Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/645/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 645 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 601 of 2011
=================================================
SAURASHTRA
CHEMICALS LIMITED
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & OTHERS
=================================================
Appearance :
MR
GAURAV S MATHUR for Appellant(s) : 1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 5.
Mr Amit
Panchal with Ms Shivani Rajpurohit for Respondent(s) :
6,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 15/04/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)
This
appeal, on grant of leave, has been preferred by the appellant, a
third party, against order dated 15th
February 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition
– Special Civil Application No.601 of 2011. In the said case,
learned Single Judge giving reference to the Supreme Court decision
in the case of T.N.Godavarman
Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in (2010) 13 SCC 740 and taking into consideration the fact
that often the problem arises on account of non-coordination amongst
different departments of the State Government, the learned
Government Pleader was asked to see that a required High Power
Committee of the Principal Secretaries of the Industries and Mines
Department, Forest and Environment Department and Revenue Department
is constituted for an effective implementation of Government
Resolution dated 2nd
April 2008, as also directed the State Government to see that even
if, without grant of NOC
if anybody has resorted to mining or industrial activity within one
kilometer from the boundary of any Sanctuary / National Park /
Conservation Reserve in the State of Gujarat, the same shall be
stopped with immediate effect, but not later than 18th
February 2011. That direction was given in light of the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand
Arya and Another v. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in (2011) 1 SCC 744 (paragraphs 73 and 74).
Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the
appellant had a mining lease for limestone since 1955 for captive
consumption. It is situated outside Wild Life Sanctuary. Now, in
view of the general order issued by the learned Single Judge, the
State Government has issued orders stopping the mining activity.
Learned
counsel for the appellant would contend that the direction of the
Supreme Court contained in order dated 4th
August 2006 passed in I.A.No.1598 to 1600 in WP (Civil) No.202 of
1995 in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra) relates to
interim order passed with regard to mining in Aravalli Hills and in
the order relating to State of Gujarat, no such interim direction
has been issued by the Supreme Court.
Notices were
issued on the respondent including 6th respondent – writ
petitioner. They have appeared in this case.
Learned
counsel for the 6th
respondent submitted that the writ petition was preferred for a
direction on the respondents – State of Gujarat (Forest and
Environment Department) to grant No Objection Certificate for mining
in favour of the 6th
respondent
– writ petitioner. As it was refused by the State giving
reference to the Supreme Court decision in interim order, by filing
petition for amendment the sixth respondent – writ petitioner
has also prayed for grant of similar treatment to those who are
similarly situated. In view of such prayer, learned Single Judge
passed the impugned order dated 15th
February 2011.
Mrs
Manisha L Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the State Government has submitted that pursuant to order
dated 15th
February 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in light of the
Supreme Court decision, a policy decision prohibiting mining has
also been taken by the State Government.
We have heard
the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It will be
evident that after refusal of grant of NOC in favour of 6th
respondent – writ petitioner, the State Government took a plea
that no mining can be made within one kilometer area from the
boundary of the Sanctuary / National Park / Conservation Reserve.
In view of the said stand taken by the respondent-State, the order
was passed by the learned Single Judge.
From the
roster, it will be evident that by the order of the Honourable the
Chief Justice of this Court, the learned Single Judge was empowered
to deal with only the following matters:-
“SCA
(Non-Service) Group-III
(which are
not specified in Group I and II) Including the matters relating to
the Passport Act, the Stamp Act and the Right to Information Act,
Advocates Act, Electricity Act, Motor Vehicles Act, Registration
of Birth and Death Act, Bombay Police Act, Education Acts, Public
Trusts Act, Mines and Minerals Act, Essential Commodities Act,
Notaries Act, Trade Marks Act, Earth Quake Matters, Cinema Act,
Wakf Act and other Miscellaneous Acts.”
As
per
the original prayer, as was made by the sixth respondent –
original petitioner, it was rightly placed by the Registry before
the learned Single Judge. However, when a general prayer has been
made by the sixth respondent – original petitioner by filing
an amendment praying for a direction to prohibit mining within one
km radius from the the boundary of the Sanctuary /
National Park / Conservation Reserve, the nature of the prayer being
in public interest, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge
ought to have referred the matter to Division Bench hearing Public
Interest Litigation. In this background, without going into merit
of the case, as we find that the learned Single Judge has no
jurisdiction to decide such issue while sitting as a Single Judge
and the matter ought to have been referred to the Division Bench
hearing public interest litigation matters. We set aside order dated
15th February 2011
passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application
No.601 of 2011 The said writ petition is revived and be listed
before the appropriate Division Bench hearing public interest
litigation matters in view of the amendment made in the prayer
clause. The 6th
respondent – writ petitioner will submit second set of the
paper book within a week.
Post
Special Civil Application No.601 of 2011 before the Division Bench
hearing public interest litigation matters on 26th
April 2011 within 10 cases.
Letters Patent
Appeal and Civil Application both stand disposed of with the
aforesaid observations.
(S.J. Mukhopadhaya, CJ.)
(J.B.Pardiwala, J.)
*mohd
Top
