Dismissed

Gram Panchayat Donar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Aug 2023WPPIL/31/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions styled as PILs challenging sand mining tender processes in Dhamtari district. The Court held the petitions were devoid of substance, as petitioners failed to demonstrate non-compliance with guidelines and lacked bona fide credentials to pursue the matter in public interest.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed as being devoid of substance.

Gram Panchayat Donar Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPPIL No. 30 of 2023

¶5

Giteshwari Sahu W/o Niranjan Sahu Aged About 30 Years Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Darri, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Sekhan Sahu S/o Punit Ram Sahu Aged About 53 Years UpSarpanch, Gram Panchayat Darri, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Niranjan Sahu S/o Radheshyam Sahu Aged About 37 Years Panch, Gram Panchayat Darri, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Dayaram Sahu S/o Late Jagat Ram Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Darri, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Kashi Ram Sahu S/o Kheduram Sahu Aged About 51 Years Former Up - Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Darri, Tahsil And District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

The Director, Geology And Mining Department, Indravati Bhavan, Block - 4, Second Floor, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, India.

¶15

The Collector, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

The Mining Officer, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶17

Amandeep Singh Chhabda, R/o Qtr. No. 39/5, Rest House Para, Sitapur, Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

---- Respondents

¶19

WPPIL No. 31 of 2023

¶20

Gram Panchayat Donar Through - Avendra Kumar Deshlahre, S/o Dwarika Prasad Deshlahre, Aged About 27 Years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Donar, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

¶21

¶22

Hemant Chandrakar S/o Shri Ram Gopal Chandrakar Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Donar, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (Chhattisarh)

¶23

Harish Chandrakar S/o Chhannu Lal Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Donar, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

¶24

Prem Narayan Chandrakar S/o Late Makhan Lal Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Donar Tahsil And District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

¶25

Tukesh Sahu S/o Late Parsuram Ji Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Donar, Tahsil And District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

¶26

---- Petitioners

¶27

Versus

¶28

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Mineral Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶29

The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶30

The Director Geology And Mining Department, Indravati Bhavan, Block - 4, Second Floor, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, India

¶31

The Collector District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

¶32

Mining Officer Dhamtari Distrcit Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

¶33

Shri Devkant Patel R/o 185/ B, Hanumant Rao Gali, Gandhi Nagar Ward No. 22, Jagdalpur, Bastar (Chhattisgarh)

¶34

---- Respondents

¶35

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶36

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------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.

¶37

Hon'ble Shri. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

¶38

Order on Board

¶39

¶40

Per N.K. Chandravanshi, J.

¶41

09.08.2023

¶42

1 . Since the facts & issues involved in both the cases are similar and identical, hence, they are heard analogously and decided by this common order.

¶43

2 . The present writ petition No. 30 of 2023 styled as Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

¶44

“”(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.

¶45

(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.)

¶46

(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.

¶47

3 . The present writ petition No. 31 of 2023 styled as Public Interest

¶48

¶49

Litigation has been filed by the petitioners with the following

¶50

prayers:-

¶51

“”(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.

¶52

(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.)

¶53

(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.

¶54

Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State/Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 4, Mr. Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 in WPPIL No. 31 of 2023.

¶55

Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are public spirited persons, who have been espousing

¶56

¶57

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

¶58

¶59

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

¶60

Per contra, Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4 relying on the return filed, submits that the present writ petitions, as framed & filed in the name & style of PIL filed by the strangers, who

¶61

1 AIR 2012 SC 1386

¶62

2 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10587 of 2019, decided on 11^th November, 2021.

¶63

¶64

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

¶65

¶66

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.

¶67

Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 has extended his support to the submissions made by counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5/State.

¶68

Having considered the rival submssions made by the parties, that the main ground raised by the petitioner with regard to noncompliance of the directions and guidelines of Enforcement and Monitoring issued by the Govt. of India, the same get negative from the reply filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the Rules of 2019 are in consonance with the guidelines of 2016 (Ann. P/4) and the requisite provisions have also been incorporated. The petitioner before this Court failed to demonstrate by the material on record as to in what manner the tender issued by the authorities, which is under challenge is

¶69

¶70

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.

¶71

The Court should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioners before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source

¶72

¶73

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.

¶74

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.

¶75

Sd/Sd/(N.K. Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶76

Dubey/-

Gram Panchayat Donar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Donar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Budharu Ram Dhiwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sharad Dewangan (Petitioner in Person) Vs Sachiv, Bharat Sarkar

Giteshwari Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The South Eastern Coalfield Limited Vs Smt. Sahodri Gond