Mohd. Sajid vs Union Of India And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, in larger public interest, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to

constitute a high powered committee to conduct a detailed inquiry into the illegal mining operations being carried on by respondents 9 to 12; a writ of

mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to cancel the permission issued by the third respondent to the 10th respondent on 20.05.2020 as, in the guise

of the said order, illegal mining was being carried on in the Ban Ganga river; a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 and 6 to stop illegal

mining by respondents 10 to 12 or any other person in the Ban Ganga river in the garb of the alleged permission dated 20.05.2020; and a writ of

mandamus commanding and directing respondent nos. 4, 5 and 8 to take necessary steps to seize the machinery being illegally used for mining work

by respondent nos. 10 to 12, and in plying the dumper, trucks and tractor-trolley in the village roads resulting in several accidents being caused.

When the matter came up before us on 19.06.2010, Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State Government, had

stated that, on a joint inspection being conducted, it was found that illegal mining operations were caused earlier in the river-bed of Baan Ganga river;

and no mining operations were being carried, as on date, in the river-bed of Baan Ganga river.

We had noted that, while the private respondents had claimed that the river was closed and was completely dry, the question which necessitated

examination was whether any sort of mining operations could be carried on, that too with the use of heavy machinery, in the river-bed of Baan Ganga

river; and whether such mining activity falls foul of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana : (2012) 4 SCC

However, at the request of Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, ten days’ time was granted to the State to file their counter-

affidavit.

In the counter-affidavit now filed on behalf of the second-respondent, it is stated that the District Magistrate had submitted a report on 15.06.2020

informing that no permission was granted to respondent nos. 11 and 12 by order dated 25.05.2020; however, respondent no. 10 was granted

permission by the District Magistrate, Haridwar on 23.05.2020 for the purpose of establishing a fishing pond; as per the report of the District

Magistrate, the 10th respondent had carried out illegal mining activity outside the area sanctioned for his fish-pond and, therefore, a show-cause notice

was issued to him on 19.06.2020; and the District Magistrate, Haridwar had passed an order on 25.06.2020 imposing on him a penalty of Rs.

67,52,500/-.

While contending that the penalty, imposed on the 10th respondent, is extremely meagre and that several crores worth minerals were illegally mined

in Baan Ganga river, Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, since the District Magistrate, Haridwar is taking

necessary action, and the respondents now state that no illegal mining activities are being carried on in Baan Ganga river, the petitioner does not seek

any further adjudication in this writ petition, and it would suffice if the petitioner is granted liberty to avail his judicial remedies, in case illegal mining is

resorted to in Baan Ganga river in future.

As the Government has itself initiated action against the illegal mining being carried out in Baan Ganga river, and has imposed penalty on the 10th

respondent, judicial intervention may not be necessary at this stage.

Suffice it to grant the petitioner liberty to avail his judicial remedies, in case illegal mining activities are undertaken in Baan Ganga river in future.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.