words per minute
30
RakeshKumar1510884
00:00
Speed
The aforesaid claim of the petitioner and certain other lease holders came to be rejected vide order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the District Magistrate Banda and thereafter the present writ petition has been filed.
6. The writ petition refers to a notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (1) and clause 5(2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 in terms of which it was directed that on and from the date of its publication the required construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities in the Schedule to the notification entailing capacity addition with change in process and/or technology shall be undertaken in any part of India only after prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or, as the case may be, by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. The State Government directed the subsisting lease holders to apply for obtaining environmental clearance in view of the notification dated 14.09.2006. A Division Bench of this Court in Mohd. Kausar Jah Vs. Union of India & Ors.2 vide judgment and order dated 29.04.2011, directed that w.e.f. 01.07.2011, no person anywhere in the State will carry out any mining activity of minor minerals which does not have any environmental clearance under the notification dated 14.09.2006.
7. It is submitted that a letter/notice was issued to the lease holders to obtain environmental clearance as per the notification dated 14.09.2006 and the order of the High Court dated 29.04.2011 and also the notification dated 20.05.2011; however, since the lease holders had not obtained the same they were directed to stop mining operations from 01.07.2011.
8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has supported the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Banda by submitting that the order has been passed in due compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court issued vide order dated 28.07.2016 in the case of Amar Singh Vs. State of UP & Ors.3.
9. Learned Standing Counsel has also drawn our attention to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amitesh Kumar Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of UP & 2 Ors.4 whereby a writ petition against a similar order dated 21.09.2017 seeking extension of time had been dismissed. The operative portion of the order dated 21.05.2018 reads as under :-
"This writ petition challenges the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioners' representation seeking extension of lease period on the ground that for a period of 1 year 2 months and 10 days, they were obstructed from carrying on any mining activities. The lease deed was executed on 11.09.2009 for a period of three years and it expired on 10.09.2012. Even if, it is assumed that petitioners were obstructed for a period commencing from 01.07.2011 to 10.09.2012 from carrying on mining operations, that by itself, will not entitle the petitioners to file writ petition and seek extension of time as of right. At the most, petitioners have a right to seek damages in appropriate proceedings, if the petitioners claim is correct. On the grounds mentioned above and also on the ground of laches, this petition deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly."
10. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record.
11. The lease deed dated 11.09.2009, a copy whereof is part of the record of the writ petition, clearly indicates that the total period of lease was for three years.
12. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that in terms of the notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Central Government, and the order dated 29.04.2011 passed in the case of Mohd. Kausar Jah (supra) no mining activity of minor mineral could be carried out w.e.f. 01.07.2011 without environmental clearance certificate. It is also undisputed that the environmental clearance certificate was granted to the petitioner on 21.02.2014 i.e. after the expiry of the period of lease on 10.09.2012, and it was only thereafter on 01.04.2014 that an application was submitted before the District Magistrate, Banda requesting for permission to grant of extension of the lease period.
13. The order dated 21.09.2017 whereunder the claim made by the petitioner and other lease holders for grant of extension for the obstructed period has been rejected, refers to a direction issued by this Court vide order dated 21.06.2016 in PIL No.22482 of 2016. We may note that the directions of this Court, referred to in the order impugned dated 21.09.2017, which have been extracted from the order dated 28.07.2016 passed in the case of Amar Singh (supra), were in fact directions issued in PIL No.28916 of 2016 (Vijay Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of UP & Ors.), in terms of an order dated 20.06.20165. For ease of reference the directions issued in the case of Vijay Kumar Dwivedi are being reproduced below :-
"For the above noted reasons and having regard to the material which has been brought on record before us, we issue following directions in all the connected writ petitions in hand:-
(I) No person shall be permitted to excavate the minor minerals on the basis of the lease deeds or permission granted subsequent to 31st May, 2012 by whatever name it may be called. i.e. (a) renewal of the expired lease
(b) granting fresh lease