The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed two public interest litigations challenging sand quarry tender notices. The court held the petitions were devoid of substance, failed to demonstrate violation of guidelines, and were likely filed for ulterior motives, thus lacking merit.
Petitions dismissed for lack of substance and merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPPIL No. 30 of 2023
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
WPPIL No. 31 of 2023
2
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Adv. For State/Res. Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Addl. Advocate General. For Res. No.2 in WPPIL No. 31 of 2023 : Mr. Rajat Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Order on Board
3
Per N.K. Chandravanshi, J.
09.08.2023
“”(A) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the complete tender process for the Proposed Sand Quarry of village Darri Area 16 hectares, Khasra No. 759 at village Darri , Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Annexure P-1 Colly.), direct the Respondents; they follow all the directions and guidelines of the Enforcement and monitoring guidelines for sand mining of the Government of India in the interest of justice.
(B) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the Respondents, they take proposals from the Gram Panchayat Darri (as mentioned in the impugned tender notice) and give opportunities of the hearing of the Petitioners & Villagers of Darri, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.)
(c) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioners.
4
Litigation has been filed by the petitioners with the following
prayers:-
“”(A) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the complete tender process for the Proposed Sand Quarry of village Donar Area 4.95 hectares, Khasra No. 2774 at Village Donar, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.) ( Annexure P/1 Colly) , direct the Respondents; they follow all the directions and guidelines of the Enforcement and monitoring guidelines for sand mining of the Government of India in the interest of justice.
(B) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the Respondents, they take proposals from the Gram Panchayat Donar (as mentioned in the impugned tender notice) and give opportunities of the hearing of the Petitioners & villagers of Donar, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.)
(C) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances may also be provided to the petitioners.
5
the cause of the general public. In these petitions, the petitioners seeks to challenge the collective illegal action of Respondents, by which the impugned Tender (No. 1668/Mineral/Tender/Sand/2022, Dhamtari dated 20.10.2022 & impugned Tender (No. 1667/Mineral/Tender/Sand/2022, Dhamtari dated 20.10.2022, respectively have been invited for Sand Quarry of Village Darri, Area 16 hectares, Khasra No. 759 situated at Village Darri, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, and Village Donar, Area 4.95 hectares, Khasra No. 2774 at Village Donar, Area 4.95 hectares , Khasra No. 2774 at Village Donar, Tahsil & District Dhamtari, respectively and letter of intent has been issued in favour of respondent No. 6 illegally in both the cases, which is in violation of verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court & Karnataka High Court, prevailing laws-rules, Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining of the Govt. of India. It is further contended that in tender notice, it was wrongly mentioned that proposal of concerned Gram Panchayat has been received, but concerned Gram Panchayat has never sent such proposal. It is further submitted that as per Rule 4 of the Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2019 (henceforth “Rule, 2019”), the quarry lease for quarrying of ordinary sand shall be extended for period of two years but the period of two years shall be reckoned from the date of registration of the quarry Lease Deed, which is also against the Enforcement & Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining. It has also
6
been contended that before issuing Tender Notice, the respondents authorities did not provide detailed information on its website or any other public platform about the transport routes and other essential information. The respondents authorities also did not consult with the different stakeholders and the general public, and did not follow the mandatory direction of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. It is submitted that petitioners & other villagers came to know about illegal Tender Notice, then they submitted a detailed representation before respondent No. 4, but the said respondent No. 4 is not decided the aforesaid objection/representation and the tender process is illegally completed. It is lastly submitted that by inviting impugned tender for opening of new Sand Quarry is hazardous to health of villagers and the accident will be increased many times in absence of proper routs for transportation of sand. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of Deepak Kumar V. State of Haryana and others1 & Bajri Lease LOI Holders Welfare Society through its President v. The State of Rajasthan & others 2
7
has not participated in tender process, is not maintainable. It is submitted that petitioners did not raise any specific ground for quashment of the entire tender process, apart from citing various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the guidelines issued by the Central Government. It is further submitted that the permission of Gram Panchayat for the tender to be floated in village Darri & Donar is not required, as only in Scheduled Area, prior approval of the Gram Sabha is required for declaration of ordinary sand mining area in view of the provisions contained in sub-Rule 5 of Rule 3 of Chhattisgarh Minor Mineral Ordinary Sand (Quarrying and Trade) Rules, 2019. However, for the present case, permission of concerned Gram Panchayat was already granted. It is submitted that this tender, which has been called for the Sand Quarry, is already declared as a Sand Quarry and identified prior to coming of Rule, 2019. It is also submitted that though the petitioner has challenged the issuance of letter of intent to respondent No. 6, but as of now the respondent No. 6 has not been declared as successful bidder, as he has not submitted the required environment clearance till date. It is further submitted that sand mining in respect of present case is governed by the Rules of 2019 framed by State Government under the authority of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Hence, if the petitioner has any grievance, then without challenging the Rules, 2019, he cannot raise any grievance dehors the Rules & guidelines
8
issued by the Central Government, as the Rules, 2019 has been framed not only going through aforesaid Act as well as judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Deepak Kumar (Supra). It is next contended that present PIL has been filed by the petitioners with their ulterior motive to derail the entire tender procedure, as in the earlier occasion, the Gram Panchayat used to operate the sand mines, however, after coming into force the Rules, 2019 the sand mines were being provided through auction and, therefore, the present public interest litigation has been filed not in the public interest but in the personal interest for delaying the process of tender and, therefore, the present petition being frivolous deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
9
contrary to the said guidelines. It is the specific case of the respondents that entire procedure has been complied in accordance with the Rules, 2019, which has been framed in light of Act, 2016 as well judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Deepak Kumar (supra), and which has further been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Bajri Lease Lol Hoders Welfare Society (Supra). The petitioner could not have putforth any substantive fact to negate aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the respondents. On the contrary, neither the Rules, 2019 are under challenge nor the petitioner have raised any such grievance and in absence of the same, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted with. So far contention raised by the petitioner regarding non-consultation with the concerned Gram Panchayat is concerned, from the pleadings of the parties and the Rules, it is evident there is no such requirement under the provision of law as envisaged under the Rules, 2019.
10
of misuse of private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests. Except for stating that the petitioner is a public spirited person, nothing further has been stated about the credentials of the petitioners. The petition itself appears to be vague and sketchy, hence, no relief as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners can be granted.
10. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions, being devoid of substance, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/Sd/(N.K. Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Dubey/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions challenging the sand mining tender process are maintainable given the lack of specific grounds and petitioner credentials.
Whether the tender process violated the Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining of the Government of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Deepak Kumar V. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶58
Deepak Kumar V. State of Haryana and others 1
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10587 of 2019Referred¶58
Bajri Lease LOI Holders Welfare Society through its President v. The State of Rajasthan & others 2
Giteshwari Sahu and others
State Of Chhattisgarh
Amandeep Singh Chhabda
Gram Panchayat Donar
Shri Devkant Patel
Ramesh Sinha
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
