Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Inder Singh Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 February, 2021
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16242/2018
1. Inder Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Panney Singh, Aged About
21 Years, R/o Ward No. 2 Bhura Bas, Naal Badi, Nalbari,
Bikaner.
2. Mahendra Pratap Singh S/o Shri Surendra Pal Singh,,
Aged About 23 Years, R/o Bihari Basti, Naal Badi, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Urban Housing Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Principal Secretary, Mining Department, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Chief Town Planner, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Collector, Bikaner.
6. The Addl. Director, Mines And Geology Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur.
7. Mining Engineer, Mines And Geology Department, Bikaner.
8. The Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner.
9. Jaichand Lal Daga S/o Shri Champalal Daga,, Near
Bheruji Mandir, Bagji Mohalla, Bikaner.
10. Basant Daga S/o Shri Jaichand Lal Daga,, R/o Near
Bheruji Mandir, Bagji Mohalla, Bikaner.
11. Surendra Shekhawat S/o Shri Ummed Singh,, R/o Village
Chhapoli, Tehsil Udaipurvati, District Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
Mr. Vikas Balia
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
(2 of 4) [CW-16242/2018]
Judgment
04/02/2021
1. The petitioners claiming themselves to be active workers of
village Naal Badi of District Bikaner have challenged grant of
mining lease essentially on the premise that village Naal Badi
forms part of Peripheral Control Belt of District Bikaner.
2. Mr. Rakesh Arora, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners invited Court's attention towards Master Plan-2013 of
Bikaner and submitted that though the area in question forms part
of Peripheral Control Belt as declared by notification dated
27.2.2006, yet the respondent-Mining Department has issued
mining lease for excavation and beneficiation of ball clay and
silica.
3. Learned counsel argued that in the light of the judgment of
this Court rendered in the case of Gulab Kothari Vs. State of
Rajasthan, no mining rights can be conferred in such area and
State's action of granting mining lease to respondents nos.8 to 10
is, thus, illegal.
4. Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG appearing for the respondent-
State raising serious doubts about petitioners' bonafide invited
Court's attention towards Para no.4 of the writ petition and argued
that petitioners have selectively challenged grant of mining lease
to respondents nos.8 to 10, while practically giving certificate of
legality to other mine-owners, who too are operating in the same
area. The extract of para no.4 read by Mr. Beniwal, reads thus:
"4............This list contains names of as many as 50
applicants but out of those 50, only the proposals of private
respondents are in the Peripheral Control Belt to the best of
knowledge of the petitioners, and hence the grievance in the
present petition is only with regard to these proposals by
private respondents as the other proposals are as per norms
(3 of 4) [CW-16242/2018]
and judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court, to the best of
the knowledge of the petitioners, and further because the
petitioners are residents of same vicinity."
5. While maintaining that instant writ petition is not bonafide,
learned AAG submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in
grant of mining lease to the private respondents inasmuch as,
having regard to the demography of Bikaner and the fact that rich
mineral resources are in abundance in the area in question, the
State Government has examined the matter and has granted
relaxation for grant of mining lease in revenue village Naal Chhoti
and Naal Badi, though these villages fall in Peripheral Control Belt;
for said purpose he invited Court's attention towards Government
order dated 20.12.2012 (Annex.R/1).
6. He also pointed out that vide letter dated 12.6.2013 the
Senior Town Planner, Bikaner Zone, Bikaner has clarified that
village Naal Chhoti and Naal Badi, though form part of the
Peripheral Control Belt, but are outside the urbanisable area and
contended that the mining lease have rightly been granted in
favour of respondents nos.8 to 10.
7. Mr. Balia, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
nos.8 to 10 submitted that the State has granted the mining lease
in his clients' favour absolutely in accordance with law. He
asserted that mining plan has been approved; environment impact
assessment has been done and even environment clearance has
been granted. It was also eiterated that many other mines are
operating in the area, but, petitioners' for their own vested
interest, have preferred the present PIL questioning grant of
mining lease in favour of respondents nos.8 to 10 only.
8. Heard.
(4 of 4) [CW-16242/2018]
9. Upon perusal of the record, we find that the petition at hand
is not bonafide. The petitioner no.1 aged 21 years and petitioner
no.2 aged 23 years are busybodies; they have not shown their
source of livelihood and source of information-from where they
came to know about grant of mining lease to respondents nos.8 to
10. A perusal of the pleadings, particularly, the extracted part of
the petition reproduced in para 4 above gives a clear indication
that the petition in hands is motivated and has been filed with
oblique motives. The petitioners themselves having admitted that
mining leases have been issued in favour of as many as 50
applicants, have chosen to rope in only 3 mine owners.
11. Be that as it may. Upon perusal of the Government order
dated 20.12.2012 issued by the State Government in Urban
Development Department and the communication dated
12.6.2013 written by the Senior Town Planner indicating that the
area in question is outside urbanizable area, (despite being in the
Peripheral Control Belt), we are of the view that there is no
illegality or irregularity in issuing mining lease to the respondents
nos.8 to 10.
12. The present public interest litigation, being devoid of merit,
is hereby dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
132-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
