IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP. No. 3137 of 2010. Date of Decision:27.9.2010. _______________________________________________ Vijay Kumar. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and another. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the petitioner : Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents. : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming that the period for which he was kept out of mining work which was allotted to him by a virtue of lease executed by him with the State in accordance with law, be allowed to worked by him as a part of the lease agreement period. It is undisputed before me that the petitioner was granted a mining lease in Mohal Tikari Ghumarnu, Mouja Lambagaon, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. by the State on 10.8.2005 when land measuring 203 kanals was leased out to him for a period of five years. The petitioner submits that he Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment. Yes. 2 raised loans etc. to make the project workable but he found himself at the wrong end of litigation which was frivolous and attempts to stop his work were even motivated. For this purpose, the petitioner is relying upon the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 42 of 2010 titled Vijay Kumar Vs. State of H. P. and others decided on 9th April, 2010 where the petitioner had challenged the order of the State Geologist passed on 24.12.2009 suspending permission to him to work on the mine. The writ petition reproduces in detail the successive number of petitions/litigation to which he has been subjected to, where one order after another was passed in succession suspending the mining activity. The judgment chronicles in detail the plight of the petitioner. While concluding the court holds: “Bare perusal of this order shows that this court had clearly held that the petitioner would be allowed to carry out the mining activities subject to the fulfillment of the conditions contained in the mining lease. If there had been violation of the H.P.Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 then the suspension order should not have been revoked. After revoking the suspension order on 22.12.2009 the same officer within 48 hours passed another order again suspending the mining lease of the petitioner that too on the grounds which had come into existence more than nine months earlier. If for nine months the department could sleep over the matter heavens would not have fallen if notice of a week or ten days had been given to the petitioner to explain his position. It would also be pertinent to mention that the State Geologist who passed these two orders himself wrote a letter dated 26.10.2009 directing that a joint inspection report be submitted to his office after re-inspection of the site by the S.D.M., Jaisinghpur, Geologist and the Mining Officer of the 3 area concerned. This inspection committee submitted its inspection report on 30.10.2009 and the inspection report is Annexure RA-3. In this inspection report there is no reference to any illegal mining. The only dispute referred therein is with regard to the demarcation of the boundary which dispute was existing between the villagers and the petitioner. The Committee decided to re-demarcate the area and to videograph the demarcation at the expense of both the parties. Therefore, it is obvious that even when this Committee inspected the spot it did not notice any illegal mining or pits as mentioned in the earlier letters. The State Geologist has ignored this report while passing the impugned order. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24.12.2009 is totally illegal, actuated by malafides and is therefore quashed. The petitioner is accordingly disposed of”. 2. It is undisputed that this order has attained finality and that it has not been challenged by the State. It would not take any imagination to read this order to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner has been subjected to harassment and some of the orders are actuated by mala fides more especially the order dated 24.12.2009. 3. The petitioner also relies upon letter dated 13.10. 2010 which has been obtained by him under the Right to Information Act in which, the State has treated the period of suspension of mining activities for no fault on the part of the lessees as part of the extension package granted to them for the same lease. Four cases, namely, Sh. Jalam Singh Fauji, District Sirmour, Sh. O.P. Mehta, Prop. M/s Mehta Stone Crusher District Shimla, Sh. C.L.Gupta, District Shimla and Sh. Neeeraj Nayyar, District Chamba, have been granted this benefit. Petitioner submits that since his case cannot be 4 treated any differently from these four lessees. The letter reads: “No. Udygo-Bhu(Khani-4) Laghu-212/2010-4957 Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Industries, Geological Wing. Dated: Shimla-171001, the 13-8-2010. To The Public Information Officer Directorate of Industries (Geological Wing) Shimla-171001. Subject: Regarding supply of information under RTI Act, 2005. Sir, Kindly refer to your U.O. letter No. Ind-Dev.F.(RIA) 2005/1-dated 19.7.2010 on the subject cited above and to enclose detail of information demanded by Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Sher Singh V.P.O. Tiara Tehsil & Distt. Kangra vide his application dated 17.7.2010 for further submission of quarter concerned which is as under: Sl. No. Information applied for List enclosed Page Nos. 1. Information regarding Sub Division Nalagarh(Solan) and Sirmour Distt. Kangra District where permissions were granted after expiry of the lease period during pendancy of the renewal mentioning name of the lease holders/Applicants and periods of such permission (Minor Mineral quarries) There are 22 mining leases in Sub Division Nalagarh (Solan), Sirmour and Kangra Districts to whom permission was granted after expiry of lease period during pendancy of renewal case. After June 2009 no permission has been issued to any one. List attached at Annexure-1 1 2. Name of mining lease holders where periods of suspension were compensated by extending further period to adjust the suspension period or where work remained closed beyond the control of lease holders and such periods were compensated by extending original lease periods in last ten years in the Although there is no provision for excluding the suspended period if any, under the provision of H.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules-1971 but in 4 cases (List attached at Annexure- II) Govt. has granted additional time in lieu of suspended period as the 2. 5 State of H.P. period of lease was suspended due to implementation of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. In these cases there was no fault on the part of said lease holders. Annexure:I……………………………………………. Annexure:II Sl.No. Name of Applicants 1. Sh.Jalam Singh Fauji, Distt. Sirmour. 2. Sh.O.P.Mehta Prop.M/s Mehta Stone Crusher District Shimla. 3. Sh.C.L.Gupta, District Shimla 4. Sh.Neeraj Nayyar, District Chamba. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the period of lease once having expired, it would not be open to the petitioner to allege that this be extended either by an administrative order or by the order of this Court. He submits that it was for the fault of the petitioner that he was dragged into litigation as he did not comply with the Rules and Regulations and it was for the State to have been ensured strict compliance with law especially keeping in view the requirements of ecology. 5. I am not persuaded to accept this submission more especially in view of the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench which actually holds that the orders suspending the mining activity on the land of the petitioner and the last order of the State Geologist was actuated by mala fides. I have been unable to find anything on the record 6 to establish that it was the petitioner who was at fault. There is also no material on the record to establish as to why the case of the petitioner cannot be considered in terms of the relaxation granted to the four persons whose names have been noticed hereinabove. 6. In these circumstances, I direct that the case of the petitioner will be considered and he will be entitled to the same benefits as granted by the State to four of the lessees whose names have been mentioned hereinabove in letter dated 13.8.2010.The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 27, 2010(R)