Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Abhiram Dwivedi And Company vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 September, 2015
---1---
W.P. No.19708/2014
29.9.2015
Shri P. N. Dubey, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Seth, Govt. Advocate for
respondents/State.
Heard counsel for the parties on admission. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notice dated 4.12.2014 issued by the Mining Officer (Respondent No.4) so far as it relates to allocation of quarry lease at Changeri, District - Anuppur (at serial No.33) of Schedule (Annexure P/1). Further relief is claimed against Respondents No.1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry on the complaints of contractors against the Respondent No.4 and also on the representations/objections submitted by the Village- Panchayat, Kotma, District - Anuppur (M.P.) regarding the status of new mining area of Changeri.
2. The gravamen of the grievance in this petition is about the allocation of quarry lease to Respondent No.4 at the stated location. In substance, two grounds have been urged before us. The first is about the non- compliance of Rule 5(2)(c) of the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 of having allocated the quarry lease in respect of land which was located in prohibited area. As
---2---
regards this issue, factual position has been explained by the respondents on affidavit of Mining Officer (Respondent No.4) dated 18.4.2015. In Paragraph No.4 it has been stated as follows:-
4. That so far as the aspect of violation of Rule 5(2)(c) & Rule 5(2)(e) of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 is concerned, the petitioner in the present petition has not demonstrated that how the aforesaid auction of trade quarry is contrary to the aforesaid provisions. To that extent, it is relevant to mention here that as per Rule 5(2)(c) & Rule 5(2)(e) of 1996 Rules, the distance of 300 meters is prescribed from the sensitive area like Radio Station, Doordarshan Kendra, Airport, Defence Establishment and 100 meters from any bridge/National/State Highway/Railway line or public place or 10 meters from Gram Kachcha Rasta. In the present case, none of the conditions as mentioned in rule 5(2)(c) is being violated which is also clear from the report of concerned Patwari which has already been enclosed in the present reply. Further Rule 5(2)(e) which postulates that the area if not compact and contiguous, the restriction of grant of quarry lease was mentioned. None of the conditions is being fulfilled in the present case. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that by grant of such trade quarry/quarry lease, there is violation of Rule 5(2)(c) & Rule 5(2)(e) of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996; is also misconceived."
3. To buttress that factual position a sketch is prepared and presented under the signature of Patwari. It is at Page No.14 of the additional submission filed by
---3---
the respondents. Neither the factual position stated on affidavit nor the correctness of the plan has been disputed by the petitioner by filing any rejoinder affidavit. Going by the said factual position, which has remained uncontroverted inspite of opportunity given to the petitioner in that behalf, it would necessarily follow that the argument regarding violation of Rule 5(2)(c) of the Rules is unavailable. Hence this contention is rejected.
4. The second contention pressed into service is about violation of Rule 8 of the same Rules. Again the respondents in the reply affidavit have explained the formalities complied by the concerned Authorities which indicate that there was substantial compliance of the procedural requirements and decision has been taken by the competent Authority in that behalf. The explanation as offered in Paragraph No.3 of the reply affidavit, reads thus:-
"3. That, the genesis of the present controversy wherein trade quarry as declared in Kh. No.1437 ad-measuring 5 hectares situate in village Changeri, District Anuppur is concerned, the concerned Gram Panchayat on 26.02.2014 has made a representation that in the aforesaid area, there is loss to Government as the persons are making theft of the sand from the aforesaid area and accordingly a representation dt. 26.02.2014 has been submitted along with the concerned
---4---
resolution of Gram Panchayat Changeri; a copy of representation dt. 26.02.2014 along with the concerned resolution are filed as Annexure-R/1 along with this reply whereas the similar grievance has also been raised before the State of M.P. under Public Grievance Redressal Cell; a copy of such complaint which has been registered with State Government is filed as Annexure R/2. From the Ann-R/1 & R-2, it is crystal clear that for kh.no.1437, specific grievance has been raised that there is a theft of sand. In these circumstances, the State Government is losing public exchequer/royalty. In these circumstances, the same may be put to auction. The aforesaid grievance has been looked into by the authorities and by making the requisite Panchnama and by tracing the aforesaid trade quarry, the appropriate steps were taken by the State authorities to make the auction of aforesaid trade quarry under Rule 8 of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996. A copy of concerned Patwari report along with spot Panchnama and the map of area kh.no.1437 is filed as Annexure-R/3. Thereafter the matter has also been referred to the Forest Department to ascertain whether that area in question is a forest land or not. The concerned No Objection Certificate from Divisional Forest Officer, Distt. Anuppur has been received on 25.11.2014; a copy of NOC by the Divisional Forest Officer dt. 25.11.2014 is filed as Annexure-R/4. Further the respondent Department/ concerned Patwari has also given exact status report of the area in question. A copy of report of Patwari which has been submitted to the concerned Tahsildar is filed as Annexure-R/5. And thereafter the matter was preceded by the authorities and after taking note of the relevant Rules, the aforesaid area was notified under Rule 8 of concerned Rules of 1996 and
---5---
the auction has been notified vide Ann-P/1".
5. The petitioner has not chosen to controvert even this factual position. The only argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are relying on document which is of year 2013. That argument, however, does not commend to us. So long as the factual position stated on affidavit by the authorized Officer of the department has not been disputed or controverted, the question of disregarding the factual position stated therein does not arise. Accordingly, even the second contention does not commend to us.
6. As no other contention is raised, in our opinion, the petition is devoid of merits. Hence, dismissed.
(A. M. Khanwilkar) (Sanjay Yadav)
Chief Justice Judge
Anchal