JUDGMENT
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 9-7-2002 (Annexure-11) and the order dated 22-7-2002 (Annexure-12) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Keonjhar directing the petitioner not to operate the mining lease until receipt of further clarification from the Government.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts necessary for effectual adjudication of the present writ petition are that a Mining Lease was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the Mine situated in Bholabeda under Barbil Tahasil in the district of Keonjhar for a period of 20 years by a lease deed executed on 5-7-1972. After expiry of the term of the said lease on 4-7-1992, the same was again extended for another period of 10 years by a second registered lease dated 7-1-997 with a stipulation that it would come to effect restrospectively from 5-7-1992. One year before expiry of the term of the second lease, an application for renewal of the lease accompanying necessary documents and land particulars was submitted by the petitioner before the concerned authority i.e. the Collector, Keonjhar on 3-7-2001. Though the same was duly received and acknowledged, no action has been taken till date. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in consonance with Rule 24A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules 1960, the petitioner has a right to carry out the mining operation.
3. For the sake of brevity, Rule 24A(6) is quoted hereinabelow :
“If an application for renewal of a mining
lease made within the time referred to in
Sub-rule (1) is not disposed of by the State
Government before the date of expiry of the
lease, the period of that lease shall be
deemed to have been extended by a further
period till the State Government passes order thereon.”
In course of hearing of the writ petition, Mr.
Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate did not dispute the aforesaid legal position. The only contention raised by Mr.
Mohanty is that; after promulgation of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, no mining
operation can be carried on in forest area.
According to him, the area which was leased
out to the petitioner is surrounded by forest
and as such, without obtaining prior per
mission of the Central Government, no mining operation can be permitted and that is
why orders Annexure-11 and Annexure-12
were Issued.
4. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results hi ecological imbalance and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case off. M. Godavarman Thirumulkpad : v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1228, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word ‘forest ‘covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether it is designated reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(1) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. 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 consonance with Section 2 of the Act, all activities within any forest in any State throughout the country, without prior approval of the (Central Government, must cease forthwith. This being the mandate of the Supreme Court, we find absolutely no justification in interfering with the two orders (Annexures-11 and 12) issued by the authorities.
5. But then, Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate submits that as has been held by the Supreme Court, no mining operation can be carried on in the forest land. The said restriction will not apply to the ‘Broken up’ area, where operation continued prior to imposition of the restriction. In other words, Mr. Mohanty submitted that restrictions are only limited to the ‘Virgin forest’ areas and not to the areas where Mining activities are continuing since prior to promulgation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In support of such contention, Mr. Mohanty relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi, AIR 1985 SC 814. In the said decision, it has been held that the forest area which has been cleared by way of carrying out mining operation prior to the coming into force of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 shall not be considered as forest. The Supreme Court held as follows :
“Where a mining lease was granted for winning a certain mineral prior to the coming into force of the Act, and the lessee had applied to the State Government after the coming into force of the Act for permission to win and carry any new mineral from any part of a forest area which was already utilised for non-forest purposes by carrying out mining operations before the coming into force of the Act, the prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 for the purpose of granting such permission not necessary. Before granting permission to start mining operations on a virgin area, Section 2 of the Act has to be complied with, it is not necessary to seek the prior approval of the Central Government for purposes of carrying out mining operations in a forest area which is broken up or cleared before the commencement of the Act.”
6. Mr. Mohanty, drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed by the State Government and submitted that according to the opposite parties about 44.227 het. out of the area leased out in favour of the petitioner constitute the broken area and particulars of such area have been more clearly stipulated in Annexure-C/1 to the counter filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 4.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in the touchstone of the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the cases referred to above, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner shall not be entitled to continue mining operation in the lease area over which no operation had carried on prior to promulgation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 i.e. virgin forest. However, the petitioner shall confine his mining operation to the mining area which was broken up prior to 25-10-1980 when the Forest (Conservation) Act came into force. In view of the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by us, we hold that the restrictions imposed by the orders issued under Annexures-11 and 12 shall be confined to only the virgin forest where mining operation has not commenced.
8. With our aforesaid observations, we dispose of the writ petition.
S.B. Roy, J.
9. I agree.