Cancel the quarry leases of Granite & Crushers
Maxine K. signed
just now
Adam B. signed
just now
To
The Director of Mines and
Geology,
Respected Sir,
Sub:- A request to cancel the quarry leases of Granite
& Crushers etc., in
***
I
am the Convener of the Bhoomi Rakshana Sangam and also I am the Asst.,
Professor, Department of Sociology,
2. The
representation is filed questioning the action of the Environment and Forest
Department, Department of Mining & Geology, Department of Minor Irrigation
and Department of Revenue in granting quarry lease for colour granite and
Crushers infavour the Imperial Granites
(P) Ltd., and others 629 Quarry Lease Holders in Karimnagar District,
particulars of which are filed here with as Annexure-I in violation of the Environmental
Clearance Regulation 2006, Forest (Conservation) Act 1982 and its Amendment
Rules 2004 and Bio-Diversity Act 2002 and the Environment Protection Act 1986
the villages under which jurisdiction the Deemed Forest (Forest is construed as
a Forest within the meaning of Dictionary as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in a Plethora of Judgments including T.N. Godavarman Judgment dated 12-12-1996). The Forest Department is according to us least
bothered to implement various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the
pretext (Deemed or Likely Forest) that the land is earmarked as Government land
(Revenue Land) notwithstanding the fact that much Forest is grown in the
Government Land from the Times immemorial where Hillocks, Tanks, Water sheds, Streams
and Wild Life depending on this natural wealth, the details of the Wild Life and
Water Tanks, how they are destroyed due to the quarry operations have been
filed here with as Annexure-II, Annexure-III, Annexure-IV, Annexure-V and
Annexure-VI which are obtained and the particulars of the District Water
Management Agency which has expended Corers of Rupees for the purpose of Water
Harvesting and Contoor Bunds, Feeder Channels and Hillock Associated Tanks and Bunts,
in which indiscriminate quarry leases were granted details of which are
attached to Annexure-VII. Further
the Governments from the remote past had been granting rights to the weaker
sections to gather minor Forest Produces, fishing rights to the Fisher
community and other allied activities, thus, all these weaker sections
co-existing with nature for generations together are deprived their rights. The details of which are elaborately narrated
here under:
3. It
is submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued a G.O.Ms.No. 1461
Dated 24-10-1975 and such innumerable G.Os enabling the vegetable growers Co-Operative
Societies to eke-out their existence by gathering Minor Forest Produces in the
surrounding forests either Reserved Forest, Protected Forest or Now Deemed
Forest within the meaning of amended rules of Forest Conservation Act, as such
our villagers have registered a society under name and style of Mudiraju Fruits
and Vegetable Growers Sales Co-Operative Society Ltd., under which societie’s the
area of operation, villages come into.
Ever since the registration of the said societies, the members of the
societies had been (Vegetable Growers and gathers of Minor Forest Produces
belonging to our villages) surviving on the proceeds of it. It is submitted in all the villages shown in
the Annexures filed here with. Granite are found available to an extent of the
area shown in the Annexure in all the villages in the forest hillocks, it
appears the aforesaid Government
Departments have been granting leases for quarry lease holders in all the villages,
pursuant to the applications made by the quarry lease holders shown in the
Annexure-I. The department of Mining and
Geology granting quarry lease for colour granite without following above
mentioned laws. The applicants for
quarry leases are obtained quarry leases without revealing the existence of the
Forest, Wild Life, Hillocks and Water Tanks / Water Sheds / Feeder Channels,
the Department of Mining and Geology is issuing licenses just on the basis of
the no objection certificates issued by the Respective Tahsildars who in
collusion with the applicants for quarry leases are blindly giving no
objection, taking advantage of the land being earmarked as Government land
oblivious of whether Forest is grown within the meaning of National Forest
Policy of 1988 and Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgments w.e.f. 12-12-1996, the
Department of Forest has no audacity to earmark the Forest Grown land in
Government Land as Deemed Forest or
likely Forest within the meaning of National Forest Policy and the same
Departments have generally failed to insist upon the applicants for quarry
lease to obtain the Forest clearance under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act 1982 applications for grant of quarry lease have
totally suppressed the fact that there is a Deemed Forest. The applicants for quarry leases submit their
applications for grant of quarry lease in piece-meal in order to ensure that
the statutory ceiling under Rule 7 of Granite Conservation and Development Rule
1999 are not made applicable and the Rules of procedure as envisaged under
Environmental Clearance Regulation 2006 and other laws supra stated are not
being attracted, this is nothing but a malafide intention. It is submitted that granting of leases in
piece-meal is nothing but escaping the vigor of Regulations 7 of Granite
Conservation and Development Rules 1999 by fragmenting the entire area of
granite mines as the above said Rule does not permit grant of Mining Lease less
than one hector and more than fifty hectors.
That apart, the respondents in order to by violating the laws and Acts
in
4. I
submit that the that it is an admitted fact there are hillocks consisting of
granite in all the villages approximately 600 villages in which quarry lease
granted, apart from there is a Deemed Forest, Scheduled Wild Life as
denominated in the Wild Life Protection Act such as bears, Wild Bores, Peacocks
and other wild life animals, lakes and ponds known as shown in the Annexures,
in which in water scarcity period cater the needs of flora and fauna in around
the hillock and Deemed Forest, which in turn would maintain an ecological
balance, thus any quarry operations would adversely affect the Wild Animals,
human beings in the villages, cattle and flora and fauna. It is submitted that any activities which are
detrimental to maintain the ecological balance is held to be violative Article
21, 48 A and 51 A (g) of Constitution of India by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Intellectual Forum, Tirupathi vs. State of A.P. (2006) 3 SCC 549 r/w
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Thiwari vs. Kamala Devi
(2001) 6 SCC 496 at Para 13 which reads as under.
“
13. It is important to notice that the material resources of the community like
forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, mountain etc. are nature’s bounty. They maintain delicate ecological
balance. They need to be protected for a
proper and healthy environment which enables people to enjoy a quality life
which is the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Government, including
the Revenue Authorities i.e., Respondents 11 to 13, having noticed that a pond
is falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same
which would, on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other
provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against
knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.”
5. It
is submitted that despite the quarry license obtained quarry lease long ago,
the they are now have started quarry operations. The dust and noise emanated from the said
operations is polluting the entire water, standing crops and cattle will also
cause health hazards in violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in
Abayya Pujari Case. The vibrations
created due to dynamites used by the quarry leasers resulting in the Wild Life
running in panic and coming to the habitations of the villages effecting
peaceful life of the villagers. It is
submitted the grant of quarry lease without following the due process of law as
above mentioned is illegal and violative of Rules under Forest (Conservation) Act 1980
Rules laid down there under (Forest Conservation) Rules 2003, Environment
Impact Assessment Notification dated 27-01-1994 under Environment Protection
Act 1986 r/w Environment Clearance Regulation 2006, Wild Life Protection Act
1972, besides being above, there is utter violation of Articles 21, 48 (A) and
51 (A), (g) of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in (1997) 2 SCC 267, Para 5,6,7,8 and 9 at Page No’s 271 and 272
(1997) 3 SCC 312, (1997) 3 SCC 715, (2000) 6 SCC 213, (2001) 6 SCC 496 at Para
13, (2006) 3 SCC 54 at Para’s 76, 77, 82, 86, 88, 89, 91 and 94, (2009) 3 SCC
571 at Para 65 Page 619 and (2009) 17 SCC 63 in asmuch as there are tank’s
which had been irrigating the lands of villagers, providing drinking water to
the villager’s by raising ground water table, catering drinking needs to Wild
Life such as Bears, Wild Bores, Peacocks and Cattle and there is Deemed Forest
in which villagers were conferred rights to gather minor Forest produce the
grievances which led us to file the present representation.
6. It is humbly submitted that villages with
proportionate good Forest consisting of Wild Animals like Bears, Wild Bores,
Peacock, and Leaf Monkey’s where are scheduled Wild Life for protection and
improvement of wild animals these need not be any sanctuary which is identified
the Wild (Protection) Act 1972. Especially
in the Forest there are tanks which have been existing for the times
immemorial, these Tanks have been catering multifarious needs of the villagers
providing irrigation facilities for agriculture, raising the ground water table
in the surrounding wells and bore wells from which water is drawn for the
drinking purpose and agriculture as well, and these had been catering needs of
the Wild Animals as well as cattle. The
existing of these Tanks in all the villages also serving other important
purposes that these tanks would prevent the Wild Animals from coming to villages
for the purpose of water, if the tanks are dried up and shriveled, the duty of
the Government to protect the Wild Animal is oblivious thus the Supreme Court
in Sansar Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 694 directed Central and
State Government and Agencies to make all efforts to preserve India’s Wild Life
and take stringent action against those violating provisions of Wild Life
Protection Act. Hear is the case where the
Wild Animals come to villages and attack inhabitants of the villages, such
incidents are innumerable resulting in injuries to the people and rarely
deaths, that apart, Monkey’s during the summer period, when the water is not
available in the tanks they come to the villages for the purpose of water and stay
at villages, indulge in jumping over the house to house which are roofed with
tiles, in the course of which tiles are damaged causing un-explicable financial
loss to the inhabitants of the villages, thus causing social unrest due to
non-maintenance of ecological balance and communal property which is meant for
common use for the inter-generations from the times immemorial and to the
posterity to come, not for being sold, even for fair cash equivalent, these
forest and tanks for villagers also serve other purpose as a saving bank for
urban people, whenever the poor villagers suffers from want of food they go to
jungle and gather Fruits as per the seasons, fish from tanks for eking out
their existence, with these available facilities villages had been surviving
peacefully without any unrest. Now
vicissitude of the villagers began with the entry of Multi National Companies
gloating over the communal property of the villagers of Forest hillocks and
tanks by obtaining the quarry leases, as if, they are entitled and licensed to
take away scant communal wealth of the poor villagers.
I-Tanks/
Ponds / Water Sheds
7. It is humbly submitted that Water Tanks
get the water through streams (feeder channel) in the Catchment Areas of the
Tanks, which is surrounded with hillocks.
Where the quarry leases granted and operation of which now started due
to the quarrying in the Hillocks the feeder channels would get completely
dislocated and disappeared resulting in making these Tanks without water
permanently, thereby, the people in approximately 200 villages would permanently be deprived of the water and
water resources which is the gift of nature, let the Government not provide any
civil amenities but not to destroy the community property with which people in
villages had been co-existing from the antediluvian days, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in Rural Litigation and entitlement Kendra Vs State of UP 1986
Supp SCC 517 held as under.
“The
consequence of this order made by us would be that the lessee of limestone quarries
would be thrown out of business. This
would undoubtedly cause hardship to them, but
it is price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of
the people to live in a healthy environment with minimal disturbance of
ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them, to their cattle, homes
and agriculture and undue affection of air water and environment.”
Further in MC Mehatha (Badkhal and
Surajkupra lakes matter (1997) 3 SCC 715 and
“The “precautionary principles” has
been accepted as a part of the law of the land Articles, 21, 47, 48 (A) and 51
(A) (g) of the Constitution of India give a clear mandate to the state to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and Wild Life
of the Country. It is the duty of every
citizen of
8. It is humbly submitted that it is not
only the Fundamental Rights of the inhabitants of villages under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, but also instrument of instruction in Director
Principle of State Policy in Article 47 and 48 (A) of the Constitution of
India, apart from Article 39 (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India which
mandates the state. That the operation
of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means
of production to the common detriment and (b) That the ownership and control of
the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve
the common good, union Government moots before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at
Para (8) of the Golak Nat Judgment AIR 1987 SC 1643, 1652, if the directives as
contained in Article 38 and 39 not implemented, the Constitution itself might
be destroyed in revolution ‘alas’, but evil starred upon us. Further, it is also duty of every citizen
under Article 51 (A) (g) to protect and improve the natural environment
including Forests, Lakes, Rivers and Wild Life and to have compassion for
leaving creature, interpreting above Articles the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Hinchlal Thiwari Vs Kamala Devi (2001) 6 SCC 496 at Para 13 holds as under.
“It is
important to notice that the material resources of the community like Forests, tanks, ponds, hillock, Mountain etc., are
nature’s bounty, they maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be protected for a proper and
healthy environment which enables people to enjoy quality life which is the
essence of the right guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The Government including the
Revenue Authorities i.e., respondent 11 to 13 having noticed that pond is
falling in disuse, should have bestowed their attention to develop the same
which would on one hand, have prevented ecological disaster and on the other
provided better environment for the benefit of the public at large, such right
is the best protection against knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi
sites”.
9. It is submitted that though the above
mentioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hinchlal Tiwari’s case
(2001) 6 SCC 496 has not referred to in another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Intellectuals Forum, Thirupathi Vs State of A.P. (2006) 3 SCC 549, the
ratio decidendi which is law finally declared by the Supreme Court shall be
binding on all courts within the territory of India, it is not mere obiter
dicta, in the said judgment, the law as declared has been reiterated holding as under at Para’s below mentioned.
Penultimate
(1) The
property subject to the trust must not only be used for the public purpose, but
it must be held available for use by the general public.
(2) The
property may not be sold, even for fair cash equivalent.
(3) The
property must be maintained for particular types of use (i) either traditional
uses (ii) some uses particular to that form of resources.
Article
48-A of the Constitution mandates that the state shall Endeavour to protect and
improve the Environment to Safeguard the
The
judicial wing of the country, more particularly the court, has laid down a
plethora of decision asserting the need for Environmental Protection and
Conservation of Natural Resources. The Environmental Protection and
Conservation of Natural Resources has been given a statutes of Fundamental
Right and brought under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This apart, the Directive Principles of State
Policy as also the Fundamental duties enshrined in part IV and part IV-A of the
Constitution respectively also stress the need to protect and improve the
natural environment including the Forests, Lakes, rivers and Wild Life and to
have compassion for leaving creatures.
Further
It
is true that the tank is a communal property and the state authorities are
trustees to hold and manage such properties for the benefits of the community
another things cannot be allowed to commit any act or omission which will
infringe the right of the community and alienate the property to any other
person or body.
So go
on and so forth the ratio is much stressed, holding at para 94.
However,
the decision of this cannot be based solely upon the investment committed by
any party. Since, otherwise, it would
seem that once any party makes certain investment in a project, it would be a
fait accomplie but this court will not have option but to deem it illegal.
10. Further, in other judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd., Vs. Minguel Martins (2009)
3 SCC 571 at Para 65 page 619.
Para 65: We
reiterate that natural resources including Forests, water bodies, rivers,
seashores etc., held by the State as a trustee on behalf of the people and
especially the future generation. These
constitute common properties and people are entitled to uninterrupted use
thereof. The state cannot transfer
public trust properties to a private party.
If such a transfer interfere with the right of the public and the court
can invoke the public trust doctrine and take affirmative action for protecting
the right of people to have access to light, air and water and also for protecting
rivers, sea, tanks, trees, forests and associated natural ecosystems.
11. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court by order dated 12-12-2010 in Divya Darhana Vs Goma Ram and others
(2009) 17 SCC 630, the facts of the case on hand bear exact resemblance of the
case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding:
“Except
the allegation made in the petition, no detailed reasons are given in the
impugned judgment, when the matter came up before this Court by order dated 14th
August 2006, this court had directed that the site be inspected by the
C.E.C. The C.E.C. has filed a report on
02-02-2007, several reasons have been given by the C.E.C. and it opined that
the mining activity in the area is likely to adversely affect the flow of
seasonal streams which help in filing the large villages pond (reservoir) and
it may also cause flow of debris from the mines into the pond. The petitioner herein filed objection to the
report filed by the C.E.C. and the petitioner (lease holder) has alleged that the
flow of water to the streams will not be affected by mining activity. As the High Court had not got any opportunity
to consider these facts in consideration, we feel it just and proper that the
petitioner be given an opportunity to place his contentions before the High
Court properly. The High Court is
requested to consider the impact on the mining leases granted to the petitioner
and whether it would adversely affect the Environment in that area and
appropriate orders may be passed in this regard after affording opportunity to
the parties concerned by the High Court at the earliest, at least within a
period of six months. Accordingly, we
set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the High Court to consider
the matter afresh till such time, the petitioner shall not carry out any mining
activity in the area in question.
Further in another judgment in State
of Orissa Vs. Government of India reported in (2009) 5 SCC 492, (2009) 5 SCC
507, (2009) 5 SCC 511 dealing with Water Conservation have recommended Governments
to constitute a body of eminent scientist to find a solution as to problem of
right to water. The concern of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court is not taken into account to protect the water bodies,
Water Tanks having been influenced by the Commercial gains leaving the people,
Cattle, Wild Life in Lurch.
II-Forest:
12. It is submitted the Government of Andhra
Pradesh had by issuing various G.Os in
the past conferred the rights enabling the villager’s who are the members of the various
societies to procure the Minor Forest produces in the villages for the purpose
of eking out their existence as there had been a Forest in Government lands
same has not been identified as Reserved Forest or Protected Forest,
nevertheless, it is a Forest within the meaning of the interpretation given to
the Forest in T.N. Godhavarman Thirumalapad Vs Union of India reported in
(1997) 2 SCC Page No. 267 which is as under:
GENERAL
Para-1. “In
view of the meaning of the word “forest” in the Act, it is obvious that prior
approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity
within the area of any “forest” in accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all
on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country,
without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease
forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that
the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest
purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the
Central Governments. Accordingly, any
such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. Every State
Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities
forthwith.”
Para-5. “
Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee
to:
(i)
Identify
areas which are “forests” irrespective of whether they are so notified,
recognized or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of
the land of such forest.
(ii)
Identify
areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared, and
(iii)
Identify
areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those
belonging to private person.”
Para-6. “Each
State Government should within two months, file a report regarding:
(i)
The number of saw mills, veneer and plywood
mills actually operating within the State, with particulars of their real
ownership.
(ii)
The licensed and actual capacity of these mills
for stock and sawing;
(iii)
Their proximity to the nearest forest;
(iv)
Their source of timber.
13. It is submitted that in continuation of the
earlier judgment of the Supreme Court dated 12-12-1996, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had further modified the judgment above mentioned and passed the
following judgment: (1997) 3 SCC 312 modifying as under:
“Para-8.
The above directions are to be read along with those contained in the order
dated 12-12-1996.
Mining
Matters:
Para-9.
We direct that—
(1) Where
the lessee has not forwarded the particulars for seeking permission under the
FCA, he may do so immediately;
(2) The
State Government shall forward all complete pending applications within a
period of 2 weeks from today to the Central Government for requisite decisions;
(3) Applications
received (or completed) hereafter would be forwarded within two weeks of their
being so made.
(4) The
Central Government shall dispose of all such applications within six weeks of
their being received. Where the grant of
final clearance is delayed, the Central Government may consider the grant of
working permissions as per existing practice.
General
Directions:
Para-10: It is made clear that the order passed by
this Court in these matters, including the order dated 12-12-1996 and the
present order shall be obeyed and carried out by the Union Government as well
as the State Governments, notwithstanding any order or direction passed by a
court, including a High Court or Tribunal, to the contrary.
Para-11:
We further direct the Registrar General to communicate the order dated
12-12-1996 as well as the present order
to the Registrars of all the High Courts to ensure strict compliance. It is also clarified that the orders passed
by the Court including the order dated 12-12-1996 and this order will apply to all
Autonomous Hill Councils in the
Para-12:
It is made clear that all the authorities concerned would, in the meantime,
continue to examine the various aspects of the problems requiring solution and
try to solve these problems in collaboration with the Central Government and
the State Governments. An efficacious exercise of this kind would enable
reduction of the area which may require judicial scrutiny and adjudication in
these matters.
14. It is submitted that by interpretation of
the Forest, the departments has to identify the Forest keeping in view the
interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above mentioned cases and
insist upon all authorities including the applicants for quarry leases from the
department of Mines and Geology to obtained Forest Clearances under section 2
of the Act, which likely to put the forest or deemed forest or likely forest
for the non-forest use. The Forest
Department appears to have abdicated its statutory duty and permitting
multinational industries to destroy and annihilate the
15. It is submitted that without following the
law have been permitting the quarry leases without obtaining prior permission
under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act 1982 started Mining Operations villages
which is illegal and un-constitutional voilative of Articles 21, 48 (A) and 51
(A) (g) of Constitution of India.
ENVIRONMENTAL
16. It is submitted that the Mining operations
are spreading over more than 200 villages more than 50 hectors in each village
totaling to 50,000 Acres in 200 villages of Karimnagar District. According to
the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification dated 27-01-1994 or
Environmental Clearance Regulation of 2006 an Environmental Clearance is
required, if the area of the quarry operations extends beyond 50 hectors, the applicants
for quarry leases in connivance with the departments above mentioned suppressing
the fact as there are no Tanks, Forest and Wild Life facilitating the
department of Mines and Geology to issue quarry leases. The departments above mentioned have remained
as a silent spectators despite the fact the
17. It is submitted that in the
It is therefore, requested in the
interest of public in general to cancel the quarry leases shown in the
Annexure-I pending enquiry under Forest Conservation Act 1982, Environment
Impact Assessment Notification dated 27-01-1994 r/w Environmental Clearance
Regulations 2006, Wild Life Protection Act 1971 and Indian Bio-Diversity Act
2002 in the light of interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
above referred to judgments and save the lives of people, Wild Life and Cattle
in the villages in the Karimnagar District and Conserve and Protect Forest may
be degraded to maintain ecological balance and prevent Karimnagar District from
becoming a desert.
Thanking Sir,
Share on Facebook
Comment
See More 0