Text Practice Mode

High Court ARO

created Apr 12th, 11:18 by AmanSingh1



910 words
15 completed
1. Heard Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed principally seeking
to challenge the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the District
Magistrate, Banda in terms of which the claim of the petitioner
and certain other lease holders with regard to grant of extension
of mining lease for the 'obstructed period', was rejected.
3. The petitioner has also sought to challenge the notification
dated 09.01.2019 in terms of which declaration has been made
in exercise of powers under Rule 23(1) of the UP Minor Minerals
(Concession) Rules, 19631 and the area in question has been
notified for being given on lease by auctioncumtender.
4. In the present case, the husband of the petitioner along
with another person, were jointly granted a mining lease for
excavation of sand/morrum for a period of 11.09.2009 to
10.09.2012 i.e. for a period of three years, under Chapter II of
the Rules, 1963 in respect of Khand No.04 measuring 150.00
acres situate at village Marauli, Tehsil and District Banda. In the
absence of requisite environmental clearance certificate, the
mining operations were stopped from 01.07.2011. Thereafter the
1 The Rules, 1963
environmental clearance certificate was applied for and the same
was granted on 21.02.2014. During this period, upon the death
of her husband, the petitioner moved an application on
07.03.2014 before the District Magistrate, Banda for substitution
of her name in the lease deed and thereafter claim was made for
grant of extension of the lease for the 'obstructed period' i.e. the
period for which the lease could not be operated due to lack of
environmental clearance certificate.
5. 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 subsection
(1) and clause 5(2) of Section 3 of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with clause (d) of subrule
(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
2 2011 (5) ADJ 125 (DB) (LB)
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

saving score / loading statistics ...