Uttarakhand High Court
WPPIL/17/2023 on 16 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
16TH MARCH, 2023
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 17 OF 2023
Between:
Ramesh Lal @ Ramesh Kamboj. ...Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand and others. ...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents. : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
ORDER : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
In terms of our order dated 25.02.2023, the
Secretary, Industrial Development Department,
Government of Uttarakhand - Dr. Pankaj Pandey, is
present in the Court. The respondents have filed their
counter affidavit, as well as their supplementary counter
affidavit, which have been adverted to by Mr. C.S.
Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel, and we have
also interacted with Dr. Pankaj Pandey.
2. It is clear that the District Anti Illegal Mining
Force, which was directed to be constituted in terms of
the judgment passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 107 of
2018 dated 03.09.2019, has not been constituted. The
submission of Mr. Rawat is that the Mining Rules were
amended, and for this reason, it was not considered
necessary to constitute the said District Anti Illegal
Mining Force. He has referred to Rule 14(8) of the
Uttarakhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2021 dated
10.11.2021. Rule 14(8) of the said Rules talks about
the constitution of a Monitoring Cell at the level of the
Directorate. Mr. Rawat submits that, after the
enforcement of the said Rules, the respondents had
sought review of the aforesaid judgment dated
03.09.2019, which was disposed of on 05.03.2022, with
the passing of the following order :-
"It has been brought to the notice of this Court
that in view of the adoption of the new mining policy
by the State of Uttarakhand, dated 10.11.2021, the
Review Application (MCC No. 17780 of 2021) seeking
review of the order dated 03.09.2019 has become
infructuous.
2. In that view of the matter, the Review
Application (MCC No. 17780 of 2021) is, hereby,
dismissed as infructuous.
3. In sequel thereto, all pending applications also
stand disposed of."
3. We are not satisfied with the explanation
furnished by the respondents for non-compliance of the
directions issued by the Court in its judgment dated
03.09.2019, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 107 of 2018. The
Monitoring Cell, provided for in Rule 14(8) of the
2
aforesaid Rules, is not a substitute for constitution of the
District Anti Illegal Mining Force. The complaints about
illegal mining arise, for the reason, that there is lack of
monitoring and supervision by the authorities entrusted
with the task of preventing and checking illegal mining in
the first place. For there to be an effective task force to
deal with illegal mining, it is essential that in each
district, an Anti Illegal Mining Force should be
constituted, which should have participation of the local
and environmentally aware population. It is only the
vigilance of the local population, which can provide an
effective check on illegal mining, since the authorities
appear to be not properly equipped, or are insufficient in
number, to deal with actual illegal mining on the ground.
We say this with a sense of dismay, that the very
authorities, who are entrusted with the task of
preventing illegal mining, are sometimes involved in
carrying on of such activities in connivance with those
indulging in illegal mining. We have seen in several
cases, the photographs placed on record, which show
rampant illegal mining being carried out in the State. It
is there, for all to see. The result of such illegal mining
is the increase in deforestation, erosion of soil, and
increase in landslides being experienced in the State.
3
4. Another aspect highlighted by learned counsel
for the petitioner, who has also moved IA No. 04 of
2023 to seek an interim relief, is the attempt of the
respondents to grant mining rights, under the garb of
appointing contractors for carrying out the activities of
dredging of rivers. While dealing with a similar
situation, in relation to the river passing through the
Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary, in Writ Petition (PIL) No.
47 of 2022 "Dinesh Kumar Chandola v. Union of India
and others", on 14.02.2023, we have observed that,
when the contractor is given a right, not only to dredge
the river, but also to remove and appropriate the RBM, it
tantamounts to grant of mining rights, since it involves
the activity of winning the mineral. Grant of contracts
for dredging, to private persons, is most undesirable, as
there is hardly any monitoring, or supervision being
actually carried out on the site, to see, whether the
activity of dredging is limited to dredge only that much
amount of RBM, which is necessary to keep the river
flow in check? We observed in our order dated
14.02.2023, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 47 of 2022, that
the activity of dredging should be undertaken by the
State, on its own.
4
5. Despite our aforesaid order, the respondents
have now issued auction notices, for dredging in Kosi
River, on 10.03.2023.
6. The submission of Mr. Rawat is that the
situation in the present case is different from the one
dealt with in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 47 of 2022, because
that case related to dredging in the river passing
through the Nandaur Wildlife Sanctuary. This
submission cannot be accepted, for the reason, that we
took note of the legal provisions, which render the
activity of dredging by the contractor, who also has the
right to remove and exploit the silt and RBM
commercially, as mining.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, we direct that the
dredging activity, in terms of the Auction Notice dated
10.03.2023, shall not be carried out until the District
Anti Illegal Mining Force, in terms of this order, has been
constituted.
8. We grant the respondents two weeks' time to
constitute District Anti Illegal Mining Forces in all the
Districts of the State, in terms of the order dated
03.09.2019 passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 107 of
2018, "Milakh Raj v. State of Uttarakhand and others".
5
The said District Anti Illegal Mining Force should include
the Gram Pradhans of the villages falling in the district.
Apart from the Gram Pradhans, one person shall be
nominated in each District Anti Illegal Mining Force, who
belongs to the district, and who has interest in
maintaining the ecology of the area. Nomination of such
a person shall be made by the District Magistrate
concerned, on the basis of the credentials of such a
person - determined by taking into account his/ her
activities in relation to preservation of environment in
the State. The District Anti Mining Forces, for each
district shall be notified within two weeks and also
uploaded on the official website of the respondent State.
The views and complaints, about illegal mining within
the area of their authority and jurisdiction, should be
seriously examined.
9. We have made it clear to Dr. Pandey that non-
compliance of this order shall be viewed strictly. In case
this order is not complied with by the next date, Dr.
Pandey shall remain personally present in the Court, on
the next date.
10. We also direct the State to publish the mining,
as well as, dredging plans of all mining and dredging
6
activities being undertaken in the State, on the official
website of the State, so that the public at large can
access the same. All such plans shall also be displayed,
in the area of mining/ dredging, on advertising sites/
unipoles, providing the contact details of all the
members of the District Anti Illegal Mining Force. The
State shall also create a portal, where all complaints
about illegal mining and dredging can be lodged by the
public at large, and the State shall create a system for
redressing all such complaints expeditiously. Steps in
this regard be taken before the next date, and
compliance reported on affidavit before the next date.
11. List on 06.04.2023.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 16th March, 2023
Rahul
