The Rajasthan High Court in the case Narayan Singh and anr. v. State of Rajasthan and ors observed and has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000. on two villagers from Jodhpur wherein abusing the Public Interest Litigation Jurisdiction in pursuance of their interest vested with respect to quarry licenses for mining activities being distributed via e-auction.
The bench headed by Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Srivastava and Justice Kuldeep Mathur in the case observed and stated that the allegations made by the petitioner as it is contained in the writ petition are not only factually incorrect but the same is contrary to the revenue records and through various reports.
It has also been claimed by the petitioner that the proceedings which are initiated by the respondents in order to grant of quarry licences on the subject land which being against public interest as the same would adversely affect the flow of rainy water and it will also affect the catchment area for various small ponds on which the peoples and the cattle’s are dependent.
However, it has also been submitted by the respondent before the court that the e-auction proceedings for quarry licences have been undertaken strictly in accordance with law and after ensuring due compliance of all the requirements which includes environmental clearance. It has also been submitted that the said land is being owned by the government, and the quarry licences have been granted by the concerned authorities after demarcation and there being no such public place or the catchment area, the water reservoir which being within 45 meters of the area. Moreover, the location of the quarry licences is in accordance with the law as stated under Rule 28 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. NOC also stated to have been obtained from the Deputy Conservator of Forest.
The court observed that as per the report of the site wherein the court conducted inspection on the directions of the Central Jal Shakti Ministry, the court also found that on the land, no plantation existed which being in question.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the court also found that the petitioner is also signatory of the e- auction for the licence to quarry, which has been challenged by him.
Accordingly, the court observed that the petitioner had not even cared to implead those persons under whose favour the quarry licences was being issued. Moreover, even the quarry licences issued were not challenged before the court.
