IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8414 of 1999 KALYANPUR CEMENTS LTD. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Md. Faiz Ahma For the State : Mr. P.K. Verma, A.A.G.-11 For the Mines : Mr. V.M.K. Sinha, Advocate 20 01.09.2008 The petitioner-company manufactures Cement. For Cement Gypsum and Lime-stone are two minerals raw materials required. Petitioner had several mining leases for the aforesaid. These leases expired. These leases were to be renewed. In the mean time, the area within which mining leases were to be worked was notified as wild life reserve. The Chief Conservator of Forest Cum Chief Wild Life, Bihar, Patna was required to get a survey done as to the grant of permission for carrying out mining activity in the reserved forest area or not. After a detailed survey, he submitted his report to the State Government under Memo No. 496 dated 29-05-2004. By this report, which is Annexure-21, he recommended denotifying certain areas to permit mining activities. The said report, if any, appears if gathering dust at the State level. The reason as disclosed now by the State Government is the order of the Apex Court passed in the famous case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors. from time to time including order passed in I. A. Nos. 993, 836 and 895 being order dated 05.02.2005. In my view, the said order of the Apex Court has restrained the State of Bihar from permitting mining activity within National Park or Wild Life Sanctuary, except, without obtaining specific permission - 2 - from the Apex Court. Similar orders are there with regard to denotifying Wile Life Sanctuary without permission of the Apex Court. State now states that in view of those orders even though it has received recommendations for denotifying part of the Wild Life Sanctuary for mining purposes and recommendation for grant of mining lease, it cannot do so, in view of the orders aforesaid. Heard Sri Tara Kant Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri P.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General-11 and Sri V.M.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the Mining Department. In my view, the orders of the Apex Court are no absolute ban on the State Government. The orders are self-speaking. They clearly indicate that State Government can grant mining lease or alter wild life reserve area but the same can only be done after permission is granted by the Apex Court. The question is how still the Apex Court grants permission. The answer is, when State Government approaches the Apex Court. The reason is simple. First, there must be an inclination on the part of the State to grant the mining lease then with that inclination in mine would then be obliged to move the Apex Court and seek permission, in the matter. It is not for the petitioner to move the Apex Court. The obligation is squarely of the State. Thus, in my view, the writ petition can now be disposed of directing the State to approach the Apex Court, in the matter, aforesaid. If they are so inclined to grant mining lease for permission to do so either by denotifying part of the reserved area or by seeking permission to operate mine within the reserved area. If the State Government is so inclined to grant mining lease, it must - 3 - make such an application to Apex Court within one month from production of copy of this order before the Chief Secretary, Bihar, in case, State decides not to grant mining lease then within the said period of one month it would be disclosed reasons for the same and communicated to the petitioner for appropriate information and action. It must be noted that the matter has been pending for one pretext or the other for several years. The State would now conclude the matter at the earliest, as indicated above. With this observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)