HC flags Haryana’s non-compliance in mining case, ropes in Union Ministry of Mines

More than six months after Haryana was admonished for “callousness”, possible “connivance” of officers and a prima facie case of “loot and plunder of natural resources”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed serious concern over the state’s failure to fully comply with its earlier directions.

The bench made it clear that a prompter and effective response was expected from the concerned. The matter pertains to alleged large-scale environmental violations in a mining area in Charkhi Dadri.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit was, on a previous date of hearing, told that the area fell in Arravalis.

As the matter came up for resumed hearing, the bench took the proceedings a step further by impleading the Union Ministry of Mines as a respondent. The direction came after the Centre submitted that the ministry’s involvement was necessary to obtain the relevant instructions.

The bench recorded that the Union of India was already a party to the proceedings, but its counsel submitted that the impleadment of the Ministry of Mines was necessary as “the relevant instructions can only be obtained from the said ministry.”

As the request was not opposed by the other side, the Ministry of Mines, through its secretary, was impleaded as a respondent. The Union of India was represented in the matter by Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya pal Jain, along with senior panel counsel Ashish Rawal.

The bench also took note of an affidavit placing on record “certain notifications as well as the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP),” before being told that the issue relating to the protection of the Aravalli Hills was already engaging the attention of the Supreme Court.

The High Court recorded that its earlier order had been challenged before the Supreme Court and the special leave petition had been dismissed, with directions issued to the High Court to take the matter “to its logical conclusion”.

Against this backdrop, the bench asserted: “In such circumstances, we are of the view that the issues arising in the facts of the present case require consideration. We also find that the previous order passed by this Court has not been complied with by the State of Haryana, and only partial compliance has been made by the other respondents.”

The court made it clear that the issue could not be treated as routine.

“The matter is of serious concern not only for the revenue of the State, but also on account of the damage caused to the environment. We would, therefore, expect a prompter and effective response from the concerned respondents.”

The High Court also reiterated its direction for obtaining three-dimensional satellite imagery to determine the extent of environmental damage. It directed that the earlier order requiring requisition of the imagery from Google be complied with.

“The directions issued to requisition the 3-D satellite imagery from Google so as to ascertain the exact damage caused to the environment shall also be complied with,” the bench directed.

Before parting with the order, the court directed: “The Secretary, Ministry of Environment, and the Chief Secretary to the state of Haryana shall ensure compliance with the directions, as directed in our previous order…”

Fixing August 27 as the next date of hearing, the bench asserted the newly impleaded respondent would then clarify its stand “and the previous orders passed in the matter shall be complied with by all the respondents. The affidavit in terms of the observations shall be filed at least 48 hours before the next date of hearing.”

The bench, on the previous date of hearing, had asked the union government to explore the possibility of putting in place a SOP under which 3-D satellite imagery with geo-coordinates of mining sites was preserved at fixed intervals and placed in the public domain.

The bench made it clear that such a mechanism would better equip authorities to protect environmental interests.