National Green Tribunal
Moti Singh Shekhawat vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 October, 2024
Item No.7
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No.131/2024(CZ)
(I.A.No.87/2024)
Moti Singh Shekhawat Applicant (s)
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 15.10.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A SENTHIL VEL,, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): None
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh Kachhawa, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Thakuria, Adv.
Mr. Rishabh Kumar, Adv. for
Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv.
ORDER
1. The matter of illegal mining in Khasra no. 80 under the Arawali region in Tehsil Sikar District of Rajasthan has been raised in this application. The intervener has filed the copy of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 09.05.2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677/1985 titled as M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. where Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India has directed as follows :
"7. We, therefore, direct that a Committee be constituted comprising of the following officers/officials to have a uniform definition of the Aravalli hills and ranges:-
i. Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India.
ii. Secretaries of the Department of Forests, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and the States of Haryana, Rajasthan and Gujarat.
iii. A representative of the Forest Survey of India. iv. A representative of the Central Empowered Committee.1
O.A. No. 131/2024 (CZ Moti Singh Shekhawat & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. & Ors.
v. A representative of the Geological Survey of India. vi. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, shall be the convenor of the Committee.
8. The said Committee shall submit its report within a period of two months from today.
9. In the meantime, we also issue the following directions, as suggested by Shri P. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae, to which Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the State of Haryana and Shri K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the State of Rajasthan, do not have any objection:-
i. Direct the Union of India through the MoEFCC, State of Rajasthan, State of Haryana and GNCTD to file affidavits with details comments on the CEC Report No.3/2024 and also the issues identified hereinabove.
ii. The States of Haryana and Rajasthan should specifically indicate what steps for compliance of 15 (fifteen) Judgments/Orders of this Court's have been taken by the respective States.
iii. The States of Haryana and Rajasthan should specifically state what action has been taken on the CAG/CEC Reports on illegal mining and whether prosecution under the relevant State Laws and Recovery Process has been undertaken.
iv. The State of Rajasthan to specifically state the actions taken pursuant to the FSI Report dated 22.02.2018 where illegal mining polygons have been identified.
v. The State of Rajasthan be directed to reply to the FSI Report submitted to this Court pursuant to Order dated 19.02.2010. The FSI Report dated 25.08.2010 and the CEC Report thereon dated 25.10.2010 were shared with the State of Rajasthan way back in 2010.
vi. The States of Rajasthan and Haryana shall also state the extent and mapping of all boundaries of mining areas (mentioned in the mining leases) within the area of the State.
10. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus Curiae, has further submitted that until further orders are passed by this Court, no fresh mining leases or renewal of existing mining leases should be permitted in Aravalli Ranges and Hills in the States of Haryana and Rajasthan.
2O.A. No. 131/2024 (CZ Moti Singh Shekhawat & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. & Ors.
11. The said suggestion is opposed by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India and Shri K.M. Natraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing for the Federation of Associations of Mining in Rajasthan. It is submitted that millions of labourers are dependent upon the mining activities carried out in these States. It is submitted that if the order, as sought by the learned Amicus Curiae is passed, it would have a cascading effect on the livelihood of millions of labourers.
12. According to our experience and as has been pointed out by this Court, in the judgment of this Court dated 10.11.2021 passed in C.A. No.3661-3662/2020, a total ban on mining is not conducive even to the interest of the environment, inasmuch as it gives scope for illegal mining.
13. In that view of the matter, to balance the competing interest, we find that the following direction would subserve the purpose:-
Until further orders, though all the States in which Aravalli Ranges and Hills are situated would be at liberty to consider and process the applications for grant of mining leases and also for renewal thereof including obtaining statutory clearances from the various authorities, no final permission shall be granted for mining in the Aravalli Hills/Ranges, as defined in the FSI Report dated 25.08.2010,without permission from this Court.
14. Needless to state that this order in no way shall be construed as prohibiting the legal mining activities which are being carried out in accordance with the valid permits/licences.
I.A. No. 87/20242. This is an application for intervention for impleading as necessary and proper party.Since there is no objection, thus the applicant of I.A. No. 87/2024 is permitted to be impleaded as party respondent and they may file their reply within two weeks.
3. List it on 13th November, 2024.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM
[
Dr. A Senthil Vel, EM
15th October 2024
O.A. No. 131/2024(CZ .
K
3
O.A. No. 131/2024 (CZ Moti Singh Shekhawat & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. & Ors.