Balaji Builders vs State Of Haryana And Others

S. Muralidhar, J

The Petitioner has been granted a mineral dealer's license under the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession, Stocking,Transportation and Prevention of

Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 ('2012 Rules'), to sell, stock and exhibit for sale, sand from an area of 29 Kanals in Village Jainpur, Tehsil and District

Sonipat initially for the period from 20th June, 2017 to 19th June, 2019 and further from 20th June, 2019 to 21st June, 2021.

It appears that in proceedings instituted by one Krishan Chander before the National Green Tribunal ('NGT'), Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.

No. 382/2019, an order was passed by the NGT on 3rd July, 2019, holding that trucks carrying minerals such as sand cannot use the

'Bundh'/embankments for transportation. As a result of the above order of the NGT, the Petitioner has not been able to dispose of the sand stocked at

its site. The Petitioner sought permission of the Executive Engineer, Irrigational Water Resources Department, Sonipat for transportation of the said

stock of sand. The Petitioner has in the present writ petition sought, inter alia, the quashing of the aforementioned order dated 3rd July, 2019 passed by

the NGT and the consequential order dated 16th March, 2020 passed by the Executive Engineer, Sonipat Water Services Division declining to the

Petitioner permission to use the 'bundh' for transportation of sand.

Mr. Amit Jhanji, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, when asked how the order dated 3rd July, 2019 passed by the NGT could be

questioned in a writ petition under Article 226, when a statutory appeal therefrom in terms of Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010

('NGT Act') could be filed, submitted that he was relying on certain observations made in the said order of the NGT, which according to him would

oblige the Respondent/State Government to provide an alternative route to the Petitioner to transport the mineral. This, he stated was without prejudice

to the right of the Petitioner to challenge the order of the NGT in accordance with law.

In its order dated 3rd July 2019, the NGT has, inter alia, observed that “if the concern of those involved in mining is to be addressed, the State

can provide an appropriate remedy with the appropriate safeguards but not allow use of the bundhâ€. This Court is unable to agree with Mr. Jhanji

that the above observations oblige the State Government to provide the Petitioner an alternative route for transportation of the sand.

Mr. Jhanji relied upon Rule 82 of the 2012 Rules to urge that there is such an obligation on the State Government to provide an alternative route.

As pointed out by Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana, the Petitioner was given a choice of

site at the time of being granted the licence. This was consistent with Rule 82 of the 2012 Rules. The Petitioner's choice of the site has been rendered

legally non-feasible by the order of the NGT. Rule 82 cannot be read to cast a further obligation on the State to provide an alternative route. Indeed,

the Petitioner has no option but to challenge the order of the NGT in accordance with law.

Consequently, leaving it open to the Petitioner to seek appropriate remedies against the order dated 3rd July 2019 of the NGT in accordance with

law, this Court declines to grant the relief prayed for in the writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.