Send Representation To Authorities, Not Legal Notice: Gujarat High Court Dismisses PIL Against Mining Activities In Gir
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting the threat to Gir lions and humans due to the alleged non-adherence to Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions for conducting mining activities in the area. The division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi,“We may note that this type of petition prepared by the learned...
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting the threat to Gir lions and humans due to the alleged non-adherence to Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions for conducting mining activities in the area.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Pranav Trivedi,“We may note that this type of petition prepared by the learned advocate based on the legal notice given to the Collector that too by the advocate, in the nature of the public interest litigation, cannot be entertained.”
The PIL was based on a legal notice dated January 31, 2024, sent by an advocate to the Collector, various ministries, and other office bearers of different Corporations, Boards, and Statutory authorities. It was filed on behalf of five residents of Sutrapada village in the Gir-Somnath district, highlighting environmental damage and threats to wildlife, particularly Gir lions, due to mining activities by respondent No.12.
Advocate AJ Yagnik, representing the petitioners, argued that the mining violations had resulted in four deaths over six years, including two school-going sisters in 2021. Yagnik also noted the lack of fencing around the mining area, which lies in the migratory route of Gir lions. The mine in question, operated by Ambuja Cements, holds a major mining license for limestone extraction.
When questioned by the Court whether the aggrieved parties had approached the concerned authorities before filing the PIL, Yagnik replied that a 231-page legal notice had been sent to the district collector and others on March 31. The Court responded that the petitioners were expected to send a representation, not a legal notice, through an advocate.
The Court emphasised, “You were not supposed to issue legal notice, there is no legal relationship between you and the collector. Collector is not supposed to answer to this kind of legal notice.”
Dismissing the PIL as misconceived, the Court recorded in its order,“In case of any grievance of the petitioners, they are required to approach the Collector and the competent authority by moving an appropriate application stating the categorical issues pertaining to damage to the environment and threat to the wild life.”
Case details: Ramesh Arshibhai Vala & Ors. Versus Ministry Of Environment, Forest And Climate Change & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 88