eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

AHC ARO order

created Sunday April 14, 12:25 by rvs392


5


Rating

503 words
80 completed
00:00
AFR
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5611 of 2019
Petitioner :- Arti Dwivedi
Respondent :- State Of U .P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Tejasvi Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Sriva stava,J.
(Per : Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
1. Heard Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counse l for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. The presen t 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 auction-cum-tender.
4. In the present case, the hus band 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 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 th e 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.  
 

saving score / loading statistics ...