H‘Gli GQUET OE JQPLQAJURE S‘HHAUl§GARE §LL£§E.E BLE SHRI SR. NAYAK, CJ SINGLE BENCH -. .HON’ WELLPEIWLON N9-§l§...n9uEw1.§§. R PETITJONEnW Rajesh Dhody S/o Late PR. Dhody Aged abcut 43 years, Proprietor: MIS Vaibhav Minerals ‘ 4, Durg MaNiya (MR) Nagar ‘ ‘ r vgRsgs State of MP. Through Mineral Resources :- Secretary, Department Govt. of MP. Mantrataya Valtabh Bhawan Bhopal (MR) 2. The Collector (Mining Branch) Collectorate Durg (MP) _ 3. Steel Authority of lndia Limited Through ;- Managing Director Bhilai Steel Plant ‘ lspat Bhawan Bhilai Nagar, Tah. & Distt. Durg (MP) 4. The General Manager (Ore and Mines) Bhilai Steel Plant . Steel Authority of lndia Limited, lspat Bhawan , Bhilai Nagar, Tah. & Distt. Durg (M.P.) The Assistant Commandant Central industrial Security Force Nandini Mines, Bhilai Steel Plant, Nandini Township Tahsil —— Dhamdha Distt. Durg (MR) gasaonoswms 1. arned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Mr. V.G. Vinay Tamaskar, Harit, learned le G.A.; for respondents 1 and 2. Present: ORAL ORDER (Passed on“1 ewTJanlfary 2006) l Rf ‘ By way of a I'ease agreement dated 07/1 2/1 997 the subject Iand has been leased to the petitioner for quarrying minor minerai. This writ petition is fiied complaining that since the respondents authorities have not removed the encroachments on the government iand abutting the leased out mining area within 200 metres as statutorily fixed (after tiling the writ petition, the length has been increased to 300 metres) has filed this writ petition seeking intervention of the Court and for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to remove all the encroachments within the 300 metres of the boundaries of the leased out mining area Within a time- frame. (2)' Respondents 1 and 2 opposing the writ petition have filed return. Although the return filed by respondents 1 and 2 is quite lengthy, f ' / the fact alleged by the petitioner that there has been encroachment within 300 metres of the boundaries of leased out mining area is not seriously denied. Even in the course of hearing, the correctness of the above allegation made by the petitioner is not seriously contested by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. (3) The Central Government in exercise of the power conferred under Section 57 of the Mines Act, 1952 has framed the regulations called “Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 (for short “the Regulations). The a proviso to sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 164 of the Regulations reads as under: “Provided that in an open cast working, the blaster shall give sufficient warning, by an emcient system of signals or by other means approved by the manager, over the entire ’ Wmw ‘ area of the danger zone that is to say, unless otherWIse permitted m wntmg by the Chief Inspector and subject to such conditions as he may specify therein an area of ground famng wrthm a radius of 300 metres from the place of frmg " (4) The grievance of the petitioner is that since the encroachers are in occupation of the land Within a radius of 300 metres adjommg leased out mining area he is not in a posrtion to carry on quarrying operation because of the imminent danger to the persons or the properties of the encroachers Since it is the property of the government With regard to which the relief is sought, it is fair and just that the State and State authorities which are bound by Article 14 postulates should act in a fair way to enable the petitioner contracting party to quarry the minor mineral in terms of the agreement. lt would be totally unfair for the respondents authorities to oppose the prayer solely on the ground that even on the date of the agreement, the petitioner was aware of the encroachments as stated by the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 it is not to state that the petitioner admits the faot that he was aware of the encroachments as on the date of lease agreement assummg that there were encroachments of the space of 300 meter width even before the agreement was entered into between the parties, that circumstance itself should not come in the way of the State authorities to clear encroachments and allow the contracting party to exploit minerals. The State actionvshould not be alloWed to frustrate the solemn contract. Reasonableness should percolate into the State action in every domain of Even its activities. (5) ln that view of the matter, l allow the writ petition. A direction shall issue to the respondents 1 and 2 to remove all, the _H_ encroachments within the radius of 300 metres within a period of one\ month fro‘m the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties shail bear their respective costs in this writ petition. ‘ /‘. {Ji'ix