- Case
- LATIKA SARJERAO BHOSALE v. THE ADDI. COLLECTOR PUNE DISTIRCT PUNE AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 08-04-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Environment (Protection) Act.
Facts: The petitioner, Latika Sarejrao Bhosale, sought permission for mining activities in Kauthadi, Daund, Pune. She obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Gram Panchayat on May 10, 2021, and the Additional Collector sanctioned a mining lease for five years. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat, influenced by villagers' opposition to the mining operations due to environmental concerns and potential impact on their livelihood, passed a resolution on July 28, 2021, to cancel the NOC. The petitioner challenged this cancellation, arguing that the Gram Panchayat could not revoke the NOC once granted.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, seeking to quash the Gram Panchayat's resolution and allow her to proceed with quarrying operations.
Issue: Can a Gram Panchayat revoke a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for mining activities after it has been granted, based on the opposition of villagers due to environmental concerns and potential impact on their livelihood?
Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the Gram Panchayat was justified in revoking the NOC. The Court found no irregularity in the unanimous decision of the villagers to disallow and withdraw the NOC to protect their livelihood and prevent pollution.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the villagers' decision was a conscious and unanimous one, taken to secure their livelihood and prevent pollution that could damage agriculture and poultry. The Court also noted that Clause XII of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority communication prohibits quarrying within a safe distance of any habitation or human activity. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner's land was located very close to an adjoining Gram Panchayat where mining was already permitted, potentially breaching condition XVIII of the Environmental Clearance, which requires a minimum distance between lease areas. The Court stated, "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."
