A.P.SAHI, J. - (1.) The issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is as to whether the State Government was justified in cancelling the mining lease of the petitioner and restraining him from transporting minor minerals from the area known as Kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary situate in a tract of Vindhya Plateau. The issue raised is one of the prime importance as it involves the powers of the respondent - State Government in permitting mining operations in areas which have been declared as a Wild Life Sanctuary under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. As has been brought on record the Kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary preserves within its fold some very rare species of flora and fauna including the prized Black Buck and such other animals. It is also evident from the management plan of the Kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary appended as Annexure-8 to the supplementary-rejoinder-affidavit that diversity of habitat includes Tigers, Panther, Cheetal, Sambhaar, Sloth, Bear, Hyena, Fox, Jackal, Wolf, Wild Boar, Langoor etc. Not only this the said management plan also indicates that the sand stone mining and other modernizing activities of excavation'are causing threat to the sanctuary. The harvesting of mineral sand stone is also one of the reasons. Another notable excerpt from the said management plan is to the following effect :- "The river Sone which forms the southern boundary of the sanctuary had a large number of gharials & magars in the recent past. But due to indiscriminate hunting and habitat loss, they are on the verge of extinction. The decline of fish population due to heavy fishing, has also affected its population. The gharial rehabilitation programme was implemented in the upper portion of the river which falls in M.P. and recent past a few gharials have been released in this river in U. P. also."
(2.) The State Government, by the order impugned in the 'present writ petition ,on a report submitted by the Wild Life Department, passed an order to the effect that the mining lease granted to the petitioner violates the provisions of Sections 2 (12) B, 18- A & 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972. The impugned orders dated 21-5-2004 and 29-5-2004 are sought to be impeached by the petitioner on several grounds and primarily on the ground that the orders reflect complete non-application of mind and are in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the same were passed without making any proper inquiry in the matter and without providing any proper opportunity to the petitioner in this regard and further on the ground that the grant of mining lease to the petitioner does not in any way violate the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It has been further urged that the area for which the lease has been granted to the petitioners, even otherwise, does not fall within the area of the Sanctuary and, therefore, there is no question of violating the provisions of the Act on the basis whereof the mining lease of the petitioner has been cancelled. In short the cancellation of mining lease of the petitioner is liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be permitted to carry on his mining activities as the lease was granted to him on 12-3-2003 for a period of 3 years i.e. up to 11-3-2006.
(3.) The respondent - State Government in its endeavour to protect the flora and fauna of Kaimur Wild Life Sanctuary has tried to justify the passing of the impugned order by refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The contention on behalf of the State is to the "effect that the mining operations including that of mining minerals is clearly prohibited and which cannot be permitted in view of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Even otherwise if the same were held to be permissible, it could only have been done with the permission granted under the orders of the authorities under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and not by the State Government alone under the Minor Mineral (Concessions) Rules, in essence the grant of mining lease to the petitioner was itself illegal as it violated the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and, as such, the same has been rightly cancelled and the petitioner does not deserve any relief in this regard.;