Illegal mining a grave ecological threat: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has red-flagged the rising menace of illegal mining, observing that the unregulated and rampant extraction of natural resources has emerged as a “grave threat to the ecological equilibrium and environmental sustainability of the region.” The court noted that such activity not only led to “irreparable damage to the environment, including depletion of groundwater, deforestation, and soil erosion,” but also caused “substantial loss to the public exchequer.”

“The courts are increasingly being confronted with instances where unscrupulous elements, for commercial gain, continued to defy the regulatory framework with impunity,” Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul asserted while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea of Sulinder Kumar.

A case in the matter was registered at a police station in Ambala under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The court noted that his conduct prima facie was not an isolated incident but “part of a continuing pattern of unlawful activity,” and that his custodial interrogation “may assist in unearthing the broader network involved in illegal mining”.

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that he was being falsely implicated merely due to ownership of the vehicle, the Court observed a tipper was found engaged in illegal transportation of minerals without authorising documentation. The petitioner was not apprehended at the spot, but it was “undisputed that the tipper involved is registered in his name”.

The court observed the petitioner had previously been booked in similar cases and was currently out on bail in other pending matters. “The assertion that the petitioner is being falsely implicated on the basis of ownership of the tipper, does not inspire confidence at this stage while deciding his petition for anticipatory bail, in view of his past antecedents and the prima facie material on record,” Justice Kaul added.

The Bench added it did not deem it fit to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on “account of his repeated involvement in such offences”.