High Court of Rajasthan Disposes of Public Interest Litigation on Illegal Mining and Encroachments on Derwala Pahadi. Court Accepts State's Assurance of Cessation and Penal Action, and Directs That Existing Lease Holders Found Engaging in Illegal Mining May Face Cancellation of Their Mining Leases.

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) registered as D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.793/2020 concerning illegal mining activities and encroachments on Derwala Pahadi, Gram Panchayat Derwala, District Jhunjhunu. The petitioners, four residents of nearby villages including Raghunathpura, Derwala, and Hanumanpura, filed the PIL seeking judicial intervention against illegal mining and encroachments in the area. The respondents included the State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, the District Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the Tehsildar, the Mining Engineer, the Superintending Mining Engineer, and M/s. Meel Minerals through Suresh Kumar Meel, a mining entity. The petition was heard by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma, with counsel appearing for both sides. The material facts as recorded in the order indicate that the petitioners' counsel submitted that the PIL raised an issue relating to illegal mining activities and encroachments on Derwala Pahadi. The court had issued notices to the respondents. During the proceedings, the respondents admitted that the illegal mining which was going on had been stopped, and that action had been taken against the concerned illegal mining with penalties imposed. The respondents also assured that in the future no illegal mining would be allowed in the area and that strict vigil would be continued by the Mining Department. The core legal issue before the court was whether the public interest litigation should be closed in light of the State's admission and assurances, and what safeguards should be put in place to prevent recurrence of illegal mining. The court observed that apart from the State's duty, it was also the duty of the concerned miners who had been allotted regular mining leases to see that no illegal mining was conducted in the area. The court noted that often persons granted mining leases themselves indulged in additional illegal mining of the area, and that if such activity was found, it should result in cancellation of their lease deeds. The court directed that in the future, if such activity was found, it would be open for the Mining Engineer to cancel the lease of the existing mining lease holders. The court did not specifically adjudicate on any statutory violations or impose further penalties, as the respondents had already taken action. The court accepted the submissions and the assurance of future vigilance, and with the observation regarding potential cancellation of mining leases for illegal mining, closed the present Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners were granted liberty to file a fresh petition in case of any recurrence of illegal mining or encroachment.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The court disposed of the Public Interest Litigation with observations. It noted the respondents' admission that illegal mining had stopped and penalties imposed. The court further directed that existing mining lease holders must ensure no illegal mining is conducted; if any lease holder is found indulging in additional illegal mining, the Mining Engineer may cancel their lease deed. The petitioners were granted liberty to file a fresh petition in case of any recurrence.

Law Points