Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
2. The writ petition was filed for the purpose of setting off, the royalty paid in the year 2013-14, as against quarrying licence obtained by the writ petitioner; but, however, no quarrying operations have been carried on, for reason of the rejection of the application for D&O Licence by the Panchayat as well as the stop memo issued by the District Geologist.
RP.872 of 2016 in - 2 - WP(C).23849 of 2016-E
3. A reading of the judgment would indicate that the petitioner had quarrying lease for different periods, between 06.09.2011 and 20.09.2021 and between 08.02.2010 and 07.02.2022. During the financial year 2013-14, the District Collector issued a prohibitory order [Exhibit P6 in the writ petition], directing stoppage of the quarries owned by the writ petitioner; based on which the Geologist also issued a stop memo. The Panchayat had also cancelled the D&O Licence issued in the said financial year; pursuant to which the writ petitioner was not able to carry on any quarrying operations in the financial years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. By the year 2016-17, the petitioner obtained an Environmental Clearance [for brevity "EC"], though that was not a requirement in view of the quarrying lease of the writ petitioner having been issued prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar and Others v. State of Hawryana & Others [(2012) 4 SCC 629] and the Office Memorandum of the year 2012 amending the EIA notification of 2006. The writ petitioner also obtained a D&O Licence for the year 2016-2017.
RP.872 of 2016 in - 3 - WP(C).23849 of 2016-E
4. This Court directed set off, of the consolidated royalty paid by the writ petitioner for the financial year 2013-14 and directed that the quarried metal remaining in the property, which is said to have been quarried in the financial year 2012-13 be permitted to be removed. The direction was issued specifically noticing the total quantity of quarried metal as revealed from the report of the Auditor and the transported metal based on the O(A) Forms, which was also specifically referred to by the Auditor. It was also directed that necessary O(A) Forms shall be issued for transport of the said metal remaining in the unit, which is assailed in the review petition.
5. The review petitioner contends that sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 [for brevity "MMDR Act"] mandates confiscation of any mineral and the tools, equipments, vehicles, etc. used for quarrying operations, if the quarry is found to be illegal. The review petitioner also relies on Annexure A9 judgment to contend that the petitioner had no D&O Licence and, hence, the quarrying is illegal. To further buttress the contention, the learned Counsel points out the RP.872 of 2016 in - 4 -
WP(C).23849 of 2016-E quarry was conducted all through without any license from the Panchayat. The specific objection raised in the review petition is with respect to the direction of this Court to permit the writ petitioner to remove the minor mineral quarried during the year 2012-2013, for which year the petitioner did not have a license at all from the Panchayat. On facts the said contention has been refuted by the writ petitioner by producing documents indicating that the writ petitioner had made applications in the respective years which were not responded to by the Panchayat and in such circumstance the quarry operations were carried on validly on the basis of the lease issued by the Mining and Geology Department; resorting to the deeming provision available under the Panchayat Raj Act. Annexure R1(c) &