Disposed

Shambhu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 May 2022CW/3963/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL concerning illegal mining and blasting at a specific location in District Jalore alleged to affect resident safety, the High Court directed the District Collector to constitute a multi-departmental committee for a spot inspection and enquiry without extraneous influence, ensuring lease holders are heard before submitting a report.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to constitute a committee comprising Mining, Revenue and Police officials for a spot inspection and inquiry into illegal mining allegations, ensuring lease holders

Shambhu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Environment and Pollution | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 3963/2022

¶3

Shambhu Singh S/o Jiv Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Bhadarda, Leadermer, Bhinmal, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Director (Administration), Department Of Mines And Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Shastri Circle, Udaipur.

¶7

The Mining Engineer, Jalore, Manpura Colony, Jalore

¶8

The District Collector, Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶9

The Superintendent Of Police, Jalore, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : ---

¶12

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶13

Order

¶14

13/05/2022

¶15

Through this public interest litigation, the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that illegal mining is being carried on in Khasras No.430 and 952, which includes Gair Mumkin Pahad at Thordi, Village Bhadrda, Gram Panchayat Khanpur, Tehsil Jaswantpura, District Jalore. In the petition, it has been stated that since long complaints are being made against illegal mining in the Gair Mumkin Pahad area. Grievance is also being sought to be ventilated, as stated in the petition, that the mining includes blasting also. According to the petitioner, this is adversely affecting the safety of the residents of the area. It is also alleged that as the mining operators are influential

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CW-3963/2022]

¶18

personalities, despite repeated representations made and even when other mining officials have reported regarding illegal mining going on, no concrete steps are being taken by the authorities.

¶19

Taking into consideration the nature of pleadings, which have been made, which relate to not only illegal mining but also use of various blasting mechanism and that the complaints are being made since 2006, we consider it appropriate to direct the District Collector, Jalore to constitute a Committee comprising of higher officials in the Mining Department as well as Revenue Department, which shall include the Mining Engineer, an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer and a senior Police official, to hold enquiry into the complaints. The enquiry shall be caused to be made on the basis of the existing area permissible under the lease, as also the nature of allegations, which have been levelled. The Committee shall carry out a detailed spot inspection and record statements and submit a report before the District Collector, Jalore within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the District Collector. On the basis of the report, the District Collector, Jalore shall issue necessary directions for taking appropriate action. A copy of the report of the Committee shall also be sent to the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology.

¶20

Taking into consideration that the lease holders are alleged to be influential personalities, it is made clear that the Committee, constituted, as directed above, shall hold enquiry without being influenced by any extraneous consideration and strictly on the basis of material collected during the course of enquiry, appropriate action would be proposed and brought to its logical conclusion.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CW-3963/2022]

¶23

In this petition, as the concerned lease holders have not been impleaded as parties, we observe that in the said enquiry, as directed by this Court, the lease holders, against whom allegations are levelled, shall be afforded opportunity of hearing before finalizing the report.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition is disposed off at this stage with liberty to revive, in case eventuality so arises.

¶25

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶26

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ

¶27

1-MohitTak/-

Shambhu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhairu Lal Balai Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohit Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaleem Avval Vs Rajasthan High Court

Prakash Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Mahendra Kumar Meena

Parikshit Bharti Vs State of Rajasthan