Karnataka High Court
Smt.G.S Chitra Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N.V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO.24396 OF 2023 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. G.S. CHITRA NAGARAJ
W/O (LATE) A.N. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O BETTAMAKKI
BHOOTARAYANAKATTE
SIBANKERE POST
THIRTHAHALLI - 577 432
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI BHUNANESH MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR
MS. DHEEMANTHIKA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECREARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
-2-
KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. JOINT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
SOUTHERN ZONE
MYSURU
5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
A.C. OFFICE BUILDING
2ND FLOOR, RIGHT SIDE
BALRAJ URS ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
6. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST
DMG, A.C. OFFICE BUILDING
2ND FLOOR, RIGHT SIDE
BALRAJ URS ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
7. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
SHIVAMOGA DIVISION
SHVAMOGGA - 577 201
8. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
THIRTHAHALLI - 577 432
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
9. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
THIRTHAHALLI RANGE
THIRATHAHALLI - 577 432
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
10 . THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
SHIVAMOGGA CIRCLE
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
11 . THE ADDL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
ARANYA BHAVANA
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. MAHENDRA., AGA)
-3-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.10.2023
BEARING No. GABUE/JANNE/DAWAMAI/PARISHIKARANA-
67/1439 VIDE ANNEXURE-A & ETC,.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N.V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.N. Phanindra assisted by learned advocate Mr. Bhuvanesh Mahesh for learned advocate Ms. Dheemanthika for the petitioner and learned Principal Government Advocate S.S. Mahendra for respondent No.1-State and its Authorities.
2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed to set aside order dated 26.10.2023 passed by the Joint Director and Revisional Authority, Department of Mines and Geology, South Zone, Mysore, in Revision Petition No.67 of 2022-23. 2.1 The revision petition was filed by the petitioner-revisionist against notice dated 17.10.2022 issued by the Competent -4- Authority, Mines and Geology Department, Shivamogga District, as also against endorsement dated 06.10.2022 and 11.10.2022 of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Shivamogga Division and Zonal Conservator of Forest, Thirthahalli respectively. By the said notice dated 17.10.2022, the Senior Geologist-Competent Authority ordered to suspend the quarrying operations in view of the aforementioned communications/endorsements dated 06.10.2022 and 11.10.2022 of the Forest Department.
2.2 In the impugned order, the Revisional Authority observed that as per the aforesaid letters/ communications from the office of the Forest Authorities, the granite mining area of the petitioner leases admeasuring 10.35 Acres situated in Sy.No.16 of Suralibalebailu Village, Thirthahalli Taluka who was under forest land as per the notification of the Forest Department and Forest Map. It is further stated that as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, non-forest activity is not permitted in the forest land without prior approval of the Central Government. It was stated that in that view the period of the Granite Mining License of the petitioner was not liable to be extended, the said two endorsements/ -5- communications of the Forest Department were also called in question in the revision petition.
2.3 The Revisional Authority observed that since the communications of the Forest Department sought to be challenged in the revision application were in the nature of inter-departmental letters, they could not have been subjected to challenge in the revisional proceedings and that the revisional application of the petitioner was liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone.
2.4 The Revisional Authority stated in the order that not only the prior approval of the Central Government was not obtained as per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the extension of lease period was already beyond permissible limits of extension, therefore it was in the nature of dies non. In view of Rule 8-A(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, as amended, the extension was not permissible, though was granted beyond the permissible period. It was further mentioned that such extension was contrary to Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act'). It was in that view that Show Cause Notice dated 17.10.2022 was issued by -6- the Competent Authority seeking explanation from the petitioner as to why the mining lease should not be cancelled. 2.5 The revisional application came to be disposed of by the Revisional Authority by passing the following operative order, "As per Section 19 of the MMDR Act, 1957, the order of the Senior Geologist, Shimoga extending the period by applying the period of dies non, the Revision Petition notice and provide an opportunity for the petitioner to submit his case as per rules and to take steps as per rules."
3. Noticing the facts about the quarry leases of the petitioner, the petitioner was initially granted two quarry leases which were quarry lease No.355 and quarry lease No.356 by the respondent-Authority for the period of five years to be effective from 22.03.2001 and 30.04.2001 respectively. Lease of the petitioner was in Sy.No.16 of Suralibalebailu Village, Kasaba Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluka. The said area was a notified forest known as Suralibalebailu Minor Forest and the Notification dated 23.02.1931 was issued declaring the area as forest area under the provision of Section 35 of the Forest Act, 1963.
3.1 The aforesaid two quarry leases granted to the petitioner came to be renewed on two occasions, which period was further extended. Quarry lease No.355 was initially granted -7- from 22.03.2001 to 21.06.2006. The Quarry lease No.355 which became Quarry lease No.521, the First renewal thereof was from 22.03.2006 to 21.03.2011. The second renewal was granted from 22.03.2011 to 21.03.2016 which became quarry lease No.739. There was a further extension under Rule 8-A of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules from 21.03.2016 to 21.03.2021. It was extended as quarry lease No739/R1. The lease was thereafter extended from 30.09.2022 to 14.11.2025. 3.2 The second Quarry Lease No.356 was originally granted from 30.04.2001 to 29.04.2006, first renewal was accorded for the period from 30.04.2006 to 29.04.2011 as quarry lease No.525. The second renewal was for the period from 30.04.2011 to 29.04.2016 as quarry lease No.741. Next renewal was under Rule 8-A for the period from 30.04.2016 to 29.04.2021 and the quarry lease number given was 741/R1. There was a further extension from 30.09.2022 to 05.11.2025. 3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the execution of the lease deed, respondent Nos.5, 7 to 9 issued no objection for grant of quarry lease and that the Revenue Department also gave no objection. It was stated that joint inspection was conducted. The petitioner was required to -8- secure Environmental Clearance Certificate which was given and the petitioner was permitted to start quarrying operations in the area.
3.4 It was stated that the petitioner asked for extension of the leases as per provision of sub-rule (4) of Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, as amended on 12.08.2016 under which the deeming extension was allowed for a period of 30 years in respect of specified minor mineral and for a period of 25 years in respect of non-specified minor minerals. As the deemed approval was not given, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.21040-41 of 2017 praying for renewal of leases. This Court directed by order dated 03.04.2019 to consider the application of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders.
3.5 As the petitioner was denied the deemed extension again, another Writ Petition No.31973 of 2019 was required to be filed for getting the deemed extension, the said petition was disposed of on 04.03.2020. Authorities granted deemed extension for a period of five years which expired on 22.03.2021 and 30.04.2021.
-9-3.6 It was stated that thereafter the respondent-authorities issued notices to the petitioner to produce the certificates of the Forest Department regarding non-applicability of the Forest Act and required the petitioner to continue the quarrying activity only upon submission of such certificates. Yet another Writ Petition No.9611 of 2020 was filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by order dated 18.12.2020. In the said order, this Court inter alia observed that if the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that the subject matter of lease land was to form part of the forest area, in that eventuality it would be open for the State Government to make an application seeking vacation of the order.
3.7 The petitioner stated that Sy No.16 of Suralibalebailu Village, Thirthahalli Taluka, Shivamogga District, consists of 140.35 Acres of land out of which 130 Acres are declared as Minor Forest by way of notification dated 25.02.1931 by the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore. It was stated by the petitioner that the copy of the RTC and gazette notification indicated that 130 Acres of land in Sy.No.16 was Minor Forest and that the area of 10 Acres and 35 guntas was Gomal Land. It is the case of the petitioner that said 10 Acres, 35 guntas of Gomal
- 10 -
Land, since was not shown as forest area, the petitioner was permitted to conduct the quarrying activities. 3.8 According to the petitioner, respondent Nos.6 to 9 conducted the joint survey with officials of survey land records and Revenue Officers and it was indicated that said area of 10 Acres, 35 guntas was not coming within the area of Minor Forest. It appears that the plank of the case of the petitioner with regard to the objection under the Forest Act is that the said area of 10 Acres, 35 guntas is not the Minor Forest land and that the petitioner therefore could be permitted to have the quarry lease operations continued in the area. 3.9 It was next stated that the petitioner was asked to remit a sum of Rs.2,15,460/-, Rs.1,47,744, Rs.32,000/- and Rs.20,000/- which all sums were remitted to the authorities on 05.05.2020 towards dead rents, the demand of the said amounts was made by respondent No.6-Senior Geologist against the first proviso to sub-rule(1) of Rule 8-A of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules 2016, it was claimed that the objections by the Forest Department against carrying of the quarrying activity were not
- 11 -
well founded. It was the case that notice dated 17.10.2022, therefore, could not have been issued.
4. The stand of the authorities has been that respondent No.6-the Senor Geologist extended validity of the two quarry leases No.731/R1 and 741/R1 upto 21.03.2021 and 29.04.2021 respectively as aforesaid, under Rule 8-A(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules 2016. Therefore, as per case of the respondents, the petitioner had availed all the possible extensions provided under the aforesaid amended Rules 2016. The subsequent extension from 30.09.2022 onwards was a period in the nature of dies non. It was the case that the Competent Authority committed an inadvertent error in extending the quarry lease period by order dated 30.09.2022, therefore immediate steps were taken for correcting the mistake realizing that proviso to Rule 8-A(1) was not applicable to the leases of the petitioner. Section 19 of the MMDR Act, 1957, was invoked which resulted into issuance of notice dated 17.10.2022.
4.1 In the statement of objections-cum-affidavit in reply, the respondents highlighted that the Revisional Authority remanded the case to the competent authority to provide
- 12 -
opportunity to the petitioner after issuance of notice and to pass the order thereafter in accordance with law. It was however claimed that the order of the Revisional Authority was as such in accordance with law only. It was submitted that the Revisional Authority rightly held that provision of Rule 8-A (1) of the Rules providing for extension of the leases based on dies non period would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the order granting extension in the Rule 8-A(1) should not be recalled by invoking Section 19 of the MMDR Act, 1957. It was contended that the petitioner has to reply to the said show cause Notice.
4.1.1 It was next submitted that the land survey No.16 of Suralibalebailu Village, Kasaba Hobli, consist of 140.35 Acres. The Government Notification dated 23.02.1931 came to be issued under the provisions of Section 35 of the Forest Act, 1963, notifying the area to the extent of 130 Acres in the said survey number as Minor Forest area under the name of "Suralibalebailu Minor Forest" in which boundaries of the forest were delineated.
- 13 -
4.1.2 By producing the copy of the said notification dated 23.02.1931 and the Map, it was stated that the village map of the Suralibalebailu Village was superimposed by the Forest Department with the GPS co-ordinates showing the boundary of the Minor Forest as well as the quarrying area granted to the petitioner. It was stated that from the said Map, it is evident that the quarry area granted to the petitioner falls within the boundary of Suralibalebailu Village Minor Forest. 4.1.3 The respondents stated in the affidavit, "the forest department also prepared Topo Map showing the area applied for building stone quarry in Sl.No.16 of Suralibalebailu Village of Suralibalebailu Village Minor Forest area. The quarrying area has been clearly shown with GPS readings marked with its corner as Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4".
4.1.4 Respondents in their affidavit-in-reply thereafter stated in paragraph 11 thus, "...in this background after confirming that the quarry area is within Sy.No.16 of Suralibalebailu Minor Forest and that the Petitioner has to use the forest for ingress and egress using the forest area, the Respondent No. 6-Deputy Conservator of Forest issued an endorsement dated 06.10.2022 in response to the application of the Petitioner, dated 01.10.2022, intimating the Petitioner that, the quarry area falls within the Minor Forest,
- 14 -
hence, prior approval of the Central Government under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is required before carrying out any non forest activity within the forest land. As such, the issuance of the said endorsement by the Deputy Conservator of Forest is in accordance with law."
4.1.5 Respondents relied on order dated 18.04.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.6901 of 2022, to contend that the identical circumstances, this Court observed and held as under, "6. It is not the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid Section 2 of the said Act of 1980 does not apply to the facts of the instant case. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the use of the road is for non-forest purpose within the meaning of Section 2(ii) of the said Act of 1980. Under these circumstances, in the absence of prior permission/approval granted by the Central Government before requesting the State Government to pass appropriate orders permitting usage of the land for the purpose of road covered under the non-forest purposes, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by respondent No.5 does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition."
4.2 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the Notification dated 23rd February 1931, land to the extent of only 138 acres in Survey No.16 of Suralibalebailu Village has been notified as Minor Forest, further submitting that the lease area of the petitioner would be outside the forest area. It was submitted that as per the revenue records, 10
- 15 -
acres 35 guntas are classified as gomal land, therefore the forest department cannot claim that the entire 140 acres and 35 guntas is minor forest.
4.2.1 It was submitted that no objection certificate was issued from 2000 upto 2011 by the Deputy Conservator of Forest in which it was mentioned that the area of quarry lease was revenue land and not the forest land. It was submitted that the authorities have not undertaken any adjudication with regard to the status of the land, nor has given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was next submitted that without such procedure, reliance on the map was not to be proper. 4.2.2 It was further submitted that in view of the amendment brought about in 2023 to Rule 8-A(2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994, the quarry leases of the petitioner bearing Nos.739 and 741 are deemed to have been extended statutorily for a period of thirty years from 22nd March 2001 and 30th April 2001 respectively.
4.3 On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate relied on the contentions raised in the statement of objections and submitted that the competent authority noticed an error in extending the quarry lease period by order dated
- 16 -
30th September 2022, therefore immediately took steps to correct the mistake in view that the Proviso to Rule 8-A(1) would not be applicable to the leases of the petitioner. Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 was invoked, which resulted into the issuance of the notice dated 17th October 2022. The extension granted for the dies non period was liable to be revoked, it was submitted. It was next submitted that at the same time, Forest Department raised serious objections for granting lease within the notified forest area by addressing two letters.
5. Having noticed the compass and contours of the controversy and having considered the contentions of both the sides, the challenge is essentially to the order passed by the Revisional Authority whereby the revision application was disposed of with a direction to issue notice to the petitioner to provide opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case as per rules in respect of invocation of Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 whereby the petitioner was asked to close the quarrying operations. 5.1 The competent authority was persuaded to extend the lease period further and beyond 21.03.2021 as per order dated
- 17 -
30.09.2022 on the basis of the proviso to Rule 8-A (1) of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016.
5.1.1 The provision reads as under, "8-A Periods for which Quarry Lease, Licence or Prospecting Licence may be granted - (1) on or from the date of commencement of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016, all the Quarrying Leases, licences and prospecting cum quarrying lease unless or otherwise explicitly mentioned in these rules shall be granted for a period of Thirty years for Specified minor minerals and for a period of twenty years for the non- specified minor minerals.
Provided that the period of lease may be extended equal to the period, if it exceeding one year for which the quarry remained closed (dies-non) due to court order or any other order by the Government and dead rent shall not be chargeable for such period."
5.2 Section 19 of the MMDR Act, 1957, falling under Chapter-VII of the Act, provides that the Mineral Concession to be void if in contravention of the Act, it says that any mineral concession granted, renewed or acquired in contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder shall be void and of no effect. The Explanation to this action reads to mention that, where a person has acquired more than one mineral concession and the aggregate area covered by such permits, licences or leases as the case may be, exceeds the maximum area permissible under Section 6,
- 18 -
only that mineral concession the acquisition of which has resulted in such maximum area being exceeded shall be deemed to be void.
5.2.1 Section 6 deals with the Maximum area for which mineral concession may be granted, the lease holding of the petitioner had exceeded the permissible area therefore, was not liable to be extended on the basis of the Proviso to Section 8-A(1). 5.3 Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which is also relevant, reads as under, "2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.--
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,--
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-
forest purpose;
(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private
- 19 -
person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;
(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this 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 re-
afforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, water holes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes."
5.4 Two aspects emerge from the observations, reasoning and findings in the order of the Revisional Authority which led to the aforesaid direction. First was that the extension of lease period of the petitioner was not permissible any further, since
- 20 -
as per the competent authority, the maximum extension was granted to the petitioner's leases as per law and that the petitioner would not be getting benefit under proviso to Section 8-A(1) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2016. The action was sought to be taken as per Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.
5.5 Another limb of the dispute was that as indicated in the communications dated 6th October 2022 and 11th October 2022 issued by the Range Forest Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest, the land covered under the quarrying lease of the petitioner are forest lands which fall within the area notified in Notification dated 23rd February 1931 and further that for accessing the quarrying lease area of the petitioner, one has to pass through the forest land and there is no access available to the leases of the petitioner except through forest. 5.6 Now, as far as the order of the Revisional Authority is concerned, it has only remitted back the case for decision afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in respect of the proposed action sought to be taken as per notice dated 17th October 2022. When the Revisional Authority has
- 21 -
only remanded the case as the petitioner was not extended opportunity to put forth his case in defence, in this regard, no fault can be found with the order passed by the Revisional Authority.
6. The second facet of the controversy as to whether the area of leases of the petitioner falls within the minor forest area and on that count the permission to continue the quarrying operations could not be granted, is material and important aspect. Survey No.16 of Suralibalebailu Village which is the area of the petitioner's leases, is admittedly part of notification dated 23rd February 1931 which notifies the total area of 140 acres and 35 guntas which is the minor forest. 6.1 A clear case has been forthcoming from the forest authorities that the petitioner's quarry leases form part of and that they fall within the minor forest area as notified in the aforementioned notification. It is also the case that in order to approach and have an access to the quarry leases of the petitioner, it is necessary to utilise and pass through the forest land which is not permissible. The transportation of the quarrying material, it is the case, is not possible without entering into and utilising the forest land, it was submitted.
- 22 -
6.2 Along with the statement of objections filed by the respondents, the notification dated 23rd February 1931 is placed on record together with the map. It is issued in the Mysore Gazette dated 5th March 1931 under Section 35 of the Mysore Forest Regulations by the Government of His Highness of Maharaja of Mysore. The Schedule thereto describes the land and the limits which shall be constituted a minor forest in the name of Suralibalebailu minor forest for the purpose of rules of management of minor forest. It covers Survey No.16, Suralibalebailu village and the area indicated is 130 acres. The boundaries of the forest are described in the Notification. 6.3 As noted above, Survey No.16 admeasures 140 acres and 35 guntas. The case of the petitioner is that his lease area is outside the Minor Forest designated as above and that the land is a gomal land. On the other hand, according to the authorities, the mining lease falls within the notified area of Suralibalebailu minor forest and in any case, for ingress and egress and for transportation of the material to and fro, one is required to pass through the forest land and forest land has to be used to have the approach to the lease.
- 23 -
6.4 The aspect whether the lease of the petitioner falls within the Suralibalebailu Minor Forest area, and even whether the ingress and egress is through forest area, is a question of fact and the finding in that regard will be a factual finding. Although the case of the respondent authorities in this regard is specific, the petitioner has no opportunity of being heard in that regard. Justice should only be done, but it must be seem to have been done. Therefore, compliance of principles of natural justice on this count is necessary.
6.5 In the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, the direction is only to remit back the case and decide after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, against the order of such nature, the writ petition is not liable to be entertained.
6.6 At the same time, the ends of justice would be subserved, if the aforesaid exercise to be undertaken to extend the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is also inclusive of the count of the aspect about location of the mining lease of the petitioner within the forest area and/or the entry or exit from the petitioner's lease area is not possible except through the Minor Forest area.
- 24 -
6.7 In light of all the above reasons and discussions, the following directions are issued,
(i) In addition to the aspects dealt with and directed by the Revisional Authority for giving opportunity to the petitioner, the petitioner shall also be heard with regard to the aspect whether the area of leases of the petitioner fall within the boundary of the Suralibalebailu Minor Forest as may be obtained, and/or whether the ingress and egress to the lease is possible without entering into and passing through the Minor Forest area.
(ii) In order to undertake the aforesaid exercise, the respondent mining authorities may call for the report and other materials from the competent forest authorities.
(iii) The competent forest authorities may also be called for their submissions in person along with the necessary documents and notifications.
(iv) Any such material which may be relied on in the decision making process by the mining authorities, shall be made available to the petitioner.
(v) The petitioner shall also be given hearing as directed herein.
- 25 -
(vi) It goes without saying that the area of the leases of the petitioner are found to be falling within the Suralibalebailu Minor Forest boundaries and/or the entry or exit from the petitioner's lease area is not possible except through the Minor Forest area, the case of the petitioner for having quarry lease at the place would not be accepted.
(vii) The entire above process as directed in clauses (i) to (vi) above, shall be completed within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The impugned order of the Revisional Authority is upheld. This petition is not entertained, subject to above observations and directions.
Sd/-
(N.V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(K.V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU