The Allahabad High Court has restrained the state from executing new mining leases for minor minerals or renewing old ones, besides staying operation of two government orders (GOs) through which e-tendering process was adopted to allot mining leases in the state. The restraining order and the stay would continue till the state government complies with 2012 order of the Supreme Court in this connection. The court’s order came in connection with a petition seeking quashing of the two GOs – passed on June 9 and July 8 – on the ground that they were passed without the state government complying with Supreme Court directions, passed in February 2012, regarding implementation of guidelines crucial to protection of environment in the places where mining of minor minerals are carried out. The said order was passed by a division bench of Justices Krishna Murari and Ashwani Kumar Mishra on September 16, while hearing the petition of Munni Lal, a resident of Banda district, filed through his counsel M D Singh Shekhar. The court had listed the matter for further hearing on September 18 (Thursday), after the Chief Standing Counsel (CSC) submitted that Advocate General could not be present before it to argue the case. “Today, when the matter was taken up again, we sought further time from the court. The matter may come up before another bench after the Dussehra vacations,” said CSC Ramesh Upadhyaya. In its September 16 order, the court said: “Advocate General is not available…the matter be deferred for day after tomorrow i.e. 18th September…the court has been sympathetic towards the repeated request made by the state government for adjournment in the matter but the larger and wider implication of environment which concerns the citizens of the state and the country cannot be ignored.” The court agreed with the contention of the petitioners that the state government had not complied with the February 27, 2012, order of the Supreme Court passed in Deepak Kumar versus State of Haryana. The said order asked all the states to incorporate the rules pertaining to protection of environment, while allowing mining of minor minerals, within six months. Shekhar said: “Our argument was that more than two-and-a-half years have passed. Two other High Court orders also mandated the state to comply by the said directions. Instead of doing that, however, the state government has gone ahead with initiating e-tendering auction for the mining leases. To show that it was concerned about the issue, the state carried two amendments in the rules for allowing leases. But these were just for the sake of it, because it handed over the entire matter in the hands of the person to whom the lease was allotted.” The High Court, while maintaining that the questions raised in the petition were in public interest, had already rejected the amendments as of no use towards protecting environment. Peeved at the manner in which the state was avoiding progress in the petition, the bench said: “This court is at a loss to understand as to how an important aspect of environment to be considered by the State Government for the purpose of amending the Rules has not been carried out by the State Government. The model guidelines, which have been issued by the Central Government and were required to be meticulously examined and implemented in the Rules are exhaustive…” Some of the norms, as recommended by the Central government, for the purposes of allowing mining of minor minerals are: minimum size for a mining lease to be five hectares; minimum lease period be of five years; cluster development to create a composite mining area; having a mining plan; rehabilitation and reclamation plan and processes for the mining areas should be in place; not allowing mining below three metre of depth of water in river beds. The minor minerals include: sand (when not used for major manufacturing purposes), shingle, murrum (red earth), boulders, kankar (pebbles), silica sand, lime stone and even loose earth (when used for filling up large pits).
