Dismissed

Anand Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jul 2021WPPIL/43/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a sand mine lease and directions for reinstatement of a river bed and bridge. The court held no illegality in the lease procedure but noted the Sarpanch's representation was not a valid Gram Panchayat resolution.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition disposed of. Petitioner directed to file fresh representation before the Collector for grievances regarding illegal mining or bridge damage.

Anand Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Environment and Pollution | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

WPPIL No. 43 of 2021

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

WPPIL No. 43 of 2021

¶6

Anand Thakur S/o Shri Ayodha Thakur Aged 33 Years R/o Village Panchwal, Tehsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Mineral Resource Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, Second Floor, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh India

¶10

The Collector Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶11

Shri Hitesh Singh Thakur S/o Shri Narendra Singh Thakur R/o Ward No. 55, Bandhawapara Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶12

Tehsildar Tehsil Ramanujganj District Balrampur-Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶13

Station House In-Charge P. S. Sanawal, District BalrampurRamanujganj Chhattisgarh

¶14

The Chief Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Vikram Sharma, Dy. GA

¶17

Proceedings through Video Conferencing

¶18

DB.: Hon'ble Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. C.J & Hon'ble Mrs. Rajani Dubey, J.

¶19

¶20

WPPIL No. 43 of 2021

¶21

Order on Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. C.J.

¶22

9/7/2021

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashment of the order dated 3.1.2020, by which, lease of the subject sand mine has been allowed in favour of respondent No.3 with further prayer to direct respondents 2 & 3 to reinstate the said river bed of Gram Panchayat Pachavaal, District Balrampur as also to reconstruct the collapsed bridge and pay adequate compensation to the Gram Panchayat.

¶25

It is argued that due to illegal mining in the subject sand mining area, four people have died and further that the concerned Gram Panchayat has submitted representation before the Collector for stopping illegal sand mining, however, no action has been taken by the Collector.

¶26

Admittedly, lease granted to respondent No.3 vide Annexure P/6 dated 3.1.2020 by the Collector (Mining Branch), Balrampur is governed under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2019. Thus, the lease has been allowed after following the prescribed procedure and no fault is found with the said procedure adopted by the respondent-Collector.

¶27

In so far as the illegal mining and damage to the bridge or any other structure in the Panchayat area is concerned, the petitioner or the concerned Gram Panchayat would be at liberty

¶28

¶29

WPPIL No. 43 of 2021

¶30

to raise the matter by filing representation before the Collector.

¶31

The papers available before the Court does not contain any resolution of the Gram Panchayat objecting to grant of lease to respondent No.3.

¶32

The representation by the Sarpanch is not a representation of the Gram Panchayat. For doing any ofÏcial activity of behalf of the Gram Panchayat, there has to be a resolution of the Gram Panchayat, otherwise, it will be an act solely carried out by the Sarpanch and not by the Gram Panchayat.

¶33

In view of the above, we have not found any illegality in grant of lease. However, if any other grievance lies e.g. illegal sand mining, the petitioner may move afresh before the concerned Collector, who shall decide the representation in accordance with law.

¶34

The petition stands disposed of.

¶35

Sd/- Sd/-

¶36

( Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Rajani Dubey) Acting Chief Justice Judge

¶37

Shyna

Anand Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Kankrane Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kashish @ Manisha Jotwani Vs Sushil Jotwani

Smt. Sheelakali Banjare Vs Shankar Prasad Banjare

Pawan Patel, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajnish Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaishankar Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh