Disposed¶82

Pawan Singraul v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jun 2024WPC/58/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court; writ/PIL; sand mining; C.G. Gaun Khanij Sadharan Rait (Utkhanan Avam Vyavsay) Niyam 2019; Rules 3 and 6 ultra vires; NIT dated 19.08.2019; infructuous by efflux of time; liberty to approach concerned authorities; quarrying restrictions depth 6 metres distance roads railways; Rules of 2015; MMDR Act; WPPIL No.75/2019; WPPIL No.78/2019; WPC No.58/2020; Ramesh Sinha CJ; Sachin Singh Rajput J; 10.06.2024; NAFR; disposed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; petitions disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievance. ¶82

Pawan Singraul Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Mining and Natural Resources | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPPIL No.75 of 2019

¶5

Ajay Gopal S/o Late Shri Pune Ram Gopal Aged About 50 Years Present Counciller, Ward No. 14 Nagar Palika Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,

¶6

---Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Mines And Minerals Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶9

2. Director Of Mines Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶10

3. Ashish Mayank Pandey, Lessesee Of A-1, Gaurbath, Raipur A, Through District Mining Officer, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. Balbir Singh Ahuja, Lessesee Of A-2, Barbhantha, Raigarh A, Through District Mining Officer, Raigarh Chhattisgarh,

¶12

5. Abhinav Tiwari, Lessesee Of A-1, Khuteri, Rajnandgaon A, Through District Mining Officer, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh,

¶13

6. Ankit Gupta, Lessesee Of B-1, Masora, Kondagaon B, Through District Mining Officer, Kondagaon Chhattisgarh,

¶14

7. Bablu Kumar Joshi, Lessesee Of Mangla, Bilaspur E, Through District Mining Officer, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh),

¶15

---Respondents

¶16

AND

¶17

WPPIL No. 78 of 2019

¶18

Sunni Raj S/o Chandra Kumar Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Hirri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶19

---Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Khanij Sansadhan Vibhag, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶22

2. C.G. State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Through The Secretary, Parayavas Bhawan, Sector -19 Atal Nagar, District Raipur, CG.

¶23

¶24

3. District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Through The Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa, CG.

¶25

4. The Collector (Mining Branch), District Janjgir Champa, CG

¶26

5. Union of India Through The Secretary, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Ministry, Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi.

¶27

6. Shri Pitambar Agrawal S/o Shri Devdutt Agrawal, Station Road Champa, District JanjgIr – Champa.

¶28

7. Smt. Madhurima Pandey W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Pandey, Ward No. 7, Harijan Para, Kotmisonar, Tahsil – Akaltara, District Janjgir – Champa.

¶29

8. Shri Arjun Singh S/o Shri Deenanath Singh, Ward No. 12, Kumhargali, Talapara, Bilaspur.

¶30

9. Shri Abhishek Agrawal S/o Shri Ashok Agrawal, 1 /212 Shri Krishna Rice Mill, Mungeli Road, Ward No. 1, Bilaspur.

¶31

10. Shri Dilaram Kashyap S/o Shri Tiharu Ram Kashyap, Ward No. 14, Margati, Tah. Malkharoda, District Janjgir – Champa.

¶32

11. Shri Shrikant Chandra S/o Shri Chirounjilal Chandra, Shivshankar Ward No. 10, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir – Champa.

¶33

12. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Radheshyam Agrawal, H.No. 18, Gandhi Chowk, Naila, District Janjgir Champa.

¶34

13. Shri Babulal Jaiwal S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Jaiswal, Sothi, District Janjgir Champa.

¶35

14. Shri Bisahu Ram Chandra S/o Shri Battulal Chandra, 364 Mahaveer Chowk Tadapara, Kashigarh, District Janjgir-Champa.

¶36

15. Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Chandra S/o Shri Bekhram Chandra, Ward No. 11, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir – Champa.

¶37

16. Shri Prakash Singhania S/o Shri Ganesh Singhania, Ward No. 16, Main Road, Netaji Chowk, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa.

¶38

---- Respondents

¶39

AND

¶40

WPC No. 58 of 2020

¶41

Pawan Singraul S/o T.R. Singraoul Aged About 33 Years R/o Daihanpara, Old Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mines And Minerals, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶46

2. District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Through The Collector, Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶47

3. Collector (Mining) Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶48

4. C.G. State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority Through The Secretary, Parayavas Bhawan, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶49

5. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Environment, Forest And Climate Change Ministry, Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi.

¶50

---- Respondents

¶51

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶52

For Petitioner (WPPIL No.75/2019)	:None
For Petitioner (WPPIL No.78/2019)	:Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate
For Petitioner (WPC No.58/2020)	:Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate
For State	:Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. AG.
For Union of India	:Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, CGC
For resp. No.8 (WPPIL No.78/2019)	:Mr. Sourabh Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr.R.K.Agrawal, Advocate
For Resp. No.9 (WPPIL No.78/2019)	: Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate

¶53

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput,Judge Order on Board

¶54

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶55

10.06.2024

¶56

¶57

1. The present petitions have been filed challenging the C.G. Gaun Khanij Sadharan Rait (Utkhanan Avam Vyavsay), Niyam 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2019’) particularly Rules 3 and 6 to be declared ultra vires and also the NIT issued in compliance of the impugned ‘Rules of 2019’ may be set aside/quashed. The ‘Rules of 2019’ are in contravention of recommendations made by respondent No.5 (WPPIL No.78/2019) which have been duly approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such the ‘The Rules of 2019’ are in contravention of law of land. Since the NIT has been issued in contravention of dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as contrary to the terms of ‘Rules of 2019’ thus the subject NIT is also bad in law.

¶58

2. The reliefs claimed in WPPIL No.75 of 2019 are as follows:

¶59

10.1) That, the Rules 3 and Rule 6 of the Chhattisgarh Minor Minerals ordinary Sand (Mining and Trade) Rules 2019 may be declares as illegal and may be quashed.

¶60

10.2) That, the subsequent NIT’s issued in compliance of impugned rules of 2019 may be set aside/quashed.

¶61

10.3) That, any other relied which this Hon’ble Court may deep fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶62

3. The reliefs claimed in WPPIL No.78 of 2019 are as follows:

¶63

10.1) To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶64

¶65

10.2) To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the ‘Rules of 2019’ is not in conformity with the law of land and quash the same.

¶66

10.3) To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the subject NIT dated 19.08.2019 as not being inconformity with the ‘Rules of 2015’, ‘Rules of 2019 and MMDR Act.

¶67

10.4) Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.

¶68

4. The reliefs claimed in WPC No. 58 of 2020 are as follows:-

¶69

10.1) To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶70

10.2) To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the ‘Rules of 2019’ is not in conformity with the law of land and quash the same and be declared ultravires.

¶71

10.3) To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the impugned NIT being ultra vires and in contravention of ‘Rules of 2015’, and also the ‘Rules of 2019’.

¶72

10.4) Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.

¶73

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondents have failed to consider that ‘Rules of 2019’ have been framed without complying the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus liable to be struck down. They also

¶74

¶75

contended that the respondents have failed to consider the ‘Rules of 2015’ as well as ‘Rules of 2019’ prescribes the restrictions to be imposed while quarrying the sand. One of the such restriction is the depth which should not be more than 6 meters and the distance has also been prescribed and in the impugned NIT no such restriction has been imposed. It is further contended that the respondents have failed to consider that in the NIT, no such restrictions regarding distance from the roads, railways has been prescribed nor the depth of excavation have been prescribed therefore, same is ultra vires to the ‘Rules of 2015’ and also the ‘Rules of 2019’.

¶76

6. Learned counsels for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioners have not approached the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievance.

¶77

7. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that so far as WPPIL No.75 of 2019 and WPPIL No.78 of 2019 are concerned, the petitioners have never participated in any of the contracts/tenders and the petitioners have filed these present writ petitions.

¶78

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶79

9. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and facts and circumstances of the cases. So far as facts of these cases are concerned, though the petitioners have also challenged the ‘Rules of 2019’ but petitioners have not approached the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievance. So far as

¶80

¶81

challenge to the NIT is concerned, the same has become infructuous by efflux of time. Hence, the present writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievance.

¶82

10. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.

¶83

Sd/Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶84

Prakash

Pawan Singraul v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Singraul v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Municipal Corporation Durg Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Mukesh Kumar Gupta Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Nehru Ojha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Goand Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajat Tiwari Vs Union Of India

Ram Bishal Upadhyay Vs Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Election Commission