The Single Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal while dismissing a Writ Petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution reiterated the settled position of law that parties cannot approach the Court in mere anticipation and apprehension that the respondents are going to violate an Act in future while proceeding against them, without there being any actual violation of the relevant Act.
The Court was seized of a matter where the Petitioners, being involved in the business of stone crushing under the valid permission granted by the authorities concerned, had moved the High Court challenging an order passed by the Respondent-General Administration Department according sanction to the constitution of a Special Task Force to check the menace of illegal extraction of sand and other minor minerals from the bank of River Tawi and its tributaries. The main ground of contention of the Petitioners was that the order impugned has been issued without any competence, as only the authorities under the relevant Rules, have the jurisdiction to prevent the illegal extraction, transportation and storage of minor minerals, and in case of any violation, the respondents are required to take action under IPC only and not under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957,(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1957) until or unless the authorities under the Act or Rules request to do so.
However, the Respondents opposed the petition, inter-alia, on the grounds that the order impugned has been issued pursuant to directions and observations made by the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of “Dewakar Sharma and others vs State of J&K and others” (WPPIL No. 07/2014), to check the menace of illegal extraction of sand and minor minerals from the banks of River Tawi and its tributaries and that the writ petition has been filed in anticipation of any action to be taken by the respondents in future and rather the petitioners can raise their grievance only if the action, otherwise that in accordance with law, is taken against them.
The Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while considering the rival contentions, as well as the relevant law, observed that the Petitioners have neither impugned any FIR nor any order imposing penalty upon them, and are seeking a writ of certiorari to “quash the order impugned, which in fact, has been issued in public interest, after the Division Bench of this Court showed its serious concern in respect of illegal extraction of sand and minor minerals from the River Tawi and its tributaries and observed that the issue of illegal extraction of sand and other minor minerals is an important issue and critical to the lives of the residents of the Jammu and also for the preservation of environment and the river.”
The Court while remarking that it is not understandable as to how petitioners are affected by the constitution of Special Task Force, observed, “If the respondents commit any violation under the Act of 1957 and the rules while proceeding against the petitioners, the petitioners can approach this Court in respect of the alleged illegal act on the part of the respondents but on mere apprehension and anticipation, they cannot come to Court and say that the respondents are going to violate the Act in future while proceeding against the petitioners.” In making this observation the Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Manish S. Pardasani v. State Excise, [(2019) 2 SCC 660]”.
Thus, holding the whole cause projected by the petitioners as imaginary, the Court observed, “no general directions can be issued to the Police to proceedin 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”.
