- (1.) DURING the course of submissions in this matter, a seriously objectionable state of affairs has been noticed wherefor, it appears rather imperative that the contempt proceedings be also taken up against the then Mining Engineer, Jodhpur, who had issued and published the notification on 06.07.2012, in purported compliance of the order dated 15.05.2012, passed by this Court in PIL Petition No.8809/2011.
(2.) IN brief, the relevant background aspects are as follows: The petitioner herein filed the said PIL Petition No.8809/2011 espousing the cause of public in the manner that there were going on illegal mining activities in the reserved forest area called Beri Ganga Forest Block and in the surrounding forest land, located in the vicinity of the city of Jodhpur. The petitioner also prayed that near the water-body, known as Balsamand Lake and its catchment areas, no mining activities be allowed. A co-ordinate bench of this Court disposed of the said PIL petition with the order dated 15.05.2012. As regards the forest area, the Court observed that the area in question had so far not been de- notified and as and when any final action is taken by the Central Government, it would be open for the petitioner to file a petition afresh. The Court also took note of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that no mining would be permitted in the forest area before it was de-notified and expected the concerned respondents to ensure that no mining would take place in the area forming the part of forest land. Then, as regards the mining activities affecting the water-body and its catchment area, the Court observed and directed as under: - "The respondents shall also ensure that no mining activity takes place which may cause damage to the water body of Balsamand Lake and its catchment area as no one has a right to cause obstruction in the catchment area, it has to be treated as wetland as defined in Rule 2(1) (g) of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010. In Abdul Rahman V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. (2004(4) WLC 435), the Division Bench of this Court has held that nadi land cannot be used for construction and directions were issued for restoration of catchment area. In Rajendra Kumar Razdan Vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4271/1999 decided on 6.2.2007), this Court has also ordered that the conversion and construction permission in and around the lakes and in their respective catchment areas is completely banned except the rarest of rare exceptional cases keeping in view the earlier orders of this Court. Thus, if any mining activity is taking place in the forest area in question and area affecting the water body or its catchment area, the same shall be stopped forthwith. For any violation of the order, the Collector, Superintendent of Police and other concerned officers shall be held responsible."
(3.) ON 06.07.2012, the Mining Engineer, Jodhpur proceeded to issue a public notification, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure- 3 with this contempt petition, wherein it was stated that the catchment area had been identified after a joint survey with the officers of the Irrigation Department. Then, a detailed list of mining areas comprised in different quarry licenses was given with the observations that the said mining areas fell within the catchment and mining operations were to be stopped therein. The relevant contents of the notification dated 06.07.2012 read as under: - ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]...;