Taking note of allegations that mining activity was continuing despite the expiry of a mining lease in January this year, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Charkhi Dadri District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner to ensure that no illegal mining was carried out in the area.
The direction came during the hearing of a petition filed by Vijay and another petitioner against the Union of India and other respondents. The Division Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor also ordered that an affidavit be filed by a responsible officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate after personally surveying the site in question.
At the onset, counsel for the petitioners submitted before the Bench that although the term of the mining lease granted to the private respondent had expired in January 2026, “rampant mining” was still allegedly continuing despite the fact that renewal of the lease had not been granted so far.
After hearing the submissions, the Bench observed: “In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, to ensure that no illegal mining is carried out.”
The matter has been adjourned to July 15. It will now be heard along with another connected petition. The Centre was represented in the matter by Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain with senior panel counsel Ashish Rawal.
The matter before the court in the related petition was pertaining to alleged large-scale environmental violations in a mining area in Charkhi Dadri. The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the area fell in Aravallis.
The Bench, on previous dates of hearing, had flagged “callousness”, possible “connivance” and a prima facie case of “loot and plunder of natural resources” while taking up the related matter. It had also rapped Haryana for treating serious environmental concerns in a “casual manner”.
The Bench had also questioned the State’s decision to propose an inquiry committee instead of complying with binding court directions. Taking exception to the State’s stand that it was “proposing to constitute some inquiry committee”, the Bench had then asserted that no such direction had been issued.
Making it clear that the State could not sidestep judicial directions by initiating parallel processes, the Bench had observed: “We find it difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the State, inasmuch as the directions already issued have not been complied with and serious issues relating to environmental concerns are being dealt with in a casual manner. Instead, a committee is proposed to be constituted which was not required in terms of the previous order.”
