Uttarakhand High Court
Ramesh Kamboj vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI, C.J.
AND
MR. RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
23RD APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 129 OF 2022
Ramesh Kamboj .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others. ..............Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Standing
Counsel for the State.
Ms. Monika Pant, learned Standing
Counsel for the Union of India /
respondent No. 4.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court
made the following
JUDGMENT :
(per: Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)
1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, is seeking a
direction to the respondent-authorities to give the
details of the persons to whom permission has been
granted for carrying on mining activities in the rivers
flowing inside the forest area throughout the State of
Uttarakhand and with a further prayer to issue a writ of
mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to stop
such activities being carried on by the private
individuals for extraction of mines and minerals in the
forest area where till date the Forest Development
Corporation is carrying on mining activities.
2. Pursuant to this notice, this writ petition was filed
on 18.09.2022.
3. All the respondents have filed their separate
counter-affidavits. A counter-affidavit has been filed by
respondent No. 2-Deputy Secretary, Forest
Department, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun
dated 08.09.2023. In Paragraph-12 thereof, it has
been specifically stated that the UFDC had never issued
any sub-lease or license to any private individual for
mining in any river of the State, including Kosi river. It
is also stated that one Writ Petition (PIL) No. 160 of
2014 titled 'Ranjeet Singh Gill vs. State of Uttarakhand
and others' was decided by this Court on 16.12.2014
and that order (Annexure-A9) is still being
implemented, whereby the private individuals were
restricted from carrying out any activity in the forest
area. Even the SLP filed against the order dated
16.12.2014 has been dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
4. In this PIL, only general allegations have been
made and no specific incident has been mentioned as
to any private individual carrying out mining activity.
5. Another affidavit has been filed by respondent No.
3-Regional Manager, Western Region, Uttarakhand Van
Vikas Nigam, Ramnagar, District Nainital dated 12th
September, 2023. In Paragraph-11 of this counter-
affidavit, it is stated that the Uttarakhand Forest
Development is carrying out the mining activity in the
reserve forest area, as such till date there is no such
policy to allot the mining activity in the reserve forest
area to the private individuals.
6. Another counter-affidavit has been filed by
respondent No. 1-Additional Secretary, Industrial
Development (Mining) Department, Government of
Uttarakhand, Dehradun dated 18.09.2023. In
Paragraph-11 of the counter-affidavit, it has again been
stated that the State Government has not permitted
and is not permitting any private person to undertake
mining activity in the river-bed and river bank flowing
in forest area through the State of Uttarakhand, except
the mining activities which are being carried out by
Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation as per
regulation in force in Uttarakhand.
7. Another affidavit has been filed by respondent No.
4-Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change, Dehradun dated 14.09.2023 and in Paragraph-
4 of this affidavit, it has been stated that the 'land' is a
subject matter of State Government; the forest areas
and the legal boundaries thereof are determined and
maintained by the concerned State Government; and
the State Government has the primary responsibility to
determine the status of any parcel of land, giving due
regards to gazette notifications, provisions under State
and Central Acts and concerned judgments and
directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In
Paragraph-5, it is further stated that prior approval of
the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 is required for carrying of any
non-forestry activity on forest land.
8. Since mining is a non-forestry activity, permission
under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
is required, to carry out mining activity. Respondent
No. 1 vide its letter dated 19.05.2023 has requested
the State Government to furnish a factual report vis-à-
vis contention raised in the present petition for further
necessary action. The letter dated 1st March, 2023
(Annexure SCA-4/1) has been placed on record, which
has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to the
Principal Secretary (Forests), Government of
Uttarakhand, Dehradun. This letter relates to the
proposal for renewal of approval accorded by the
Ministry vide letter dated 15.02.2013 under Section
2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in favour of
Managing Director Uttarakhand Forest Development
Corporation, for collection of Minor Minerals. The
renewal has been granted for the Forest Development
Corporation and nothing is being carried out by the
private person.
9. After going through all the affidavits, since no
mining activity is being carried out by any private
individual in the river bed inside the forest area
throughout the State of Uttarakhand, no further
direction is required to be given at this stage.
10. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
_____________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
__________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Dt: 23rd April, 2024
Rathour
