Latika Sarejrao Bhosale v. The State of Maharashtra

1) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs.

3) The Petitioner contends that, when she was ready for carrying out her activities, the Grampanchayat obstructed her activity on the basis of a Resolution by the Gram Sabha against the mining operations. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

4) Mr. Nitin Deshpande, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner has complied with all the requisitions for the purposes of carrying out the activities of mining. He submits that, the Grampanchayat had also applied its mind and granted an NOC on 10th May,

2021. That, having granted the NOC and having permitted the Petitioner to carry on the mining activities, the Grampanchayat had no power to withdraw the NOC or pass its Resolution determining the Petitioner's rights to conduct mining. He submitted that, the same activity has been permitted barely 100 feet away from the Petitioner's land in Gut Nos.157 and 158 in village Jiregaon. He relied upon Government Resolution Oghih,e „Œƒ‡/iz.dz. …Œˆ/iajk-† dated 19th October, 2020 contending that, once permission is granted by the Grampanchayat it cannot be revoked on any ground. He submits that, in view of the above, he is entitled to a writ of mandamus to set aside the Resolution of the Gram Sabha dated 2nd December, 2021 and permit the quarrying operations in Gut No.181 situated at village Kauthadi, Taluka Daund, District Pune.

5) Mr. Alaspurkar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 tendered the Affidavit in Reply of Jitendra Dudi, District Collector of Pune, dated 28th March, 2025. Relying on the said Affidavit he submitted that, the facts stated by the Petitioner were undisputed and the permissions had indeed been granted. However, the Grampanchayat by its Resolution dated 28th July, 2021 had communicated that, the villagers had opposed and complained of the mining activities and had unanimously sought cancellation of the NOC granted to the Petitioner. Subsequently, the Grampanchayat has cancelled the NOC by the unanimous Resolution revoking the permission of the Petitioner.

6) Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for Respondent No.4 relied on the Affidavit of Ms. A.L. Chavan, Gram Sevak of village Kauthdai and submitted that, the NOC that was granted on 10th May, 2021 was illegal since no Gram Sabha was held for taking into account the opinions and objections of the villagers. He submitted that, a meeting of Gram Sabha was called on 28th July, 2021 wherein a unanimous decision to cancel the NOC was taken. He submitted that, pursuant to the visit and survey of the entire land by the Circle Officer he forwarded a Report to the Tehsildar. It was stated therein that, the houses of the people and poultry farm were merely 200 to 250 mtrs. away from the mining site. That, mining activities would cause danger to the life of the people as well as to the poultry farm animals. He also recorded the grievance of the villagers that, their village came in a drought affected area and consequently had less water resources. Thus, not only the humans but also the plants and animals would be affected on account of the mining activities. In view of this, he submitted that, the Petition deserves to be rejected.

7) It is not in dispute that, the Petitioners had obtained all the requisite permissions from the concerned Authorities including the Grampanchayat. However, the villagers have taken a unanimous decision to disallow and withdraw the earlier NOC that was granted to the Petitioner since their lands and crops would be affected. This decision has been taken unanimously. We do not find any irregularity and any reason to interfere with the same. The villagers are entitled to revoke the NOC by passing such a Resolution unanimously.

8) Upon a perusal of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority communication dated 23rd March, 2021 we find that, the Clause XII of general conditions provides that, no quarry shall be allowed within safe distance from any habitation or human activity. Clause XVIII of those general conditions also provide that, the District Collector to ensure that distance between one lease area and another lease area or clusters of lease area is more than 500 mtrs. The Environmental Clearance evinces that, the permission/NOC was granted on conditions more particularly mentioned in the communication dated 23rd March, 2021. Moreover, it categorically provided that, this NOC/permission did not give immunity to the project proponent in the event a case was filed against him or action initiated under Environment Protection Act, 1986 (‘EP Act’). It also provided that, if there was submission of false document and noncompliance of stipulated conditions, the Authority was entitled to revoke or suspend the Environmental Clearance without any intimation; in addition to initiation of appropriate legal action against the project proponent under the EP Act.

8.1) The Government Resolution is self eloquent. It no where states that, once a permission is granted by Grampanchyat, it cannot be revoked on any ground. Thus the contention of Mr. Deshmukh is illfounded and therefore is not acceptable.

9) The Petition admittedly avers in Paragraph No.8(VII) that, the distance between the Petitioner's land and the adjoining Grampanchayat where mining is permitted is not even 100 feet. It is thus clear that, the Collector was entitled to disallow mining activities to the Petitioner as it would breach condition XVIII of the general conditions of the Environmental Clearance dated 23rd March, 2021.

10) We are unable to agree with Mr. Deshpande’s contention that, the NOC once granted is irrevocable. According to us, the villagers cannot be faulted for having taken a conscious and unanimous decision for securing their own livelihood and survival pollution causing damage to agriculture and poultry.

11) In these circumstances, find no merits in the Petition and reject the Petition with no order as to costs. (KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)