M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has challenged the orders as contained in the letter No. 1994, dated 21.11.2003, and letter dated 17.1.2004, whereby respondent No. 4, the Divisional Forest Officer, South Forest Division, Daltonganj, Medninagar, Palamau directed the petitioner not to carry on mining operation without the prior approved of the Central Government under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and also not to use and undertake the repair work of the road, namely, Hami -Orsa Road.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner -M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (in short the Company) is that in the year 1985 -86 a mining lease was granted in respect of mineral 'Bauxite ' in the districts of Latehar, Palamau, Lohardaga and Gumla within the State of Jharkhand. On 29.1.1985, a lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of 411.85 acres of land for a period of 20 years. Another lease was granted on 17.7.1986, in respect of 764 acres of land in village Orsa in the district of Palamau for a period of 20 years. The area was surveyed and demarcated and possession of the land alleged to have been handed over to the petitioner -Company. There is only one road, namely, Hami -Orsa road through which Bauxite can be transported from the leasehold area. Petitioner 'scase is that the Company could not start mining activities as the Deputy Commissioner by letter dated 12.11.1987, stopped mining activities. However, on 11.5.1988, the Deputy Commissioner, Daltonganj granted permission to the petitioner to do the repairing work of Hami -Orsa road subject to certain conditions. On 30.7.1988, petitioner said to have filed an application before the Divisional Forest Officer for de -reservation of the forest land for non -forest purposes and submitted a proposal to that effect. In 1996, after the Deputy Commissioner recalled the order dated 12.11.1987, the petitioner again started mining activities only on the non -forest land and the Divisional Forest Officer, Daltonganj directed the petitioner to do the repair work of the aforementioned road. It is contended by the petitioner that the mining activities is carried out in the raiyati lands after taking permission from the Deputy Commissioner. In 2003, the petitioner intended to restart the mining activities from 15th December, 2003 and intimation to that effect was given to the Divisional Forest Officer, Latehar. It is contended by the petitioner that it is surprised to receive the impugned letter whereby respondents directed the petitioner not to carry on any mining activities.
(3.) THE case of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the substantial portion of the leasehold area covers the forest land and there is a specific stipulation in the lease -deed that the mining lease would be subject to the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It is further stated that the leasehold area is also situated in the vicinity of Mahuadanr Wolf Sanctuary as notified by the State Government vide notification dated 23.6.1976. After the grant of mining lease the petitioner in 1988 requested the D.F.O. to allow him to repair the road and further requested him to demarcate the forest land so as to enable him to submit proposal/application for permission under the Forest Conservation Act and accordingly proposals were submitted with some defects and in 1992 a complete proposal/application was submitted by the petitioner. Respondents have denied in their counter -affidavit to have granted permission to start the mining activities.;