High Court dismisses Shella Action Committee’s PIL against Lafarge and two other companies

Shillong, Sept 19: The Meghalaya High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Shella Action Committee (SAC) on the ground that the petition was aimed at jeopardizing the progress of tribals residing within Shella area in East Khasi Hills district, bordering Bangladesh.

The PIL originally was filed before the Gauhati High Court and registered as registered as PIL No.40 of 2007 and the same was admitted on May 16, 2007.

The petition was transferred from the Gauhati High Court to the Meghalaya High Court on May 3, 2013.

A judgment passed by the division bench which comprised of Chief Justice Mohammad Yaqoob Mir and Justice SR Sen said, “On final analysis, spirit of the PIL is found with lot of negativity aimed at jeopardizing the progress of the tribal of village Shella. In the upshot, petition deserve dismissal as such is dismissed with costs.”

The bench also directed the Shella Action Committee to pay a fine of Rs 20,000 within one month and deposit it in the relief welfare fund maintained by the High Court of Meghalaya presently for flood sufferers in Kerela.

The SAC, which has projected itself to be the well wishers of tribal, for protecting and safeguarding the rights of the poor, illiterate and indigenous people of Shella village, had filed the PIL alleged that Lum Mawshun Minerals Pvt. Ltd and Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd are two corporate bodies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 whereas, Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd is a corporate body incorporated in Bangladesh with its headquarter at Dhaka.

The respondent No.9 (Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd) is doing business at Dhaka having cement factory located at Chatak whereas, respondents No.7 and 8 (Lum Mawshun Minerals Pvt. Ltd and Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd) excavate and obtain mineral from Meghalaya, India and supply the same to the respondent No.9.

“The income acquired therein and taxes levied are paid to the Government of Bangladesh, thus, deprive the State of Meghalaya and Union of India from receiving its due share of taxes, causing serious loss of revenue and also irreparable loss to the indigenous people residing within the Sixth Schedule area,” the SAC alleged said alleging that the respondents No.7 and 8 are excavating minerals in gross violation of the Mines Act, 1952.

It is alleged that an area of 4,36,643 square meter of land have been allegedly sold and leased out in Shella and Tynger village areas rich minerals such as limestone, silt stone, shale and other minerals. The PIL also alleged that 87 persons have sold and leased out the land not belonging to them.

However, the bench said that it has found out that the petition (PIL) to be totally without any merit and tainted with ‘ill design’ as it observed negative approach is always detrimental to the progress, development and prosperity.

It further stated the contributions on health sector, tax sector, exchequer sector and revenue as detailed hereinabove, is a glaring example of great contributions made by respondents No.7 and 8.

“Valid mining operation through them has proved to be boon for the economy of not only the inhabitants of the area but for the State as a whole,” the bench said.

Stating that a drowning man catches at a straw is a proverb applicable to the petitioner because after failing on every ground they have raised the issue of land title, it said, “They are nobody to raise such an issue, their intentions stand exposed by the fact that during pendency of this matter from 2007 till date, they have not been able to produce single individual with an affidavit to claim that his land has been transferred illegally.”

According to the bench, no one has come forward to claim title adverse to those land owners who have transferred their land (sold or leased out) in favour of the respondent No.7.

Moreover, the State authorities in their written submission to the Court have made it clear that while granting permission for transfer of land the provisions of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 were strictly followed.

“We after bestowing thoughtful consideration to the entire gamut of the matter have reached to an inescapable conclusion that in fact the petitioner has filed the petition (PIL) without any substantial cause, they may be the residents of village Shella but are stated to have been residing in Shillong and operating from there to the disadvantage of the people of the village Shella,” it added.