IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.240 of 2007. Date of decision: 19.3.2010 ________________________________________________________ Dharam Singh Chauhan ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting ? For the petitioner: Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.R.M.Bisht, Dy.A.G. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) The grievance of the petitioner is that he applied for grant of mining lease in respect of land measuring 481.6 bighas in village Banor and for 22.12 bighas in village Shilla, as far back as in the year 1995 and he has been running from pillar to post but no effective decision has been taken in the matter. 2 The petitioner originally applied for grant of mining leases for these two areas in May, 1995. In June, 1995 the petitioner was informed that his applications could not be considered in view of the ban imposed vide notification dated 8.12.1986 issued under the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The petitioner filed an appeal urging that since Rule 58 of the said Rules, empowering the State Government to issue such a notification stands repealed, the notification itself ceased to exist. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on 19.9.1997 and thereafter, the petitioner filed statutory appeal to the Central Government under Section 30 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 and Rule 55 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. This appeal was also rejected vide detailed order dated 16.9.1998. It was held that the previous notification continues to operate. This decision of the Central Government was never challenged by the petitioner and has attained finality. The Central Government however, directed the State Government to pass a speaking order on the application of the petitioner. Thereafter, the State Government 3 passed an order on 19.3.1999 whereby the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh was directed to reconsider the applications of the petitioner. The Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh passed an order on 30.7.1999. No specific order rejecting or accepting the plea of the petitioner was passed but the petitioner was directed to fulfil certain formalities and get the demarcation of the land. In the communication dated 30.7.1999 it was also pointed out that the land in question is forest land and, therefore, the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 are applicable and the said land cannot be used for non-forestry purposes without prior approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Despite holding so, the applicant was directed to get his land demarcated. The process of demarcation took almost six years and finally the demarcation was completed vide report dated 21st June, 2006 in respect of 22.12 bighas of land. However, there is no demarcation order in respect of 481.6 bighas of land on the file. Thereafter, on 31st October, 2006 the Director of Industries rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that 4 mining is prohibited in the area, in view of the notification dated 8.12.1986. The petitioner is right in contending that the State should not have asked him to get his land demarcated in case permission was not to be granted. However, the mere demarcation of the land will not entitle the petitioner to get a mining lease. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has taken up a new plea that despite notification dated 8.12.1986 mining leases have been granted to other persons. The petitioner has not made any attempt to amend the present writ petition and has not challenged the grant of mining leases to such persons. Merely because the mining leases may have been granted to certain persons in violation of the law, will not itself entitle another person to claim such a mining lease. The petitioner should have challenged the grant of mining leases to other persons which he has chosen not to do. Therefore, we cannot grant any relief to the petitioner except that, in case the notification dated 5.12.1986 is repealed then the case of the petitioner may be considered for grant of mining 5 lease on priority basis. It is however, made clear that this will be subject to his obtaining prior permission under the Forest Conservation Act. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge March 19, 2010 ( Sanjay Karol ) (m) Judge