ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10/4/2012, issued by the State Government by which the petitioner who has been granted mining lease of 4.168 hectares for mining mineral namely:Diaspore/Pyrophillite, has been directed to obtain environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest so that the lease deed can be signed. A mandamus has also been prayed for commanding the State Government to execute the lease deed for excavation of Pyrophillite and Diaspore in respect of an area measuring 4.168 Hectares situate at Village Puradhankuon, Tehsil Mahrauni, district Lalitpur.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are: the petitioner made an application for a prospecting licence of Pyrophillite and Diaspore over an area measuring 32.67 acres vide application dated 27/8/1994, but the State Government vide order dated 23/9/1997 granted only an area measuring 3.24 hectares for a period of 2 years. The State Government vide order dated 30/8/2010, modified its earlier order by granting an additional lease of the aforesaid mineral for a period of 20 years for a total area of 4.168 hectares. The petitioner got prepared a mining plan which was approved and recognised by the Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur. Petitioner submitted the copy of the lease deed to the State Government. The Apex Court in Deepak Kumar & Ors Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, (2012) 4 SCC 629, issued a direction to all the State Governments that leases of minor minerals including their renewal for an area less than five hectares be granted by the States/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from Ministry of Environment and forest. The State Government vide Government Order dated 22/3/2012, directed all the District Magistrates to comply with the order of the Apex Court passed in Deepak Kumar's case (supra). The State Government issued an order dated 10/4/2012, directing the District Magistrate to get the environmental clearance certificate obtained from the petitioner so that the lease deed can be signed. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 10/4/2012, has come up in this writ petition challenging the aforesaid order. Shri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition submitted that the petitioner's mining lease being for 4.168 hectares i.e. for an area less than five hectares, petitioner is not obliged to obtain environmental clearance as per the notification dated 14/9/2006, issued under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, "hereinafter called the "Act, 1986". He submits that the said notification required obtaining of environmental clearance only with regard to leases which are for an area of 5 hectares or above. It is further submitted that the Apex Court in Deepak Kumar's case (supra) was considering a case of minor mineral only and direction by the Apex Court is applicable with regard to minor minerals and has no application with regard to major minerals. Shri Bal Krishna, learned Standing Counsel refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no error has been committed by the State Government for directing the petitioner to obtain environmental clearance. When for minor minerals it is required to obtain environmental clearance of less than area of 5 hectares, the same requirement has to be complied with regarding major minerals also. He submits that although in Deepak Kumar's case (supra) specific directions were issued for minor minerals only, but such directions are fully applicable with regard to major minerals also.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.;