M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. Heard Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and learned Government Pleader No. 2 appearing for the respondents-State.
2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners for quashing the letter dated 17.2.2003 and the order dated 24.5.2003 passed by the respondents whereby the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner was terminated.
3. The petitioner's case is that in the year 1996 on the application filed by the petitioners for the grant of mining lease in respect of the land in question. A mining lease was granted and a lease agreement was executed for a period of 10 years. However, in 1999 the mining lease was terminated on the ground that the land falls under Palkot Wild Life Sanctuary as notified by the Government.
4. The respondents appeared and filed counter-affidavit and the matter was heard on several dates. The Deputy Commissioner in his counter-affidavit took the stand that the land falls within the area of Wild Life Sanctuary and therefore, it was rightly cancelled by the respondents after giving show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. On 6.11.2003 after hearing the parties this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner to bring all necessary documents to show as to how the termination of lease can be justified. The Deputy Commissioner was also directed to produce the notification by which the land in question was declared as a Wild Life Sanctuary. Instead of filing affidavit a statement of fact prepared by the Divisional Forest Officer was produced before the Court wherein it was mentioned that the land in question is not a notified forest land. This Court therefore by order dated 19.12.2003 quashed the order of termination of lease and proceeded against the officers of the respondents for filing perfunctory affidavit.
5. In the meantime a Civil Review petition has been filed by the respondents seeking review of the order dated 19.12.2003. In the review petition it is stated that the mining lease granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plot No. 3708 of Mouza Baghima was enquired into and it was found that the land falls within Palkot Wild Life Sanctuary notified by the Govt. of Bihar and notification was issued by the Department of Forest and Environment contained in memo No. 1104 dated 22.03.1990. A copy of the notification has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the review petition. After inquiry a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why their mining lease should not be terminated. It is further stated that due to some ambiguity in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the order dated 19.12.2003 has been passed by this Court.
6. Admittedly the petitioner was given a mining lease in the year 1996 in respect of land of plot No. 3708 of Village Baghima, P.O. Baghima, P.S. Palkot, District Gumla. In 1990 the entire forest area was declared Palkot Wild Life Sanctuary and a notification to that effect was issued on 22.3.1990 under the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. A copy of the notification has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the review petition. It further appears that in 1998 the Govt. of Bihar issued a general letter vide memo No. 6786 dated 5.12.1998 directing cancellation of all mining lease which falls within the forest notified area.
7. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was enacted to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and the matter connected therewith. The rapid decline of wild animals and birds in India became a grave concern. Some wild animals and birds have already become extinct in this country and others are in the danger of being so. The legislations therefore thought to legislate a comprehensive law which would provide for the protection of wild animals and birds and for all matters connected therewith. The legislatures of the different States including the State of Bihar have also passed resolutions declaring certain areas as wild life sanctuary. The purpose of declaring any area as protected forest or wild life sanctuaiy is to protect the forest wealth and wild life of the area.
8. In the case of Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 514, the Supreme Court while considering the notification issued under the Rajasthan Wild Life Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951 and the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 observed :
'The purpose of the notification declaring the area as a Game Reserve under the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951; or the declaration of the area as a sanctuary under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the notification dated 1.1.1975 declaring the area as a protected forest under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 is to protect the Forest Wealth and Wild Life of the area. It is, indeed, odd that the State Government while professing to protect the environment by means of these notifications and declarations should, at the same time permit degradation of the environment by authorising mining operations in the protected area.
Indeed, referring to the high purpose of the measures for protection of environment and ecology, this Court said : 'The State to which the ecological imbalances and the consequent environmental damage have reached is so alarming that unless immediate, determined and effective steps were taken, the damage might become irreversible. The preservation of the fauna and flora, some species of which are getting extinct at an alarming rate has been a great and urgent necessity for the survival of humanity and these laws reflect a last ditch battle for the restoration, in part at least, a grave situation emerging from a long history if callous insensitiveness to the enormity of the risks to mankind that go with the deterioration of environment. The tragedy of the predicament of the civilised man is that 'Every source from which man has increased his power on earth has been used to diminish the prospects of his successors. All his progress is being made at the expense of damage to the environment which he cannot repair and cannot foresee'. In his foreword to International Wild Life Law, H.R.H. Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh said:'
9. In the case of Center for Environmental Law v. Union of India and Ors., 1998 Vol. IX SCC 623, the Supreme Court issued a mandate directing the State Governments to implement the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 including issuance of proclamation under Section 21 of the said Act in respect of National Parks and Sanctuaries.
10. In the case of Consumer Education Research Society v. Union of India, 2000 Vol. 2 SCC 599, the Supreme Court while considering the question of validity of the resolution passed by the State legislature reducing the boundary of wild life sanctuary issued an order restraining the State Government from giving permission to others to carry on any mining operation within the area of 10 km. from the periphery of old sanctuary area and also directed the government to take step to monitor air and water pollution.
11. Recently in the case of Essar Oil Limited v. Halar Utkarsh Samiti, AIR 2004 SCW 573, the question that falls for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether laying of pipe lines carrying crude oil to be permitted to go through the Marine National Park and sanctuary be permitted. The Supreme Court interpreting various provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, held :
'The pivotal issue, as we have already noticed, is the interpretation of Section 29 of the WPA. In our opinion this must be done keeping in mind the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 which has been described as the 'Magna-Carta of our environment.' Indeed in the wake of the Stockholm Declaration in 1972, as far as this country is concerned, provisions to protect the environment were incorporated in the Constitution by an amendment in 1976. Article 48A of the Constitution now provides that the 'State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.' It is also now one of the fundamental duties of every citizen of the country under Art. 51A(g) 'to protect and Improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures'.
Certain principles were enunciated in the Stockholm Declaration giving broad parameters and guidelines for the purposes of sustaining humanity and its environment. Of these parameters, a few principles are extracted which are of relevance to the present debate. Principle 2 provides that the natural resources of the earth including the air, water, land, flora and fauna especially representative samples of natural eco-systems must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning and management as appropriate. In the same vein, the 4th principle says 'man has special responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wild life and its habitat which are now gravely imperiled by a combination of adverse factors. Nature conservation including wild life must, therefore, receive importance in planning for economic developments'. These two principles highlight the need to factor in considerations of the environment while providing for economic development. The need for economic development is essential for ensuring a favourable living and working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are necessary for improvement of the quality of life.' The importance of maintaining a balance between economic development on the one hand and environment protection on the other is again emphasised in Principle 11 which says The environmental policies of all States should enhance and not adversely affect the present or future development potential of developing countries nor should they hamper the attainment of better living conditions for all.'
12. Section 32 of the Act clearly provides that no persons shall use in any sanctuary chemicals, explosives or any other substance which may cause injury to, endanger any wild life in such sanctuary. I have no doubt in my mind in holding that carrying on mining activities on the land which falls within the forest area and declared as wild life sanctuary will be against the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the mandate issued by the Supreme Court in Catena of decisions including decisions referred to hereinabove. Hence, the terminating of mining lease in respect of the land falling within the Wild Life Sanctuary cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. Consequently the order dated 19.12.2003 which was passed on the basis of perfunctory affidavits filed by the, respondents needs to be reviewed.
13. In the result the review application is allowed and the order dated 19.12.2003 passed in WPC No. 2933 of 2003 is recalled. Having regard to the fact that there is no illegality in the order of termination of lease, the writ petition is dismissed.