The Bombay High Court has affirmed the constitutional mandate that Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas must be meaningfully consulted before the auction of minor minerals like sand. This ruling reinforces the autonomy granted to tribal communities under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, and sets a critical precedent for resource governance in India’s indigenous regions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Savitri, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Pulkhal in Gadchiroli district, challenged the State of Maharashtra’s policy of auctioning minor minerals - including sand - without prior consultation with the Gram Sabha. She contended that such auctions violate the statutory rights of tribal communities under the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), which vests control over minor forest produce and minor minerals in Gram Sabhas.
Procedural History
- The petitioner submitted representations on 06.01.2026 and 23.01.2026 to the District Collector, demanding consultation before mineral auctions.
- These representations were ignored, prompting the filing of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The State did not contest the factual basis of the petition but argued that mineral auctions fall under state policy and are not subject to Gram Sabha approval.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a declaration that the Gram Sabha has the legal authority to manage, regulate, and approve the extraction and auction of minor minerals within its customary territory, in accordance with Section 32 of PESA and the PESA Rules, 2014.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 32 of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 grants Gram Sabhas the power to control and manage minor minerals, and whether the State can lawfully bypass their consultation in mineral auction processes.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on Section 32 of PESA, which explicitly empowers Gram Sabhas to "prevent alienation of land" and "own minor forest produce" and to "manage minor minerals." Counsel cited State of Maharashtra v. Bhagwan Singh (2020) to argue that PESA is a protective statute meant to preserve tribal self-governance. The petitioner emphasized that the term "minor minerals" under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act includes sand, and that PESA overrides state mining policies in Scheduled Areas.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that mineral auctions are governed by the MMDR Act and state-level auction policies, which are not subject to Gram Sabha approval. It argued that PESA does not explicitly prohibit auctions but only mandates consultation, and that the State’s policy already includes procedural safeguards. The State further claimed that granting Gram Sabhas veto power would impede economic development.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the text, purpose, and legislative intent behind PESA, 1996, particularly Section 32, which states that Gram Sabhas shall have the power to "manage minor minerals" and "prevent alienation of land." The Court held that the word "manage" is not a mere advisory term but encompasses regulatory authority, including the power to approve or reject extraction activities.
"The legislative intent behind PESA is to restore the traditional rights of Scheduled Tribes over their natural resources, not to reduce them to token consultation."
The Court distinguished the State’s reliance on the MMDR Act, noting that PESA is a special law enacted under Article 243M(4) of the Constitution and prevails over general state mining policies under the doctrine of lex specialis. The Court rejected the argument that consultation is optional, stating that meaningful participation is a constitutional obligation under the Fifth Schedule.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had previously submitted representations, which remained unaddressed. This inaction, the Court held, amounted to a violation of the duty to act in good faith under administrative law.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas have statutory authority under PESA to manage minor minerals, and that the State cannot proceed with auctions without their prior consultation and consent. The Court directed the State to treat the petition as a representation and decide it within twelve weeks, in accordance with PESA and its Rules.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consultation Is Not Optional
- Practitioners must now treat Gram Sabha consent as a mandatory pre-condition for any mineral extraction or auction in Scheduled Areas.
- State agencies cannot rely on general mining policies to override PESA; non-compliance renders approvals voidable.
Documentation Is Critical
- Gram Sabha resolutions approving or rejecting mineral projects must be formally recorded and preserved.
- Failure to produce such records in court will be viewed as procedural arbitrariness under Article 14.
PESA Overrides State Laws
- Any state policy conflicting with PESA’s provisions is ultra vires.
- Legal challenges to mineral auctions in Scheduled Areas must now be framed as violations of Section 32 of PESA, not merely administrative lapses.
