, in view of the prohibition laid down under various Environmental Laws of the land, and (c) despite opportunities afforded, for more than 12 years, petitioner Atma Ram failed to apply or obtain sanctions from the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also the record, so made available to us, during the course of the hearing, we are of the considered view that impugned order warrants no interference. Reasoning adopted by the authority below is total germane to the record.
6. In response, so filed by the State, it is evident that pursuant to the transfer of the lease for some time, operations came to be continued by Jalam Singh Fauzi, but however, in view of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 12.12.1996, passed in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 23:58:45 :::HCHP ...4...
India, the said petitioner was asked to obtain clearances from various authorities, for the land was situate within the area mandating prohibition. Despite affording time, .
Jalam Singh Fauzi failed to pursue the matter with the authorities and obtain necessary sanction.
7. It stands clarified that in terms of Rule 37 of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, mining operations came to be continued by Jalam Singh Fauzi till February, 1997, but then thereafter, in view of the intervening developments, mining operations could not have been continued.
8. Much emphasis is laid on the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2015. Section 8A of the said Act, on which much emphasis is laid, is of no help to the petitioners, for the period of lease came to an end, almost 12 years prior to the filing of the present petition.
No doubt, petitioner Atma Ram had been approaching this Court, but then it was to no avail, for this Court only directed the petitioner's representation to be considered and did not adjudicate any rights.
9. In any event, and independent to the aforesaid, one finds that as per the existing law, the ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 23:58:45 :::HCHP ...5...
period of lease cannot be extended. In terms of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2015, lime stone, which is a notified .
mineral under the said Act, can only be auctioned through competitive bidding and that too for an area not less than five hectares, which is not the case in hand.
Reference of renewal of lease in favour of other, is also of no consequence as it stands explained by the State, such renewals came to be effected only during the time of efficacy of the lease.
r Hence, in view of the above discussion, present writ petition, devoid of merit, is dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
( Sanjay Karol ),
Acting Chief Justice
( Ajay Mohan Goel ),
July 14, 2017(sd) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 23:58:45 :::HCHP