CHANDIGARH The Punjab and Haryana high court has refused to stay State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) order to Punjab to immediately stop all mining activities at various desilting sites in the state.
The high court bench of justice AG Masih and justice Vikram Aggarwal refused to give interim protection from the order observing that state’s plea about shortage of sand and other mining minerals “does not appear to be correct” as the order passed by SEIAA only restrains the mining, being carried out for desilting of the river-beds and the dams. “The mining as such on the other aspects continues to be carried out by the concerned contractors, who have signed the lease for the same,” the bench said posting the matter for hearing on January 4, when court opens after winter vacation. The case was listed for hearing before this bench as chief justice was not holding the court.
The bench of Justice AG Masih was hearing plea from the state filed on December 19 against orders of SEIAA passed on September 28 and subsequently on November 21 whereby Punjab was ordered by the SEIAA to immediately stop all mining activities at various desilting sites in the state.
Senior advocate and Supreme Court lawyer, Vivek Tankha appearing for the state had submitted that there was some urgency in the matter and had asserted that there was likelihood of shortage of sand and other mining minerals in case the SEIAA orders are allowed to continue.
{{/usCountry}}Senior advocate and Supreme Court lawyer, Vivek Tankha appearing for the state had submitted that there was some urgency in the matter and had asserted that there was likelihood of shortage of sand and other mining minerals in case the SEIAA orders are allowed to continue.
{{/usCountry}}However, the bench of Justice AG Masih was of the view that the matter needs to be considered and decided by the regular bench, presided over by chief justice, which was hearing the matters related to the mining issues and it was during proceedings of those petitions that SEIAA passed the orders in question.
The bench of justice Masih also recorded that on November 10, an order was passed by the bench of chief justice, which was challenged by the state government before Supreme Court. However, the government opted for withdrawal of the plea from SC with a liberty that it would opt for review application before the high court against November 10 order.
Interestingly, the SC in its order of November 28, recorded that it appeared that the high court in November 10 order has only recorded the statement on behalf of the SEIAA, wherein the SEIAA has decided to immediately recall an order dated October 7 on mining issue. It is to be noted that SC had further observed that if the state fails to succeed before high court it could again, approach the Supreme Court.
As per the proceedings before the bench of justice AG Masih, state filed a review application against November 10 order on December 19 before the bench of chief justice. But it withdrew it. But the order passed does not mention that state is opting for a fresh petition on the issue.
The bench of justice Masih recorded that state opted for a fresh plea and did not opt for challenging the review plea order before the Supreme Court for which liberty was granted to the state.
“In view of the above, we are of the considered view and especially when CWP-PIL No.102 of 2022 is pending consideration before the division bench headed by hon’ble the chief justice, which is already seized of the matter and is the subject matter of the present writ petition, this matter needs to be heard by the same bench,” the bench said posting the matter for January 4 and without granting any relief to the state.