S.ABDUL NAZEER,J. - (1.) I.A. Nos. 1424-1425 of 2005 Mr. Bhupesh Baghel, M.L.A., has filed I.A. Nos. 1424-1425 of 2005 in the above writ petition seeking the following reliefs: (i) Direct the respondents 1 to3 herein to ensure that no non-forest activities including mining operations are carried out by the respondents 4 to 7 herein in the forests under the garb of lease executed by the State of Chhattisgarh or permission granted by the State of Chhattisgarh in their favour; (ii) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate criminal prosecution of the respondents 4 to 7 herein as also other officials of the State of Chhattisgarh with whose connivance, the respondents 4 to 7 herein have carried out and/or are carrying on non-forest activities in the forests; (iii) Direct the C.B.I. to make an enquiry with regard to violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act even after the order dated 12.12.1996 of this Hon'ble court by the State of Chhattisgarh after it came into existence on 01.11.2000 and to fix the responsibility of the officials who are responsible for granting lease or to permit non-forest activities in contravention of the provisions of Forest Conservation Act in forests in the State of Chhattisgarh and to fix responsibility and then to intimate departmental proceeding and/or their criminal prosecution; (iv) Direct determination and recovery of compensation from respondents 4 to 7 herein for causing environmental losses by carrying on non3 forest activities in the forest area for commercial purposes; (v) Direct the respondents 2 and 3 to take immediate steps for forest protection and rehabilitation of mined area by planting sufficient number of trees and by taking immediate measures for compensatory afforestation of the area; and (vi) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice."
(2.) In this case we are concerned with the illegal mining activities of by Mr. Anil Lunia (respondent No.4) in the State of Chhattisgarh. According to the applicant, Anil Lunia, an industrialist, on 31.10.1998 applied for a mining prospecting license in Bhainsakanhar, District Kanker, to mine iron ore at Bhainsa Kankar, District North Bastar Kanker. The Government of Chhattisgarh, Mining Department, accorded prospecting license on an area of admeasuring 18.27 hectares vide Khasra Nos. 123, 125, 127, 129, 130 and 139 vide letter dated 25.1.2002. Written permission was also accorded on 29.5.2002 along with certain conditions for the prospecting. A lease deed was executed on 26.5.2003 by the Collector, North Bastar Kanker in favour of Anil Lunia. In this deed it has been, inter alia, mentioned that the lessee shall cut any tree without the sanction of authorities and shall enter reserved forest or use forest roads for transporting purpose without the written sanction of DFO. It was also mentioned that the lessee has to allow inspection by State/Central authorities at any point of time. In the month of June-July 2003, Anil Lunia started mining operations but as per the approved plan of IBM. He did adhere to the conditions of lease and started cutting trees without permission. In a complaint made by one NGO, it was stated that thousands of trees have been chopped off by the licensee in violation of the Forest Conservation Act. Conservator of Forest Kanker constituted a 3-member inquiry team which gave its report on the basis of which Sub-Divisional Officer issued a letter dated 18.9.2003, inter alia, mentioned that how the notified protected forest was shown as non-forest revenue land just to facilitate the mining lease without complying with the provisions of Forest Conservation Act. The subsequent proceedings would show how a part of the State machinery was involved in allowing violation of Forest Conservation Act. The applicant has also referred to certain judicial proceedings initiated by Anil Lunia. That is how the aforesaid applications have been filed by him seeking the said reliefs herein.
(3.) Anil Lunia has filed his reply affidavit denying the allegations/averments made in the application. On the basis of the order of this Court, a Central Empowered Committee (for short 'CEC') was constituted. The CEC after examining the matter during various dates of hearing and after site visit, filed its report on 25.9.2008. It has examined at length the documents in relation to grant of mining on various land in favour of Anil Lunia in violation of Forest Conservation Act and has come to a conclusion that iron ore have been extracted and transported in blatant violation of the approved mining plan. The mining lease was executed in violation of the statutory requirements. The irregularities/illegalities noted by the CEC are as under: i) the prospecting license was granted even through Mr. Lunia was found to be involved in illicit felling of trees in the applied area. The recommendations of the Collector, Kanker against the grant of the prospecting license and thereafter for cancellation of the prospecting license were disregarded/ignored; ii) iron ore mineral areas in District Bastar are reserved for Public Sector Undertakings. As an exception, permission of the Central Government under section 5(1) of the MMRD Act for grant of prospecting license as well as for mining license in favour of Mr. Lunia were obtained on the ground that iron ore will be captively used in the crushing - screening and sponge Iron Plant being set up by Mr. Lunia. In flagrant violation of the above, the iron ore extracted by Mr. Lunia was allowed to be sold; iii) the mine till its closure operated without the requisite environmental clearance. This is in violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification issued by the MoEF under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; iv) as per the approved mining plan the permissible annual production was 6000 tonnes. As against this, 69,000 MT iron ore was extracted during 2003-2004. During 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 35400 MT and 18281 MT of iron ore respectively were extracted. Out of the above, 99,913 MT was transported. At no stage did the Mining Department object to these brazen violations; v) at the time the extraction from the mine had just commenced, the Three Member Enquiry Committee set up by the Forest Department held that the mining lease area was in an undemarcated protected forest. In spite of the above, the Collector, Kanker did put a stop to the mining. Instead, after keeping the matter pending for eight months, he took a baffling decision that it is only after the State agrees with the proposal of the Forest Department to notify a "new forest" (i.e. reserved forest), that the cancellation of the mining lease will be considered; vi) even after the Enquiry Committee constituted by the State Government held that the said area is a forest land, the mining was allowed to continue. What is more one Member of the Committee, after a gap of more than four months and out of the blue without giving any reasons, made a number of adverse observations against the earlier unanimously agreed report; vii) no action for the cancellation of the mining lease was taken even after Mr. Lunia was found to be involved in illicit felling in the adjoining reserved forest; viii) the detailed directions given in the State Government's circular dated 12.1.2000 were adhered to. Before grant of the mining lease the report of the Forest Department was required to be taken into consideration and which was done. Significantly, the letter signed for this purpose was dispatched on the request of Mr. Lunia. The procedure prescribed for field verification at the time of permitting mining in the area was followed; and ix) though in the enquiry conducted by the State, the then Collector, Kanker has been held responsible for committing a number of illegalities and irregularities no action has been taken against him on the ground that he has already retired.;