Ranchi, Oct 9 The Jharkhand High Court on Thursday rejected the state government’s plea, which sought to lift the stay on the allocation of sand ghats and other minor mineral areas across the state.
A division bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar, while hearing a contempt petition, reiterated that the ban will remain in place until the state government notifies the rules under the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA).
Advocate General Rajiv Ranjan, appearing for the state, informed the court that comments on the draft PESA rules had been sought from 17 departments, but five departments were yet to respond.
He added that once all responses are received, the draft will be sent to the Cabinet for approval, following which the rules will be implemented.
The Advocate General sought additional time to complete the process, but the bench maintained its interim order prohibiting the allotment of sand ghats and minor mineral leases. The next date of hearing in the matter is October 30.
Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Manoj Kumar, was present during the hearing on Thursday as directed by the court.
The High Court on September 9, while hearing a contempt petition filed by the Adivasi Intellectual Forum, had restrained the state from issuing leases for all types of minor minerals, including sand ghats, until the PESA rules were notified.
The court had earlier observed that the state government was undermining the spirit of the 73rd Constitutional Amendment, which empowers local bodies in Scheduled Areas to manage land and natural resources. Despite repeated directions, the state has failed to implement the PESA rules within the stipulated timeline, the court had said.
In July 2024, while hearing a public interest litigation, the High Court had directed the government to notify the PESA rules within two months, stating that they must align with the objectives of the 73rd Amendment and the PESA Act.
The Adivasi Intellectual Forum subsequently filed a contempt petition, citing non-compliance with the court’s order.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor