The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts have rejected a petition filed by stone crushing businesses contesting a government directive designed to curb illegal sand extraction.

The matter was heard before the single bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal, asserted that:

“the claim projected by the petitioners in the present writ petition is akin to a situation where a prospective violator of law, before committing any violation of law, knocks on the door of the court and says that in the event of his committing any violation of law, he be not proceeded against under a particular statute but some other statute. The whole cause projected by the petitioners is imaginary and in respect of something to happen in future.”

During the hearing of a plea challenging Government Order No. 1018-JK (GAD) of 2020 dated October 29, 2020, which established a Special Task Force to tackle the illegal extraction of sand and minor minerals from River Tawi and its tributaries, the court made this observation.

The petitioners, who are involved in legal stone crushing activities, challenged the order, arguing that it was issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as well as the Jammu & Kashmir Mines Minerals Concession, Storage, Transportation of Minerals and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2016.

They contended that the 1957 Act delineated precise procedures for regulating stone crushing operations and vested designated authorities with the power to carry out searches and levy penalties.

Advocate Parag Sharma, representing the petitioners, strongly contended that the challenged order lacked legal authority. He emphasized that the responsibility to prevent illegal mining lay exclusively with authorities designated under pertinent mining regulations, rather than with the state officials who issued the order.

Citing sections 15 and 23(C) of the 1957 Act, the petitioners underscored that the State Government/Union Territory was entrusted with the authority to formulate rules aimed at preventing illegal mining, transportation, and storage of minerals. They further highlighted that under SRO 105, officers of the Geology and Mining Department were vested with jurisdiction under various sections of the Act. Consequently, they argued that the establishment of the Special Task Force by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (respondent No. 1) was unauthorized, as the Act had already delegated the responsibility of preventing illegal mining activities to the Geology and Mining Department.

The petitioners sought relief through a writ of certiorari to nullify the contested order, along with a writ of mandamus directing the Station House Officer of Police Station, Domana, and the Station House Officer of Police Station Satwari, Jammu (respondents No. 6 and 7), to comply with the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in addressing offenses, rather than invoking the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and its associated rules, unless specifically authorized by the competent authorities under the Act.

Furthermore, the court clarified that “No general directions can be issued to the Police to proceed in a particular manner and rather the petitioners can approach the Court in case the respondents proceed against the petitioners otherwise than in accordance with law.”

In its final ruling, the court concluded that the petition seemed to have been filed with an underlying agenda and therefore deemed it appropriate for dismissal with costs. However, the court showed leniency in its judgment and decided to dismiss the petition without imposing any costs.

Cause Title: M/s New B. N. Stone Crusher th. its Proprietor Sh. Badrinath and Ors v UT of J&k [WP(C) No. 1370/2021