Punjab-Haryana High Court
(Ran Bahadur Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others) And Cwp on 4 March, 2011
C.M.Nos.2236 & 10829 of 2010 in/and
C.M.Nos.Nos.20624 of 2010 and
C.M.Nos.2203, 10831 and 13067 of 2010 in
C.W.P.No.4758 of 2008
****
Present : Mr.Narinder Hooda, Additional AG, Haryana, for the applicant.
Mr.Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for UOI. Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate, Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate, Mr.Ravi Dutt Sharma, Advocate, Mr.J.P.Bhatt, Advocate, for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondents.
-.-
This order shall dispose of Civil Misc. Nos.20624, 2203 and 10831 of 2010 as these applications seek somewhat similar relief. 2] To recapitulate the facts, suffice it to mention that while deciding a public interest litigation and another connected matter challenging the vires of the Government of India Notification dated 14.9.2006, a Division Bench of this Court comprising one of us (Surya Kant, J.), vide order dated 15.5.2009 issued several directions including declaration of certain areas as 'Forest Lands' and commanding the State of Haryana to act as the 'Project Proponent' for obtaining the Environmental Impact Assessment Report from the Expert Appraisal Committee. The other directions pertained to the grant of licence/contract/lease for extraction of minerals through public auction only without drawing any distinction between 'major' or 'minor' minerals and to implement the Notification dated 14.9.2006 by treating the contiguous mining areas as a 'compact unit'. The above stated order was slightly modified vide a subsequent order dated 4.9.2009 to the extent of identification of the 'Forest Lands'.
C.M.No.20624 of 2010 etc. in C.W.P.No.4758 of 2008 2 3] The Division Bench while issuing the afore-stated directions, permitted the State of Haryana to continue with the mining activities till 28th February, 2010 without obtaining the prior environmental clearance as the entire process contemplated by the Government of India Notification dated 14.9.2006 was likely to take about a year or so. The State of Haryana was further directed to apply for Terms of Reference (TOR) by 31st August, 2009.
4] The State of Haryana accepted these directions and on 8.9.2009 applied for determining the Terms of Reference. The Union of India, however, declined to determine the Terms of Reference on the plea that the High Court ought not to have directed the State of Haryana to act as a Project Proponent. The Union of India has preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.CC-19305-19307 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the above stated order primarily on the plea that the State of Haryana could not have been assigned the task to act as a Project Proponent and that the 'mining areas' ought to have been divided 'block- wise' only instead of a 'compact unit'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 4.1.2011 has permitted the Union of India to file the SLP which has been ordered to be tagged with S.L.P. (Civil) Nos.19628-19629 of 2009. The later SLP has been preferred by one Dr.Deepak Kumar against the same order, 5] The State of Haryana and other applicants now seek modification of the order dated May 15, 2009 explaining that since the C.M.No.20624 of 2010 etc. in C.W.P.No.4758 of 2008 3 Union of India has taken no steps to determine the Terms of Reference or to accord its approval to the Environmental Impact Assessment Report submitted/ready to be submitted by the State of Haryana, the mining activities should not be grounded and be permitted as an interim measure in the public interest. It has been brought to our notice that in the meanwhile the directions issued by the Division Bench in Vijay Bansal's case were reiterated by a Co-ordinate Bench in CWP No.12664 of 2008 (Ran Bahadur Singh versus State of Punjab and others) and CWP No.13706 of 2009 (Partap Singh Sandhu & ors vs. Union of India and others), decided on 6.11.2009. There also the Division Bench directed the authorities of State of Punjab to act as the Project Proponent for the purposes of the implementation of the Government of India notification dated 14.9.2006.
6] The Union of India impugned the aforesaid order dated 6.11.2009 too before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.20308 of 2010 which has been dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2011 with the following observations:-
".......Even on merits, we are convinced that the petitioner's challenge to the directions given by the High Court is thoroughly misconceived and ill-advised and we do not find any valid ground to entertain the same. While examining the prayer made in the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 by way of public interest litigation that the lease for mining minerals should be given by the State Government only after obtaining environmental clearance in terms of the Central Government Notification dated 14.9.2006 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Division Bench of the High Court gave the following directions:-
C.M.No.20624 of 2010 etc. in C.W.P.No.4758 of 2008 4 (1) The Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Punjab shall within four weeks from today file applications for grant of environmental clearance in Form-I of Appendix-I to notification dated 14.9.2006 in respect of districts Ropar, Mohali and Patiala and two months in so far as other districts in the State of Punjab are concerned.
Director, Industries and Commerce, Government of Punjab, who is present in person shall be personally responsible to ensure that all steps requisite for making the applications for mining areas measuring more than 5 hectares and less than 50 hectares are taken and applications presented without any deficiencies and supported by all information, material and data.
(2) On receipt of the applications from the Director, Department of Industries & Commerce, Punjab, the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority shall process and forward the same to the State Expert Appraisal Committee within 10 days thereafter. The Member Secretary to the State Expert Appraisal Committee shall be responsible for adhering to the time schedule prescribed for this purpose and ensure that the entire process requisite for forwarding of the applications to the Committee is completed well in time.
(3) On receipt of the applications duly forwarded to it, the State Expert Appraisal Committee shall screen the same and complete a comprehensive study for environmental assessment within a period of 60 days and forward the terms of reference to the applicant/ industries department for getting the study conducted by an expert of their choice. The Director, Department of Industries and Commerce would do well to start the process of identifying an expert well in advance to ensure that there is no delay in the conduct of the studies by him once the reference is received back from the committee mentioned above.
(4) The Environmental impact study to be conducted by the expert shall be completed within 90 days from the date reference is made and submitted to the Punjab Pollution Control Board who shall conduct the requisite consultation in terms of the notification and the provisions of the Act and submit the result of the same back to the State Environmental Impact C.M.No.20624 of 2010 etc. in C.W.P.No.4758 of 2008 5 Assessment Authority within a period of 45 days. (5) The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority shall finally appraise the project and submit its recommendations to the State Expert Appraisal Committee within 60 days thereafter. The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority would then pass appropriate orders on the said recommendations within 30-40 days from the date of recommendations are received.
(6) The above process shall be completed by the authorities and the agencies concerned within the time frame given for the purpose which would roughly consume nearly nine months or so.
In our opinion, the directions given by the Division Bench are consistent with the judgment of the High Court in Vijay Bansal and others versus State of Haryana, CWP No.20134 of 2004 and there is no valid ground much less justification for this Court's interference with the impugned order...."
(emphasis applied) 7] Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.2.2011 in the above stated Punjab matters, has permitted the State of Punjab to hold fresh auctions for the grant of mining leases valid upto the end of June, 2011 as a one time measure so as to enable the Union of India to grant EIA clearance in terms of its Notification dated 14.9.2006 for the time being. The operative part of the said order dated 15.2.2011 reads as follows:-
"......However, it appears from the categoric statement made by the learned counsel for the Union of India and which is also evident from the notification dated 14.9.2006 that time for grant of EIA clearance would be about five months.
Keeping in mind the public interest which will be seriously affected if all the mining operations are ordered to be closed, we are of the view, though C.M.No.20624 of 2010 etc. in C.W.P.No.4758 of 2008 6 reluctantly, that the State of Punjab should be permitted to hold fresh auctions for grant of mining leases valid upto the end of June, 2011 as a one time measure. No further directions, in the facts and circumstances, will be called for....."
8] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already upheld the directions issued to the State of Punjab/its authorities to act as the Project Proponent in consistence with the view taken by this Court in Vijay Bansal's case (supra) and the fact that there is no interim direction issued by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the SLP of the Union of India in that case and when the delay in non-implementation of the Notification dated 14.9.2006 is attributable to the Union of India and not to the Project Proponent State, who in turn is suffering both from the loss of revenue as well as the raw material, we reluctantly agree to modify the order dated 15.5.2009 to the extent of permitting the State of Haryana to grant short term mining contracts/permits through public auction only after giving wide publicity for a period upto 31.7.2011 as a one time measure.
9] Ordered accordingly. 10] These directions, however, shall always be subject to the ad-
interim or final orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLPs.
11] With this modification, the Civil Misc. Applications stand disposed of.
C.M.No.20624 of 2010 etc. in C.W.P.No.4758 of 2008 7 12] In view of the afore-mentioned order, Civil Misc.Nos.2236 and 10829 of 2010 seeking impleadment in these proceedings as well as C.M.No.13067 of 2010 for placing on record affidavit, also stand disposed of.
13] Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
04-03-2011 (AJAY TEWARI)
Mohinder JUDGE