2017 (3) TMI 1905 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - renewal of lease in mining area - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that by grant of approval vide order dated 18.11.2011 no right had accrued in favour of the petitioner. From the perusal of the order dated 22.11.2012 by the Divisional Forest Officer, whereby the mining operation of the petitioner had been stopped, it is very clear that after grant of approval on 10.11.2011, the petitioner had commenced mining operation, and once the right of commencement of mining operation had accrued in favour of the petitioner after passing of the approval order dated 18.11.2011, it cannot be said that the grant of approval was mere formality by which the petitioner had acquired no right. As such, we are of the opinion that by passing of the order of approval dated 18.11.2011, a substantive right had accrued in favour of the petitioner, and for revocation of the said order, the authority ought to have complied with the principles of natural justice. In the present case, from the mere reading of the impugned order dated 08.01.2015, it is clear that the same has been passed on the basis of the communication of the State Government dated 25.01.2014, and no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the order dated 08.01.2015 for revoking the approval granted on 18.11.2011. A perusal of the communication dated 25.01.2014 would also make it clear that though the request was made by the State Government for revoking the forest clearance granted on 18.11.2011 for the use of forest land for an area of 173.039 hectares, in the said letter it was mentioned that the petitioner may be advised to apply for approval of reduced approved lease area of 134.733 hectares, meaning thereby that the objection of the State Government was for an area beyond 134.733 hectares and not for the entire area. Reasons being a necessary concomitant to passing an order, the appellate authority can thus discharge its duty in a meaningful manner either by furnishing the same expressly or by necessary reference to those given by the original authority - since in the present case, neither the principle of natural justice has been complied, nor any reason whatsoever has been assigned in the impugned order for revocation of the earlier approval granted on 18.11.2011, we hold that the said order of revocation deserves to be quashed. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, the alternative remedy, even if available, would not come in the way of this Court entertaining this writ petition. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of revocation of forest clearance order.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
3. Availability of alternative remedy.

Issue 1: Validity of revocation of forest clearance order

The case involved an original mining lease granted in 1955, followed by renewals over the years. The petitioner applied for a second renewal in 2004, which was forwarded to various authorities. After obtaining necessary clearances, the petitioner began mining activities but was later directed to stop by the Divisional Forest Officer. The State Government requested the revocation of forest clearance for a portion of the mining area, leading to the impugned order revoking the approval granted in 2011. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the revocation lacked justification, violated principles of natural justice, and did not follow the required procedures under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Issue 2: Compliance with principles of natural justice

The petitioner contended that revoking the forest clearance without issuing a show cause notice or providing an opportunity to be heard was unjustified. The court observed that a substantive right had accrued to the petitioner upon the grant of approval in 2011, necessitating adherence to principles of natural justice before revocation. It noted that the impugned order lacked reasons for revocation and did not follow the required procedure. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized the importance of reasons in administrative decisions to ensure fairness and rationality. Ultimately, the court held that the revocation order was invalid due to non-compliance with natural justice principles.

Issue 3: Availability of alternative remedy

The State argued that the petitioner could seek recourse through the National Green Tribunal under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, rendering the writ petition unnecessary. However, the court, considering the violation of natural justice and absence of reasons in the impugned order, decided to entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order revoking the forest clearance granted to the petitioner.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised, the arguments presented by the parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to quash the impugned order.