Ashish Kumar & Others vs Union Of India & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way  f this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the foll wing relief:-

“a) Direct the respondent No.2 issue modified/ Extended Environment clearances in favour of the petitioners, subject to order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on the application for clarification moved by the State of Himachal Pradesh and/ or final decision of this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.2516 of 2021, titled as Gajender Rawat Vs. Union of India.”

The case of the petitioners is that they have obtained Mining Leases, Environment Clearances and Consent to Operate from the concerned Departments in accordance with law. As per them, the Mining Leases of minor mineral have been granted in their favour by the Department of Industries as per the statutory provisions. Their grievance is that they have applied for modification/extension of the Environment Clearances under the relevant Notification/ Guidelines before respondent No.2, but respondent No.2 unnecessarily raised an objection in its 72nd Meeting held on 30.12.2024, in terms of Annexure P-3, dated 21.01.2025.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the objection that has been raised by respondent No.2 is totally misconceived as it has been raised without appreciating that the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) N (s). 202 of 1995, titled T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Versus Uni n of India and Ors. with respect to the Asan Wetland onservation Reserve permission from the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife and/ or Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, being referred therein, has no applicability as far as the grant of modification/extension of the Environment Clearances in favour of the petitioners is concerned. He referred to Annexure P-2, i.e. Office Memorandum dated 13.12.2022 and submitted that in the light of this Office Memorandum and the clarification mentioned therein, the refusal/ non-grant of modification/ extension in terms of Annexure P-3 is totally unjustified. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel prayed that this writ petition be disposed of by issuing a direction to respondent No.2 to issue a modified/ extended Environment Clearances in favour of the petitioners subject to the Order that may be passed of Hon’ble the Supreme Court on the application for clarification moved by the State of Himachal Pradesh.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the light of the fact that the State has already approached Hon’ble Supreme Court by way f an application seeking clarification in the matter concerned, prudence demands that before any decision is taken in the cases of he petitioners, the State should await the clarification as is being sought from Hon’ble Apex Court.

Mr. Anshul Attri, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing f r respondent No.1 also submits that as the issue is already before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, at t is stage, if any mandamus is issued in favour of the petitioners as is being prayed for, it would defeat the very purpose of seeking a clarification of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State.

Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 and learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, this Court is of the considered view that no mandamus as is being prayed for by the petitioners can be issued in their favour at this stage. This Court is not making any observation on the merit of the issue, meaning thereby that it is not even remotely suggestion that the petitioners are not entitled to the modification/ extension in the Environment Clearances. All that this Court is observing is that as presently the Authority is holding back its hands on the requst of the petitioners in the light of and Order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reference whereof has been made in Annexure P-3, dated 21.01.2025 and further as the State has already filed an applicati n seeking clarification before Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said matter, prudence demands that adjudication thereof by Hon’ble Apex Court should be awaited by all, including this Court. J dicial Proprietary also demands that no mandamus be passed by this Court making the same subject to any subsequent orders that may be passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the considered view of this Court, the same shall do violence to the principle of Judicial Proprietary and Judicial Discipline.

Reliance by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5707 of 2023, titled Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. Versus Jammu and Kashmir National Conference & Anr., decided on 06.09.2023, also does not helps his cause. Para-35 of the said judgment as is being relied upon by learned Senior Counsel is being quoted hereinbelow:-

“35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders byHigh Courts not deciding cases on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands, It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an ou come of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench, In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength f this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The High Courts, of course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before it.”

This Court is not shying away from issuing a direction in this case on any other count, but for the reason that as the petitioners themselves are calling upon this Court to pass a mandamus ‘Subject to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’, so as to use the language that actually has been used by the petitioners in the relief clause, this Court again reiterates that as Hon’ble Supreme Court is ceased of the issue, on account of which respondent No.2 is not granting modification/ extension of Environment Clearances in favour of the petitioners and further as in this regard the State of Himachal Pradesh has already filed an application before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, seeking clarification of the said order, prudence demands that no mandamus be issued by the Court making it subject to any further order/ judgment that may be passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as that will be highly derogatory on the part of this Court and it would amount to undermining the majesty f Hon’ble the Supreme Court.

With these observations, the petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.