Raja Bhaiya Patel vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, The Collector and Shri Ravi Shanker Naik

A.K. Shrivastava, J.—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) To set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2013 (Annexure P12) issued by the respondent No. 2;

(ii) To direct the respondent No. 2 to permit the respondent No. 3 to operate the sand quarry for 14,500 hectare in Kh. No. 561, Village Parai, Tehsil Gaurihar, District Chhatarpur, only after obtaining prior environmental clearance;

(iii) Grant any other relief that this Honourable Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in pursuance to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 21897/2011 (Ravi Shanker Naik v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another) decided on 23.11.2012 allowing the petitioner (respondent No. 3 herein) to carry out mining excavation for the period for which he could carry out mining excavation on account of some interim order passed in some other petition but he is operating the mining operation without obtaining NOC from the Environment Authority, which is not permissible under the law. It would be relevant to quote that portion of the order passed in the aforesaid petition, which reads thus;-

For these reasons, we quash the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Collector, Chhatarpur. We also direct that the petitioner shall be allowed to operate the sand quarry for a full period of two years subject to adjustment for the period for which he has already operated. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall remain liable to pay royalty and make other payments to the State Government in accordance with the terms of the quarry lease.

The State Government has permitted the respondent No. 3 to carry out the mining excavation for the period he could not work. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that vide notification dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure-P/13) the clearance is required from State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 but no such clearance has been obtained by the respondent No. 3 from the said department.

However, Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition for the simple reason that he was not party in W.P. No. 21897/2011 filed by respondent No. 3 which has been allowed on 23.11.2012 and therefore this petition be dismissed.

According to me, the present petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition because neither he was a party in the earlier petition nor the quarry lease for which the respondent No. 3 has been allowed to carry out the work is of petitioner. However, according to me, the State Government is misconstruing the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 23.11.2012. Nowhere in this order it has been so mentioned that environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 is not required in pursuance to the notification dated 14.09.2006 (Annexure-P/13) issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. According to me, respondent no. 3 shall be able to carry out mining excavation for the period he could not work in terms of order passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No. 21897/2011 (Annexure-P/11) but only after obtaining environmental clearance. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.