Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '109721',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '109721',
		(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '109721',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '109721',
	(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109721/ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '109721',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '109721',
		(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '109721',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '109721',
	(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109721/ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '109721',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '109721',
		(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '109721',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '109721',
	(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109721/ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-',
	(int) 1 => '<p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '109721',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '109721',
		(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '109721',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '109721',
	(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109721/ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-',
	(int) 1 => '<p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '109721',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '109721',
		(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '109721',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '109721',
	(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109721/ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-',
	(int) 1 => '<p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '109721',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '109721',
		(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '109721',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '109721',
	(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109721/ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-',
	(int) 1 => '<p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '109721',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '109721',
		(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '109721',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '109721',
	(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109721/ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-',
	(int) 1 => '<p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '109721',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '109721',
		(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '109721',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '109721',
	(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109721/ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-',
	(int) 1 => '<p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '109721',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '109721',
		(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '109721',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '109721',
	(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109721/ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-',
	(int) 1 => '<p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '109721',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'casenote' => null,
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Jharkhand',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '109721',
		(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and ors - Citation 109721 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '109721',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Ms Shah Brothers Through One of Its Partner Sri Raj Kumar Shah Vs. The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Jharkhand',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2017-03-23',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-</p><p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.</p><p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.</p><p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.</p><p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.</p><p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.</p><p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '109721',
	(int) 1 => 'ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/109721/ms-shah-brothers-one-partner-sri-raj-kumar-vs-secretary-environment'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5856 of 2016 --- M/s Shah Brothers, Chaibasa … …Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi 3. The State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa. … ....Respondents --- CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishanu Ray, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.A.G. For the UOI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI ----- 06/23.03.2017: Order dated 27th October 2016, which contains the grievances of the petitioner as originally raised herein, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation :- “Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that issue involved in the instant matter is similar to that raised in W. P.(C) No. 5695 of 2016 on behalf of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. also on board today wherein an interim order has been passed on 29.09.2016 by this Court. Petitioner herein also have laid challenge to the circular dated 01.04.2015 particularly para-3(v) (a) & (b), Annexure-2 issued by the respondent-Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Forest Conservation Division), Government of India. They have also challenged the letter dated 14.12.2015, Annexure-3 and letter dated 16.09.2016, Annexure-4 issued by the respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa as being ultra vires, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and other provisions of Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 233.99 Hectares of lease hold area, forest clearance has been accorded for an area of 24.856 Hectares on 19.05.2005, vide Annexure-1. For this portion of lease hold area, petitioner has already deposited NPV. For the remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area, proposal for diversion was made on 14.09.2013 which, however, is still pending for Stage-I clearance. Therefore, respondent-Divisional Forest Officer, Saranda Forest Division, Chaibasa cannot insist on payment of NPV for the entire forest area when even Stage-I clearance for remaining area of 165.365 Hectares of lease hold area has not been granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receipt of the first notice directing payment of NPV, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 3.00 Crore under protest without prejudice to its right with the Department of Forest, Government of Jharkhand. Petitioner reserves its right to recover the sum paid towards NPV upon being successful in the instant matter. It is, however, submitted that the entire amount of NPV has not been -2- deposited. Petitioner, therefore, apprehends coercive steps would be taken pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016, Annexure- 3 and 4 respectively. Learned ASGI Shri Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and learned SC (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 both pray for time to seek instructions and file counter affidavit in the matter. Learned ASGI submits that instructions in the W. P. (C) No.5695 of 2016 are likely to be received within a period of two weeks whereafter counter affidavit would be filed in the said case. The same letter dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(Forest Conservation Division), Government of India is under challenge in the said writ petition also. Accordingly, as prayed for three weeks' time is allowed. List this case accordingly after three weeks on 24.11.2016 along with W. P. (C) No. 5695 of 2016. In the mean time, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned letters dated 14.12.2015 and 16.09.2016 vide Annexure- 3 and 4.” Respondent-State has filed counter affidavit in the matter thereafter defending the impugned decision. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that on the legal issues raised herein, respondent- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India has taken a considered stand as reflected in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.5695/2016 in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The Union of India & Ors. They adopt the same stand so far as the present matter is concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter filed a supplementary affidavit on 20th March, 2017 and taken the following stand:-',
	(int) 1 => '<p>“5. That I say that the petitioner had proposed diversion of the remaining virgin area within its lease hold area vide its application dated 14.9.2013. Pending disposal of the proposal the petitioner has kept the said area of 165.365 ha. untouched/undisturbed.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>6. That I say that by virtue of Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(6) of the MMDR Act, 1957 as amended by the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 (“MMDR Act”), the lease of the petitioner stands extended for 50 years from the date of grant.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>7. That I say that keeping in view the prevailing situation, the petitioner had proposed surrender of a part of its leasehold area comprising of virgin forest land to the extent of 69.721 Ha. And a request for accepting the surrender has been made to the DFO, Saranda vide its letter dated 17.2.2017. -3- A photocopy of the letter dated 17.2.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as Annexure-2 to this supplementary affidavit.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>8. That I say that since the petitioner has to get its final Mine Closure Plan (“FMCP”) approved in terms of Rule 21(2) of the Mineral (other than Atomic and Hydro Carbon Energy Minerals) Concession Rules, 2016 (“MC Rules, 2016”), the petitioner has approached its RQP for preparation of the FMCP vide its letter dated 2.2.2017 and the same shall be submitted for approval before the Indian Bureau of Mines (“IBM”). It may be stated herein that preparation of the FMCP is at the verge conclusion and the petitioner shall submit the same before IBM as soon as the same is handed over to it by the RQP. The RQP has issued a letter dated 28.02.2017 intimating that it is in process of preparation of FMCP. Photocopies of the letters dated 02.02.2017 and 28.02.2017 are annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-3 and 3/1 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>9. That I say that as soon as the FMCP is approved by the IBM, the petitioner shall submit an application before the DMO, Chaibasa for surrender of a part of its lease area along with Map and approved FMCP. In fact, in the mean time, the petitioner has already formally communicated the DMO, Chaibasa its intention to surrender an area of 69.721 Ha. of virgin forest land vide its letter dated 14.03.2017. A photocopy of the letter dated 14.03.2017 is annexed hereunto and marked as annexure-4 to this Supplementary Affidavit.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>10. That I say that in view of the fact that the petitioner intends to work on the remaining forest area within it's mining lease for which proposal for diversion has already been submitted and the fact that the MoEF & CC, vide its circular dated 30.11.2016 has accorded approval under section 2 (iii) of the Forest Conservation Act, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the NPV for the area which has been proposed to be retained by it by the time line prescribed under the said circular. In fact, the petitioner in it's letter dated 17.02.2017 has requested the DFO, Saranda to calculate and intimate the petitioner the NPV for the remaining area of 98.146 Ha.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 8
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. That I say that the petitioner undertakes to deposit NPV for the area of 98.146 Ha of remaining virgin forest land on or before the last date prescribed by the MoEF & CC after the DFO, Saranda raised the revised demand for NPV in light of the application dated 17.02.2017 submitted before it by the petitioner and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the proposed course being adopted by the petitioner to seek and surrender the portion of the leasehold land to the extent of 69.721 Hectares and -4- also to pay NPV for the remaining virgin forest area of 98.146 Hectares of the leasehold land, petitioner does not intend to press the challenge made in the writ petition. Learned A.A.G. Mr. Ajit Kumar has, however, endeavoured to point out that surrender of portion of the leasehold land requires permission as per the procedure established in law which petitioner will have to comply. A decision has to be taken by the competent authority. He, however, submits that if the petitioner does not intend to press this writ petition on account of the latest stand taken on their behalf, he does not have any reason to oppose it. In view of the stand of the petitioner as reflected in the supplementary affidavit quoted herein above, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Shamim/