Ramesh Lal & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

In this Writ Petition, filed in public interest, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash the allotment letter dated 11.07.2018 issued in favour of the eleventh respondent by the first respondent; and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents-authorities not to allow the eleventh respondent to collect river bed material from river Kosi, pursuant to the letter dated 11.07.2018.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the Uttarakhand Forest Corporation was accord permission by the Central Government to extract 14.47 lakhs cubit meters of river-bed material. The Corporation, in turn, granted licenses to individual applicants permitting them to extract river bed material. However extraction of river bed material, within the limits of the reserve forest, was prohibited. The 11th respondent was also granted permission to extract river bed material beyond the limits of the reserve forest and, in terms of the permission accorded to them, the 11th respondent was required to transport the river bed material through a route, passing through several villages, all of them located outside the boundaries of the reserve forest. Contending that villagers had objected to the transportation of such material through their villages, and were insisting that the river bed material should be procured by the 11th respondents from stone crushers located within the limits of their villages, the 11th respondent requested the State Government to grant them permission to transport the river bed material through the reserve forest; and, on such permission being granted, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

Mr. S.R.S. Gill, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, while permission to extract river bed material was no doubt given to the 11th respondent in an area beyond the limits of the reserve forest, the said river bed material is not being weighed before it passes through the reserve forest; it is only weighed after its exit from the reserve forest; and since the river bed material, being carried by the vehicle, is not weighed before it enters the reserve forest, there is no check on the 11th respondent's extracting river bed material from within the limits of the reserve forest itself, and transporting the same outside the reserve forest, even though extraction of river bed material, within the limits of the reserve forest, is prohibited.

A Division Bench of this Court had, in its order dated 05.03.2019, opined that, prima facie, the action of the State Government, in conferring a special benefit to the 11th respondent to transport the procured river bed material through the reserve forest, appeared arbitrary since it could well defeat the object of preventing illegal mining within the limits of the reserve forest; and, since the 11th respondent can also transport river bed material from outside the reserve forest, the respondents were directed not to permit the 11th respondent to transport river bed material, procured by them from the Forest Development Corporation, from within the limits of the reserve forest.

In its counter-affidavit, the State Government has stated that, in compliance with the aforesaid direction of this Court, the gate has been closed; and, consequently, the 11th respondent is no longer transporting river bed material from within the limits of the reserve forest.

Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, would submit that stringent conditions had been imposed on the 11th respondent to transport river bed material through the reserve forest. It is not in dispute that the 11th respondent has alone been favoured for transportation of river bed material through the reserve forest, and permission has not been accorded to anyone else, with a view to prevent illegal mining of river bed material from within the limits of the reserve forest.

As noted hereinabove, the vehicles of the 11th respondents are not weighed before they enter the reserve forest, and their weighment is done at the weighbridge located beyond the exit point of the reserve forest. Consequently, there is no system in place to ensure that the 11th respondent does not resort to illegal mining of river bed material from within the limits of the reserve forest. It is only if the vehicles, carrying river bed material, are weighed both before it enters, and after its exit from, the reserve forest, can it then be ensured that the 11th respondent has not resorted to illegal mining of river bed material from within the limits of a reserve forest.

With a view to prevent pollution being caused as a result of transportation of river bed material through the reserve forest, and to prevent illegal mining of river bed material from within the limits of reserve forest, the earlier order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 05.03.2019, to safeguard the reserve forest from further degradation and prevent illegal mining within its limits, is made absolute.

While admitting that the 11th respondent can transport river bed material through a different route, Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the 11 th respondent, would submit that the villagers in the vicinity are objecting to the transportation of such material through their villages, and the stone crushers in that area are insisting that the 11th respondent purchase river bed material only from them. Since the 11th respondent is transporting river bed material, pursuant to the permission accorded to them to extract river bed material, their interest can be, adequately, safeguarded if they are permitted to request the State Government to provide them protection against interference by people residing in the villages through which the 11th respondent transports river bed material to the construction site. We have no reason to doubt that, on such an application for police protection being made, the State Government would give such a request its serious consideration; and, thereafter, take action in accordance with the law.

The 11th respondent's apprehension regarding interference by the villagers would not, by itself and without anything more, justify their being singled out for favoured treatment, and to be alone granted permission to transport, the extracted river bed material, through the limits of the reserve forest.

The earlier order passed by the Division Bench dated 05.03.2019, preventing the 11th respondent from transporting extracted river bed material through the reserve forest, is made absolute.

The Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the 11th respondent to make an application to the State Government for necessary police protection. We have no reason to doubt that, on such an application for police protection being made, the State Government would give such a request its serious consideration and, thereafter, take action in accordance with the law. No costs.