AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 10.11.2017 passed in Revision Case
No.03 of 2016 by Mines Commissioner, Ranchi has been assailed by which revision application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by not
allowing the petitioner to remove minerals which has been stopped in the lease area.
Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no requirement to get an NOC for removal of minerals which has
been stocked in the leased area wherein there is no operation of the mineral works but the authority without appreciating this aspect of the matter has
rejected the revision.
Learned AC to learned AG appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the petitioner has approached to this Court on
earlier occasion for removal of minerals which has been stocked in the leased area under the provision of Jharkhand Mineral Dealer's Rules which
has been disposed of with a direction upon the petitioner to approach before the Jharkhand Pollution Control Board and satisfy the Board for getting
the minerals removed.
The petitioner has acted in pursuance to the aforesaid order and filed application for obtaining NOC and CTO from the Jharkhand Pollution Control
Board but the same has been rejected, the petitioner being not satisfied has preferred revision but the same has been rejected.
He further submits that even for removal of minerals which requires transportation, the required challan as provided under Section 9 of Jharkhand
Mineral Transit Challan Regulation, 2005 wherein it has been provided that whenever any mining lease transports the minerals raised in his mine
without any valid permit or challan, it will be treated as a transgression of the conditions of the lease and provisions of Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, as the case may
be, and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned decision taken by the authority.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions it is evident from the material available on record that
the petitioner has been granted no objection certificate from the Pollution Control Board for the period from 01.04.2003 till 31.03.2010 with the consent
to operate and thereafter the petitioner's unit is closed since April 2010 as the petitioner has not been granted the consent to operate from the Pollution
Control Board.
The grievance agitated by the petitioner that since mineral operation is closed due to want of consent to operate but whatever mineral were lying in
the lease hold area, the same is sought to be removed and when no permission was accorded which compelled the petitioner to approach to this Court
by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4896 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.03.2012 by giving liberty to the petitioner to satisfy
the competent authority upon certain terms and conditions which reads as:-
“1. Providing permanent boundary wall is constructed all around the iron ore crushing units.
Paved internal roads and roads around units are made.
Comprehensive enclosures of crusher and screen units with vent attached with PCDs are installed.
Submission of information to JSPCB on source of raw material, quantity processed daily, dispatched and destination on monthly basis to keep vigil
on illegal mining is submitted.
The petitioner has approached before the competent authority but the competent authority has rejected the aforesaid claim vide order dated
04.12.2015 against which revision has been preferred before the Mines Commissioner who has found no reason to differ with the view taken by the
original authority and has rejected the revision directing the petitioner to satisfy and Pollution Control Board.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphatically submitted that only the stocked mineral ores are to be removed and therefore, there is no
requirement of any NOC from the Jharkhand Pollution Control Board but the question herein is that when the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
passed a specific order directing the petitioner to satisfy the authority with respect to fulfillment of certain conditions and when the petitioner has acted
on the basis of the said order, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to satisfy the authority with respect to fulfillment of the conditions as has been
stipulated in the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4896 of 2011 but the same has not been done as it reflects from the impugned order.
Further it has been submitted by the learned State counsel that even for removal, Section 9 of the Jharkhand Mineral Transit Challan Regulations,
2005 specifically provides that for transportation also valid permit or challan is required, in absence thereof, it will be treated as a transgression of the
conditions of the lease and provision of mines and mineral rules applicable.
The said provision of the Regulation, 2005 reads hereunder as:-
“9. (a) whenever any mining lease transports the minerals raised in his mine without any valid permit or challan, it will be treated as a transgression
of the conditions of the lease and provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Minerals Concession Rules, 1960 and
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, as the case may be, and actions shall be taken accordingly under the penal provisions of the lease
deed and the said Act and Rules.
(b) The mining lessee shall be responsible for the strict compliance of these regulations by the carriers engaged by them and shall ensure that the
carriers produce necessary transit challans at the check gates/weigh bridge for verification.â€
Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the revisional authority while rejecting the revision on the ground that the petitioner has not
complied with the condition as stipulated in the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4896 of 2011 has not committed any error further even that
scope of applicability of Regulation 9 to Regulation, 2005 as quoted above, the condition which has been raised by the petitioner that for removing the
stocked material in the lease hold area, the challan is not required, is not correct.
In view thereof and in the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the authority,
accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.