PIL To Cancel Mining Lease In Khetri Rejected By Rajasthan High Court Citing Distortion Of Facts, Imposes Rs 5 Lakhs Cost On Litigants

Rajasthan High Court has imposed Rs 5 lakhs cost on villagers who filed a frivolous petition to cancel the mining lease granted to an entity in Jhunjhunu's Khetri district.The Division Bench of Justices Bhuwan Goyal and Pankaj Bhandari said the court-appointed Commissioner's report suggests that no mining activities have taken place in the disputed land for the last two years, contrary to the submissions made by the petitioners. Moreover, photographs adduced by the petitioners indicating cracks in the nearby houses due to mining activities are also not factually correct, the court inferred.“.. Petitioners have abused the process of Court by filing this PIL and petitioners have concealed the fact and stated wrong facts on affidavit… Out of cost of Rs.5,00,000/-, petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.8 [Mining Company], as he has incurred the cost of Court Commissioner”, the bench sitting at Jaipur noted in the order.The court took note of the fact that the pits measuring 5*3 meters found in the mining lease area were very old with no signs of fresh mining. The Court commissioner's report also recorded the petitioners illegally encroaching upon government land and raising constructions in the mining area without authority, it was observed in the order.Even though the PIL was filed in 2022, the petitioners concealed the existence of F.I.R.s registered against a few among them concerning the same property involved in this PIL. In addition to that, Petitioner No.5 who sought deletion of his name from the party array much later, had already filed a civil suit claiming the same reliefs which was not disclosed in the writ petition, the court pointed out.After making the part payment of the cost incurred to the Court Commissioner, the division bench has instructed the litigants to deposit the remaining amount with the Rajasthan High Court State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur Bench within two months. While dismissing the interim application for deletion of petitioner no.5 from the cause title, the court has asked the secretary of the Legal Services Authority to intimate the office in case the cost is not deposited.While imposing the hefty cost, the division bench extensively relied upon the landmark judgments in Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2004) and K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors.Additional Advocate General appearing for the state had contended that a mining lease was given to Respondent No. 8 only after approval from the Pollution Control Board. The stalling of mining has resulted in a loss to the exchequer, he submitted. He also added that there were fully grown plants and trees in the mining area which means that no mining activity has taken place recently as alleged by the petitioners.The counsel for the petitioners, in turn, argued that there is a temple as well as a well in the vicinity of the mining area in addition to a residential area within 300 meters. According to their version, the recent mining activities have polluted the environment and made the lives of the villagers difficult.Along with cancellation of the mining lease, the petitioners sought the high court's intervention in stopping heavy blasting activities and running crusher and JCB Machines near the residential area.For Petitioners: Mr. Akhil Simlot, Mr. R.S. BhardwajFor Respondents : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. (ASG) with Mr. Devesh Yadav & Mr. C.S. Sinha (For U.O.I.) Mr. Bharat Vyas, (AAG) with Mr. Jay Vardhan Joshi Mr. Shashwat Purohit (For Respondent No.7)Mr. Tarun Agarwal, Mr. Bhaskar Agarwal & Ms Mitali Karwa, (For Respondent No.8) Mr. Arnav Singh- Court CommissionerCase Title: Smt. Hemika & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Case No: D.B. Civil (PIL) Writ Petition No. 15649/2022Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 50Click Here To Read/ Download Order

PIL To Cancel Mining Lease In Khetri Rejected By Rajasthan High Court Citing Distortion Of Facts, Imposes Rs 5 Lakhs Cost On Litigants

Sebin James

Tags