CMP No. 11938 of 2010 in CWP No. 3127 of 2009 12.8.2011 Present: Mr. Dibender Ghosh, Advocate. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 to 7. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 8. We have heard Mr. Dibender Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent and Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General on behalf of the State. 2. Vide judgment dated 18.6.2010, this Court issued following directions:- “27. Consequently Respondent No. 8 – Society is directed to stop the further erection and construction of a stone crushing unit on Tukra No. 4. They are also directed to remove the plant and machinery and the construction raised on Tukra No. 4 within a period of three months from today failing which we direct the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu to take action for removing the same within a period of two months thereafter. All costs for the same shall be borne by the Society. 28. We also direct that except in accordance with law, no mining activity of any nature shall be carried out by any person on the land denoted as Tukra Nos. 1, 2 and 4 falling in village Phati Diyar Kothi Kot Kandi, Tehsil and Distt. Kullu. It shall be the personal responsibility of the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu (Respondent No. 4) as also the Divisional Forest Officer, Kullu (Respondent No. -2- 6) to ensure the same. We also direct the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu to take all measures and safeguards, including fencing of the area in question to ensure that no illegal mining activity is carried out in violation of the law. 29. How a Society carrying on activities of quarrying, mining and stone crushing could have been registered under the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006 is not clear. In any event the registration of the Society with such objects and purposes is purely contrary to and in violation of the provisions of the said Act. The Act was enacted to provide for registration and working of literary, scientific, educational, religious, charitable activities in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It was to apply to Societies formed for all or any of the purposes stipulated under Section 1 (3) of the Act. Definitely carrying on the business of mining and quarrying is not the object or the purpose enumerated in the said section. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies has the jurisdiction and power to enquire into the constitution and working of the Societies registered under the Act. In these circumstances the Registrar, Co-operative Societies is directed to investigate and to enquire into the affairs of the Society and take appropriate action in accordance with law. The Registrar shall place on record the action taken report within a period of six months from today. 30. On going through the entire record in this case, we are prima facie of the opinion that not only did the respondent – Society violate the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 but it also indulged in setting up of the stone crushing unit in a totally illegal manner. -3- It also appears that the Society was being helped by certain officials of the government. We therefore direct the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to ensure that appropriate proceedings are initiated against the respondent–Society and also against the officials who connived with the said Society.” [Emphasis supplied] 3. The Registrar Co-operative Societies has filed an affidavit of compliance dated 28.4.2011 annexing report of the inquiry conducted by him. Private respondent has filed objections to the same. During the course of hearing we were informed that authorities have now taken a final decision. Mr. Ajay Kumar learned counsel for private respondent submits that while the matter was pending consideration before this Court, no final decision could have been taken by the authorities. We do not agree. Authorities were duty bound to take action as per our directions, which undoubtedly have attained finality. Registration certificate issued in favour of the Society stands cancelled. As such without even touching the merits of the matter it is directed that it shall be open for the private respondent to take recourse to such remedies which undisputedly are available to them under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006. 4. However Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 4) has moved an application CMP No. 11938 of 2010 stating that:- -4- “7. That some part of the area of Tukda No. 4 of tatima dated 14.12.2006 overlaps with part of area of Tukda No. 6 of the tatima dated 14.05.2003 and some part of stone crusher unit which was erected in Tukda No. 4, has now been removed by the Respondent No. 8 for which fresh sketch and tatima duly signed by the revenue authorities showing different location of Tukda No. 4 and 6 and also the exact position of unit erected on the spot as per Annexure-R-4. 8. That as per the report of committee the major part of the structure of unit/Stone crusher falls in Tukda No. 6 and adjacent forest land. Although Tukda No. 6 has not also been approved by the site appraisal committee for the construction and installation stone crusher and as such the installation of stone crusher in Tukda No. 6 too is against the provision of law, but this structure could not be removed from Tukda No. 6 since the orders of this Hon’ble Court to remove the plant, machinery and construction raised were restricted to Tukda No. 4 only. 9. That the orders of Hon’ble High Court has been complied by the applicant Respondent No. 4, but no specific order was issued for the removal of the plant, machinery and construction raised was existing in Tukda No. 6 and adjacent forest land. Therefore, the applicant seeks further appropriate orders about the structures raised/existing on Tukda No. 6 as this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass in the circumstances of the case.” [Emphasis supplied] -5- 5. Original petitioners and private respondent No. 8 have filed response thereto. 6. On behalf of private respondent it is urged that permission to set up plant and machinery, as per tatima prepared in the year 2003, on Tukda No. 6, was granted to them by the Government of India on 23.11.2005. Permission for diversion of forest land under the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 were accorded and with respect to the very same land, permission to provisionally install the stone crusher was given by the State Geologist on 21.4.2007. However another tatima was prepared on 14.12.2006 which depicted the said land to be on Tukda No. 4 instead of Tukda No. 6. Further as per report of the Committee which has now visited the spot it was found that land of Tukda No. 4 and Tukda No. 6 overlapped each other. Also the Deputy Commissioner has placed on record the Joint Inspection Report (Annexure R-4) along with his application (CMP No. 11938 of 2010) highlighting this aspect. 7. We are rather shocked and surprised at the attitude adopted by the authorities and more particularly the Deputy Commissioner in this regard. It appears that they have neither fully examined the record nor appreciated the judgment passed by this Court. 8. This Court had observed that permission dated 23.11.2005 itself stipulated a condition that forest land was not -6- to be used till final permission was accorded by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India. In spite of the same, private respondent was permitted to install the machinery. Further when he resorted to unscientific mining, his lease was cancelled in the year 1997 itself. Private respondent filed Civil suit which stood dismissed by the Civil Court in terms of judgment and decree dated 21.9.2002 (Annexure P-11). Civil Court had clearly come to the conclusion that lease granted in favour of private respondent was rightly cancelled by the authorities. Further the Monitoring Committee, upon inspection of the spot, pursuant to the orders passed in CWP No. 1105 of 2007, had categorically held that private respondent had placed different maps before different authorities while seeking mining permission under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 9. Thus, to us it appears that private respondent, by either hoodwinking the authorities or manipulating the records is trying to some how ensure that the machinery illegally installed by him on Government Land is some how or the other not removed. 10. Whether machines were installed by the private respondent are on Tukda No. 6 or Tukda No. 4 would be immaterial for the reason that undisputedly, there is no permission entitling them to use government land for any purpose, including installation of the machines. Undisputedly land -7- is owned by the Government and no mining permission is in existence in favour of the private respondent. 11. In fact Deputy Commissioner has himself held that Tukda No. 6 was not approved by the site appraisal committee for the construction and installation of stone crusher and that installation of the same, even on Tukda No. 6 is against the provisions of law. Then where was the need to seek clarification from the Court. He was duty bound to effectively, diligently and efficiently discharge his statutory duties in removing illegal structures on government forest land. 12. As such, application is disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Commissioner and all concerned to ensure that the judgment dated 18.6.2010 is fully complied with in letter and spirit and the machines installed on Government land, depicted by whatever number, is immediately removed and all mining activity in the area, in terms of the judgment, is stopped. Needful be done within two months from today. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 12, 2011 (PK)