Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Kumar Poddar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 April, 2018
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 3874 of 2016
Krishna Kumar Poddar, son of late Rameshwar Lal Poddar, resident of
Poddar Niket, Bariatu Road, P.O. & P.S.-Bariatu, District-Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
3. The Director, Department of Mines, Government of Jharkhand,
Ranchi
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau
5. The District Mining Officer, Palamau
6. The Assistant Mining Officer, Palamau
7. The Executive Engineer, Water Ways, Medininagar, Palamau
8. The Director, Directorate General of Mines Safety, Ranchi Region,
Ranchi ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Ms. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate For Respondent-Union of India : Mr. Madan Prasad, CGC For Respondent-State : Mrs. Aprajita Bhardwaj, Advocate
-----
Order No. 19 Dated: 05.04.2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order no. 1230/M, Ranchi dated 11.05.2016 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 - the Director, Department of Mines, Government of Jharkhand, whereby it has been held that there is no reason to modify or stay the order of the respondent no. 4 - the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau issued vide letter no. 1372/M dated 12.03.2016. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the ex-parte order contained in letter no. 1372/M dated 12.03.2016 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 4 - the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, whereby it has been communicated inter alia to the petitioner that the mining operations in the petitioner's mine should be immediately stopped and further directing him to show-cause as to why appropriate legal proceeding be not initiated against him for carrying out the mining operations without having obtained the environmental clearance, consent to operate and revised mining plan.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2 petitioner is a lessee of a major mineral (graphite) having lease deed executed on 05.03.1990, extended by the State Government on 20.05.2008 for a period till 04.03.2020 over an area of 4.93 hectares situated at Village-Murma, P.O. & P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau, Survey Plot No. 46P. However, vide letter contained in Memo No. 1372 dated 12.03.2016 issued by the respondent no. 4, the mining operation of the petitioner was ordered to be stopped in absence of environmental clearance, consent to operate and the revised mining plan. The said order of stopping the mining operation was issued primarily due to the fact that the mine of the petitioner was said to be in proximity to "Malay Dam" which could have given rise to any mishappening. The petitioner thereafter preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1703 of 2016 challenging the order dated 12.03.2016 passed by the respondent no. 4. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2016 with following observation and direction:
"Since, the mining operation has been suspended by the impugned notice dated 12.03.2016, it would be proper if an early decision is taken in the matter by the competent authority/respondent no. 7 preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Needless to say that competent authority/respondent no. 7 would accord at least one opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his legal representative. Petitioner would appear before the respondent no. 7 along with copy of this order and entire pleadings of the writ petition on 11.04.2016 where after the respondent no. 7, Director, Mines and Geology would proceed and consider the matter in accordance with law within the period as indicated herein above.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that observations made herein above shall not be treated as comment on the merit of the case."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already been granted the "environmental clearance" by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) vide Letter No. EC/SEIAA/2017-18/2010/2017/239 dated 22.12.2017. The petitioner has also been granted the "consent to operate" by Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board vide letter 3 contained in Reference No. JSPCB/HO/RNC/CTO-1363210/2018/455 dated 06.03.2018. The petitioner has also got the revised mining plan which is valid till the entire lease period as per Rule 22(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 with a proviso that any modification of the mining plan shall be approved by the competent authority and such approval of the modified mining plan shall remain valid till the entire lease period. The petitioner has submitted its modified mining plan after reducing the area to the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) which has been duly approved by the IBM vide letter dated 21.12.2015 (Annexure-22 to the writ petition). The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that so far as the issue regarding adverse impact to the "Malay Dam" is concerned, the petitioner's mining activity carried out in Murma Graphite Mines vis-à-vis the impact on "Malay Dam" has been held to be safe from time to time by various inspection committees as would be evident from the Inspection reports dated 09.10.2002 and 23.06.2015 (Annexure-11 and 14 to the writ petition respectively). A survey in this regard was also conducted by the Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research (CIMFR)-CSIR (annexed as Annexure-26 to the supplementary affidavit). In the meantime, the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand constituted a committee for inspection of the petitioner's mine vide letter no. kh.ni.(vividh)-165/2014/81/m dated 13.10.2017. Thereafter, the inspection of the petitioner's mine was made by the Committee on 16.01.2018 which comprised of several authorities of the State and Central Government i.e., the Commissioner, Palamau Division, the Director, Mines, Jharkhand, the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau and the Deputy Director, DGMS, Dhanbad. The said Inspection Committee vide its inspection report dated 22.03.2018 concluded as under:
"a. A detailed technical survey was conducted by CIMFR-CSIR wherein it has been found that no impact to the Malay Dam could be found because of equipment being used by the Murma Graphite Mines (petitioner's mine).
b. Section 97 and 98 of Bihar Irrigation Act, 1997 which stipulates that no blasting shall be carried within 1000 feet of the water works/dam. It is 4 confirmed that on blasting is carried out in petitioner's mine.
c. In compliance of Rule 12 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, the petitioner's mine is located more than 50 meters away from the Malay Dam."
The photocopy of the said report produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said report has already been submitted by the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar vide his letter no. 14/go. dated 22.03.2018 before the Mines Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology, Directorate of Mines , Jharkhand, Ranchi. It is thus submitted that the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand should take suitable decision in this matter considering the report submitted vide letter dated 22.03.2018 by the Commissioner, Palamau Division, Medininagar.
5. The learned AC to AG submits that if the report of the committee dated 22.03.2018 has been submitted before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand, a suitable decision in the matter will be taken.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries, Mines and Geology/Mines Commissioner, whoever be the appropriate authority, shall take a suitable decision with regard to the resumption of mining operation by the petitioner over the leased land at Village-Murma, P.S.-Daltonganj, District-Palamau, considering the reports submitted by the Committee formed by the State Government as well as various statutory clearances submitted by the petitioner, as has been detailed hereinabove. While taking the decision, it would be open to the concerned authority to take into consideration any other important/relevant document(s), if so required in this regard. It is expected that the said decision shall be taken by the appropriate authority as expeditiously as possible.
57. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.
I.A. No. 6695 of 2016 also stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Manish