Illegal mining has irreparable effect on environment, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, December 9

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that leniency cannot be shown in illegal mining cases after observing that it had an irreparable adverse effect on the environment and caused “colossal loss for the generations to come”.

Underscoring illegal mining’s devastating effect, Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill asserted it could lead to floods and destruction of crops. It could even result in the washing away of homes and properties, cause pollution and result in destruction of wildlife and the eco-system.

It can lead to floods

Illegal mining can lead to floods and destruction of crops and even washing away of homes and properties, apart from pollution and destruction of wildlife and eco-system. —Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, High Court

Justice Gill was hearing a petition filed by a tractor-trailer owner seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered on November 13 at the Sadar police station in Hoshiarpur district under the provisions of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that a police party on November 13 noticed a tractor-trailer loaded with sand. The driver could not produce licence or permit for sand mining. The state counsel, opposing the bail plea, submitted the driver categorically named the petitioner as the tractor-trailer owner, with whom he was employed. The driver also stated that he extracted sand at the petitioner’s instance that. As such, his complicity was clearly evident.

The petitioner’s counsel, on the other hand, submitted evidentiary value could not be attached to “such disclosure statement”. It was apparently made by the co-accused driver to shift his liability upon the petitioner. Even if it was admitted for argument sake that the co-accused was employed as driver with the petitioner, inference could not be drawn that the alleged mining was done at his instance.

After going through the documents and hearing rival contentions, Justice Gill asserted it was undoubtedly correct that the petitioner was never apprehended at the spot and was nominated as an accused by co-accused driver.

But the very fact that the tractor-trailer loaded with sand recovered from the co-accused was registered in the petitioner’s name left much to be explained on his part. The co-accused specifically stated he extracted sand at the instance of the petitioner, who used to pay him Rs 400 a day for the purpose. It clearly showed his complicity.

“The owner is not expected to hand over his tractor-trailer in such a casual manner, so that the same may be misused for the purpose of mining, “Justice Gill said, while asserting that special case for anticipatory bail was not made out.

Dismissing the petition as being “sans merit”, Justice Gill made it clear that trial court would endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within a week, in case the petitioner surrendered within 10 days and applied for a regular bail.