Saddiqui Mohammad and ors Vs. State (Mines and Geology) and ors - Court Judgment

1 DBCWP (PIL) No.4829/2012 Saddique Mohammad & ORS.versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ::::: :: ORDER

:: D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.4829/2012.

Saddique Mohammad & ORS.versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.DATE OF ORDER

:: 18th October 2013.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.K.MATHUR Mr.S.P.Sharma, for the petitioneRs.Mr.G.R.

Punia Sr.Advocate & AAG with Mr.Jamwant Gurjar, for the respondents Nos.1 to 5 & 7.

Mr.M.S.Singhvi, Sr.Advocate with Akhilesh Rajpurohit & Mr.Rajesh Joshi, for the respondent No.9 <><><> BY THE COURT : The instant writ petition has been filed by 13 petitioners as Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) stating grievance against the mining operations being carried out by the respondent – Hindustan Zinc Limited near village Agucha, Tehsil Hurda, District Bhilwara.

The petitioners have stated the summary of the cause to maintain this writ petition as PIL in the following:- “Thus, this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, is filed by the humble petitioneRs.who are agriculturists (farmeRs.residing in village Angucha in Tehsil-Hurda, District Bhilwara, wherein concern of petitioner is about danger to life and liberty of residents of this village and other adjoining villages, due to on going aforesaid blasting carried out for mining operation, by the respondent Company, i.e., Hindustan Zinc Limited (now merged with Vedanta Group of Industries) under Mining Lease, granted by 2 DBCWP (PIL) No.4829/2012 Saddique Mohammad & ORS.versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.the respondent Mining Department and because of large scale mining operation carried out, contrary to the norms prescribed for extraction of minerals, under the MMRD1957and RMMCR1986 petitioners and other resident farmers of the village Angucha and other adjoining villages are not able to carry out farming in their fields and also their crops in the area is getting destroyed, due to accumulation of dust layer on the crops, causing grave danger to survival of inhabitant of this area.

The polluted water is being discharged in the ponds of villages, which serves as source of water to villageRs.But, on the representations of petitioneRs.no action has been taken and the competent authorities of the Pollution Control Board and respondent Mining Department have not taken any action, to redress grievances of petitioneRs.Hence petitioneRs.prays for kind intervention of this Hon'ble High Court, in the matter.”

.

While entertaining this writ petition on 16.05.2012, this Court directed that the respondents shall ensure that no mining operation was carried out in an illegal manner.

However, on 11.07.2012, an application (IA No.10707/2012) was filed on behalf of the petitioners supported by their affidavits seeking permission to withdraw while stating that the respondent Hindustan Zinc Limited has dealt with the problems of villagers and their grievances stood redressed.

However, on the matter being taken up on 03.12.2012, this Court observed that PIL having been set in motion, relief granted by the respondent was required to be specified on oath.

Thereafter, a detailed affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.9 Hindustan Zinc Limited, inter alia, stating that its mining operations are being conducted with the best of technologies and it has received several commendations for the same.

While denying the allegations of the petitioneRs.the respondent has further pointed out that upon clearance of the concerned departments / authorities, its production capacity of mine ore was permitted to be 3 DBCWP (PIL) No.4829/2012 Saddique Mohammad & ORS.versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.enhanced from 5.00 mtpa to 6.15 mtpa for which, acquiring the surface rights over additional area of approximately 155 ha land situated within the mining lease area was envisaged wherefor, the process of acquisition, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was set in motion.

While giving out the details of its dealings with the petitioners whereby the answering respondent has purportedly purchased the land of all except one of the petitioners by itself or through its employee; and while filing the copies of such registered sale deeds on record, the respondent company has also averred that in respect of the other parcels of land including that of the petitioner No.12, a request has been made to the State Government and the process has been initiated for acquisition.

The respondent company has, inter alia, stated as under:- “5.

That the answering respondent submits that the petitioners have filed present writ petition without any basis and without any reason.

The answering respondent humbly submits that the answering respondent conducting mining operations in its mines with best of the technologies available in the world and for this the answering respondent has been commended by the different forums all over the country and even at the world level.

The technique and the systematic mining operations conducted by the answering respondent is an example for the mining industry.

The answering respondent’s mining activity is equipped with high-tech mining technology and amongst the one of the best technologies available in the world.

Therefore, the allegations made in the present writ petition in regard to non-adhering the provisions of the Act of 1957 and the norms of Pollution Control Board and other guidelines issued by the government are totally baseless and non-existent.

6.

That the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India has granted Environmental Clearance for the enhancement of mine ore production capacity from 5.00 mtpa to 6.15 mtpa for which acquiring the surface rights over additional area of approx 155 Ha land situated within the mining lease area was envisaged.

The answering respondent has initiated the process of land acquisition as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and submitted the application to Industries Department, Government of Rajasthan on 09.02.2011.

That out of the above 158.04 Ha land, the answering respondent to avoid the hurdles in the mining activities and to maintain the harmony and peace in the area 4 DBCWP (PIL) No.4829/2012 Saddique Mohammad & ORS.versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.nearby mining lease of the answering respondent has purchased the land from different Khatedars (land holdeRs.including 11 petitioners out of the 13 by way of Registered sale deeds and the answering respondent paid market value of the land to the KhatedaRs.It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner No.3 Shri Chotuji s/o Mangu Balai, belongs to Schedule Caste Category, therefore, the land owned by him cannot be directly purchased by respondent company so his land was purchased in the name of Shri Arjun Kumar s/o Shri Sita Ram Mandal who is an employee of the respondent company.

As far as petitioner No.12 Shri Radha Kishan S/o Shri Chhoga Lal Brahmin is concerned, despite efforts being made by the answering respondent company to persuade him to sell his holding in favour of answering respondent company by way of private negotiations, he did not agree and, therefore, left with no option, the respondent company made a request to the State Government for acquiring his holding also for the company.

The process for acquiring this land in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been initiated and the State Government has also issued notification for remaining 120.50 Ha land including holding of petitioner No.12 under Section 4 of the said Act on 17.06.2013.

It may be stated that the respondent company is engaged in the production of zinc, lead and associated minerals, which are of vital public importance in as much as its products are inter alia being used for manufacturing of various medicines.

Therefore, to redress the grievance of the petitioneRs.the answering respondent has taken the above mentioned measures and for that full consideration and the market rate has been paid to the sellers and in respect of the land being acquired, compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of section 23 of the Act of 1894, will be paid to petitioner No.12.

It is also relevant to submit here that after purchasing the land of most of the petitioneRs.the grievances which were not in existence but for maintaining and conducting peaceful mining activities, the answering respondent has taken this step.

The copies of registered sale-deeds except the petitioner No.12 are submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-R9/1 collectively.

A perusal of the sale-deeds will reveal that the lands of all the petitioners except the petitioner No.12 situated in the vicinity of the mines of the answering respondent had been purchased by the answering respondent.

Therefore, the grievances of the petitioners have been redressed.”

.

The respondent has further stated that the mining operations are being carried out with prime consideration of safety of human beings and environment; and has also referred to the steps taken towards environmental protection, dump management, green-belt development etc.It is also asserted that the mining activities conducted by the respondent are within the four corners of law while maintaining all safety standards.

The respondent has, inter alia, 5 DBCWP (PIL) No.4829/2012 Saddique Mohammad & ORS.versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.averred that,- “7.

That the answering respondent to balance the harmony and peace between the persons residing in the vicinity of mining lease area of answering respondent has purchased the abovementioned land of the different Khatedars including the petitioneRs.However, the answering respondent submits that the answering respondent is carrying out systematic mining operation through implementation of latest technological advancement in the mining.

The mining operations conducted by the answering respondent are being carried out with prime consideration on safety of human being, environment and well being of the nearby communities.

The answering respondent has been awarded by the Director General of Mines Safety (DGMS).Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM).Ministry of Mines, Government of India and other Industrial bodies by various prestigious awards during past few years……….

It is also pertinent to submit here that Safety Week is being organized by DGMS Ajmer region every year for creating awareness about safety and recognizing the efforts towards safe working practices being adopted by mines falling within its jurisdiction, covering various districts of western and eastern Rajasthan falling within the region and so far 26 Mine Safety Weeks had been celebrated in Ajmer Region out of which Rampura Agucha Mine has been awarded fiRs.in Overall Performance 16 times since the inception of the mine for its outstanding effort every year consistently under various categories like dust suppression, opencast working, explosive, mine lighting, welfare amenities HEMM maintenance, Transport roads etc amongst various mines under category A (mechanized mine)…….”

.

The respondent has also pointed out its contribution towards corporate social responsibilities in the following:- “9.

That by way of activities conducted by the answering respondent in the mining industry, more than 10,000 numbers of employees are directly employed, and more than one lac persons are indirectly employed in the activities of the answering respondent.

The answering respondent is also contributing in the form of corporate-social responsibility for the benefits of the public at large.

The answering respondent is spending about Rs.40 crores per annum for the purpose of Corporate Social Responsibilities including Rs.3-4 crores at unit Rampura Agucha.

In this regard, the answering respondent organized various health programmes like rural health camp, mega family planning camps and other medical check-up camps for the persons residing nearby vicinity.

The answering respondent is also contributing in the field of education of children and for cultural activities, sport activities, plantation at public places and rural infrastructure development by way of constructing community centres, extending school buildings, constructing water tanks and sheds etc.”

.

The respondents Nos.1 to 5 & 7 have also filed the reply 6 DBCWP (PIL) No.4829/2012 Saddique Mohammad & ORS.versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.pointing out the facts about the sale deeds executed by most of the petitioneRs.It has also been asserted that they have not received any complaint by the petitioners or other villagers as regards hardship and/or difficulties because of mining operations carried out by the respondent – leaseholder and that upon receipt of any complaint/representation, they shall take necessary steps in accordance with law.

The other allegations of the petitioners have also been denied with reference to the site inspection reports, including the report made after the inspection dated 24.05.2012 (Annex.

R1/2) The learned counsel for the petitioners though has not disputed the facts as have surfaced on record but, submitted that some directions still deserve to be issued to control and check the mining operations of the respondent so as to mitigate the problems of the villageRs.including controlling of pollution and reducing of intensity of blasting because boulders are found flying upto a distance of 50-60 metres from the blasting area.

The learned counsel for the respondent company, on the other hand, has submitted that the respondent is carrying on with the mining operations strictly in accordance with law and no directions are required to be issued in this writ petition.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and have examined the record.

In our view, on the facts as have surfaced on record, it is 7 DBCWP (PIL) No.4829/2012 Saddique Mohammad & ORS.versus State of Rajasthan & ORS.difficult to find if this writ petition was at all filed in order to espouse any public cause.

It appears that the basic and prime concern of the petitioners had been about the value of their land located in the vicinity of the mining area or falling within the proposed expansion area.

Though we have only taken note of the submissions made by the parties and are not commenting on the legality, validity or otherwise of any of the dealings of the parties including the referred sale transactions but, for the present purpose, suffice it to observe that the dealings of the most of the petitioners make it clear that this matter has not been of a public interest litigation as such.

At any rate, even if some traces of public cause could be seen from the averments initially taken, it is but clear that for subsequent developments, this petition has ceased to be that of public interest litigation; and we find no reason to consider issuing any writ, order or direction against the respondents in this petition.

However, in the interest of justice, it is considered appropriate and hence, observed that in case of any grievance remaining yet, or arising hereafter, the parties shall be free to take recouRs.to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

Subject to the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed.

No costs.

(V.K.MATHUR).J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI).c.p.goyal/-