Gujarat HC imposes Rs 7 lakh on litigant against Ghadi detergent maker for keeping case pending for 7 years

As per a 2015 amendment in Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) [MMDR] Act, even private land containing minerals cannot be subjected to allotment and should be auctioned, according to Jadeja.

By: Express News Service

Ahmedabad | Updated: January 31, 2024 03:12 AM IST

4 min read

The Gujarat government, while questioning the credentials of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner "was involved in mining activities", and that the areas in question were not demarcated or identified as mineral rich, and that the state had sought a host of opinions from various district and relevant officials on the allotment, prior to passing the order of allotment. (Representational Image)

The Gujarat High Court Tuesday decided to impose a cost of Rs seven lakh on a litigant for allegedly keeping a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against allocation of land in Devbhoomi Dwarka district to Rohit Surfactants Private Limited (RSPL) — the makers of the Ghadi brand of detergent for setting up a soda ash plant — pending for seven years. The court also dismissed the petition.

The petitioner Dharmendrasinh Rajendrasinh Jadeja, who is an agriculturist, had moved a PIL in August 2017 — two years after allotment of a mine area in favour of RSPL, alleging that as per the government policy mineral rich areas could not be subjected to disposal or allotment in favour of anybody without taking NOC from the concerned department, which is the commissioner of geology and mines. Jadeja argued that minerals worth “Rs 20,000 crore on the land have been wasted” on account of the allotment. The Gujarat government, while questioning the credentials of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner “was involved in mining activities”, and that the areas in question were not demarcated or identified as mineral rich, and that the state had sought a host of opinions from various district and relevant officials on the allotment, prior to passing the order of allotment.

The petitioner had sought the court’s directions to conduct an inquiry against the company. Notably, RSPL had submitted its application in 2012 with a public hearing for grant of environment clearance conducted in 2014.

The PIL was taken up for hearing Tuesday by the bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee. Addressing the petitioner’s counsel, CJ Agarwal remarked, “What were you doing for nine years? In nine years, the industry has been set up, the situation on the spot has completely changed…who is responsible for keeping it pending? Now after nine years, can we put the clock back, can we put the situation on the spot back, can we restore the original position of the land? After nine years, it is now academic. When you’re filing a PIL you’ve some kind of responsibility and accountability. It is not that you file a PIL and then you start dealing with the PIL. If you succeed, then withdraw it and if you don’t succeed, then you pursue it. Don’t make it as a tool for your personal issues.”

Meanwhile, RSPL alluded that the petitioner was a motivated party, adding that at the time of the filing of the PIL, the company’s investment into the plant was Rs 1,965 crore.

CJ Agarwal Tuesday remarked to the petitioner’s counsel that the petition was not argued on a “single date” and was adjourned throughout over the past seven years. “So we are imposing a cost on dismissal of the PIL. Rs 10 lakhs. You deserve this. For each year, Rs 1 lakh. For nine years you’ve kept this matter pending, seven years in this court. When you are utilising the machinery of the court, you’re not only utilising the judicial time of the court, you are utilising the energy of the staff of the court who are otherwise placed for other important and urgent matters. So, Rs 10 lakh cost and dismissed,” CJ Agarwal declared in open court.

Story continues below this ad

Following requests by the petitioner’s counsel to withdraw the PIL, CJ Agarwal refused the same while revising the penalty amount. “Then Rs 7 lakh for seven years, Rs 1 lakh per year. You’ve utilised the machinery of the GP office of HC, so you’ve to pay the cost. And this is a PIL,” CJ Agarwal said.

Notably, amid complaints by farmers in Devbhoomi Dwarka that the soda ash manufacturing plant of RSPL has been causing pollution, the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) had, earlier this month, issued a closure notice to the company, warning of a shutdown of the plant if it fails to take corrective measures within 30 days. The unit can produce up to 40,300 metric tonnes of soda ash in a month, used widely in manufacturing glass, detergents and cosmetics.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Tags:

Gujarat HC