Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: July 31, 2022 at 20:09 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the degradation of the entire environmental setup—caused due to illegal mining—has put the entire system in great danger. The assertion was made as the High Court made it further clearer that the only way to get to the truth in a case involving illegal mining was by the custodial to interrogate an accused person in custody.
In response to a plea against the state filed by an accused person seeking anticipatory bail in a case filed on May 12 at Nangal police station in Ropar district under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill made the statement.
The petitioner’s advocate stated before Justice Gill’s Bench that the accused had been wrongfully accused in this matter. He was not the crusher’s owner. Instead, it belonged to someone else. Earlier, the petitioner was employed by the now-closed crusher.
The advocate emphasized that no recovery was obtained from the petitioner because he was not present at the scene when the claimed raid took place. The petitioner could not possibly have “done such an act,” the advocate further argued.
The advocate continued to argue that there was no provision for filing a FIR in the Act’s provisions. Only a complaint, and that too from a mining officer, could be made.
The state counsel argued in opposition to the prayer that the petitioner had taken the land and machinery on rent. In addition, the most recent law established by the SC in the matter of “Jayant vs State of MP” did not place restrictions on filing a FIR in a case involving illegal mining.
Justice Gill stated that the petitioner’s taking the land on rent did not grant him the right to mine it after hearing from the parties’ advocates and reviewing the relevant documentation.
The Judge has opined that, “One cannot lose sight of the fact that because of the illegal mining, the entire environmental set-up has degraded causing serious danger to the existential system.”
After concluding that there was no basis to award the concession of anticipatory bail, Justice Gill dismissed the argument and said that the petitioner’s illegal actions had damaged the river over bridge as the sand in or from beneath the pillars was being removed.
