Divya Darshana vs Goma Ram & Ors

DIVYA DARSHANA ... PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

GOMA RAM & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned

counsel for the 1st Respondent. Learned counsel for the State is not

present when the matter is heard.

The petitioner had applied for a mining lease in respect

of certain property comprised in Khasra No.316 and the petitioner

was granted the mining lease nos.53/01 and 54/01 near village

Khatukara in District Pali, Rajasthan. Prior to grant of mining

lease it is alleged that the petitioner had obtained permission from

the local panchayat and also from the Mining Department and this

matter was brought to the notice of the concerned District

Collector. It appears that the Collector did not raise any

objection to the lease. One of the persons who had allegedly been

doing illegal mining operations, filed a petition before the High

Court alleging that the petitioner herein has been doing illegal

mining activity in a hillock and thereby causing extensive damage to

the water flow in that area and also the environment of the

hillocks. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, ordered that

the Director of Mines shall cancel the license granted to the 2

petitioner. Except the allegations made in the petition, no

detailed reasons are given in the impugned judgment.

When the matter came up before this Court, by order

dated 14th August, 2006, this Court had directed that the site be

inspected by the C.E.C. The C.E.C. has filed a report on

2.2.2007. Several reasons have been given by the C.E.C. and it

opined that the mining activity in this area is likely to

adversely affect the flow of seasonal streams which help in

filling the large village pond (reservoir) and it may also cause

flow of debris from the mines into the pond. The petitioner

herein filed objection to the report filed by the C.E.C. and the

petitioner has also alleged that the flow of water to the streams

will not be affected by the mining activity. As the High Court

had not got any opportunity to consider these facts into

consideration, we feel it just and proper that the petitioner be

given an opportunity to place his contentions before the High

Court properly. The High Court is requested to consider the

impact on the mining lease granted to the petitioner and whether

it would adversely affect the environment in that area and

appropriate orders may be passed in this regard after affording

opportunity to the parties concerned by the High Court at the

earliest, at least within a period of six months.

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and 3

direct the High Court to consider the matter afresh. Till such

time, the petitioner shall not carry out any mining activity in

the area in question.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.

No costs.

..................CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

...................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

...................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

NEW DELHI;

29TH SEPTEMBER, 2009