http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA DEHRADUN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/03/1985

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1985 AIR  652            1985 SCR  (3) 169  1985 SCC  (2) 431        1985 SCALE  (1)408  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1987 SC2426  (1)  E          1988 SC2187  (36)

ACT:      Constitution of  India, Arts.32  and 48A  Environmental pollution -  Lime. stone  deposits-quarrying and  excavation of-ascertainment  of   pollution-Courts,   jurisdiction   to appoint  Committees-Suggestion   of  remedial   measures  by committees-Necssity of.

HEADNOTE:      The present Writ Petitions relate to the mining of lime stone quarries  in Dehradun mining area. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the Court appointed a Committee known as Bhargav  Committee for the purpose of inspecting the lime stone  quarries   mentioned  in   the  writ  petitions,  The Government of  India had  also  appointed  a  Working  Group headed by  the same Sh. D.N. Bhargav who was a member of the Bhargav Committee  appointed by  the Court on mining of lime stone quarries  in Dehradun  Mussoorie area,  some  time  in 1983. After  the hearing  was over,  the  Court  passed  the following order  on the  Writ Petitions  observing that  the reasons for  the order  will be  set out  in the judgment to follow later.      1. The  Court is clearly of the view that so far as the lime stone  quarries  classified  in  category  (c)  in  the Bhargav Committee  Report are  concerned, which have already been  closed  down  under  the  directions  of  the  Bhargav Committee, should  not be  allowed to  be operated.  If  the lessees of  these lime stone quarries have obtained any stay order from  any court permitting them to continue the mining operations, such stay order will stand dissolved an if there are any  subsisting leases  in respect  of any of these lime stone quarries,  they shall  stand  terminated  without  any liability against the State of Uttar Pradesh. The lime stone quarries in  Sahasradhara Block  even though they are placed in category  (b) by the Bhargav Committee should also not be allowed to  be operated and should be closed down forthwith. The Court  would also  direct, agreeing with the Report made by the  Working Group that the lime stone quarries placed in category (2) by the Working Group other than those which are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

placed in  categories (B)  and (C)  by the Bhargav Committee should also  not be  allowed to  be operated  and should  be closed down  save and  except for  the lime  stone  quarries covered by  mining leases  Nos. 31,  36 and 37 for which the Court would  give the  same direction  as will H be given in regard to  the lime  stone quarries classified as category B in the 170      Bhargav  Committee  Report.  If  there  are  subsisting leases in  respect of  any of these lime stone quarries they will forthwith  come to  an end  and if  any suits  or  writ petitions for  continuance of expired or unexpired leases in respect of  any of  these lime  stone quarries  are pending, they too will stand dismissed.                                               [175G-H; 176A]      (2) So  for as  the lime  stone quarries  classified as category in  the Bhargav  Committee Report and/or category I in the  Working Group Report are concerned, they are divided into two  classes, one  class consisting  of those which are within the  city limits of Mussorie and the other consisting of those  which are  outside the city limits. The lime stone quarries falling  within category  of the  Bhargav Committee Report and/or  Category 1  of the  Working Group  Report and falling outside  the city  limits  of  Mussorie,  should  be allowed to  be operated  subject of course to the observance of  the   requirements  of   the  Mill‘i   Act   1952,   the Metalliferous Mines  Regulations, 1961  and  other  relevant statutes, rules  and regulations. Of course, it must be made clear that  the Court  is not  holding that if the leases in respect of  these lime stone quarries have expired and suits or writ  petitions for  renewal of the leases are pending in the courts,  such leases should be automatically renewed. It will be  for the  appropriate courts  to decide whether such leases should be renewed or not having regard to the law and facts of  each case.  So far  as  the  lime  stone  quarries classified in  category  in  the  Bhargav  Committee  Report and/or cat  gory 1  in the  Working Group Report and falling within the  city limits of Mussorie are concerned, the Court would give  the same  direction which is it giving in regard the lime  stone quarries  classified as  category B  in  the Bhargav Committee Report.                                              [176F-H 177A-C]      The Court  does not  propose to  clear the  lime  stone quarries classified as category (B) in the Bhargav Committee Report and  category 2  in  the  Working  Group  Report  for continuance of  mining operations  nor to  close  them  down permanently without further inquiry, and accordingly appoint a high  powered Committee to be headed by Mr. Bandyopadhyay, Secretary, Ministry  for Rural  Development as Chairman. The lessees of the lime stone quarries classified as category in Bhargav Committee  Report and/or  Category I  in the Working Group Report and filling within the city limits of Mussoorie as also the lessees of the lime stone quarries classified as category in  the Bhargav Committee Report will be at liberty to submit  a fully and detailed scheme for mining their lime stone quarries  to this  Committee (hereinafter  called  the Bandyopadhyay Committee)  and if  any such scheme or schemes are submitted,  the Bandyopadhyay  Committee will proceed to examine the  same without any unnecessary delay and submit a report to  this Court  whether in its opinion the particular lime  stone   quarry  can  be  allowed  to  be  operated  in accordance with  the ’scheme  and if  so,  subject  to  what conditions and  if it can not be allowed to be operated, the reasons for  taking that  view. The  report submitted by the Bandyopadhyay Committee  in each  case will be considered by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

the Court and a decision will then be taken whether the lime stone quarry  or quarries in respect of which the Report has been made should be allowed to be operated or not. But until then those  lime stone  quarries will  not be  allowed to be operated or  worked and the District Authorities of Dehradun will take  prompt  and  active  steps  for  the  purpose  of ensuring that these lime 171      stone quarries are not operated or worked and no mining activity is carried on even clandestinely.                                      [177D-H; 178D-H: 179A]        4. So far as the lime stone quarries at Sl.Nos. 17 to 20 in  the category  in the  Bhargav  Committee  Report  are concerned, they have already been closed down and no further direction therefore  is necessary  to be  given in regard to them save and except in regard to removal of the lime stone, dolomite and  marble chips which may have already been mined and which may be lying at the site.                                                     [179E-F]             5(i) So far as lime stone quarries classified as category in  the Bhargav  Committee Report and/or category I in the Working Group Report and falling side the city limits of Mussoorie  are concerned,  the Court  has  permitted  the lessees of  these lime  stone quarries  to carry  on  mining operations and hence they must be allowed to remove whatever minerals are  lying at the site of these lime stone quarries without any  restirication whatsoever, save and except those prescribed by any statutes, rules or regulations and subject to payment of royalty.                                                     [181B-C]          5. (ii) So far as the other lime stone quarries are concerned,  whether   comprised  in   category  of   Bhargav Committee Report  of category  1 of the Working Group Report and falling  within the  City limits of Mussoorie or falling within category  2 of  the Working Group Report, the lessees of  these  lime  stone  buarries  are  permitted  to  remove whatever minerals  are  found  lying  at  the  site  of  its vicinity, provided  of course  such minerals are covered  by their respective  leases and/or quarry permits. Such removal will be carried out and completed by the lessees within four weeks from  the date  of this  Order and it Shall be done in the presence  of an  officer not  below the  rank of  Deputy Collector  to  be  nominated  by  the  District  Magistrate, Dehradun  a  gazetted  officer  from  the  Mines  Department nominated by  the Director  of Mines  and  a  public  spirit individual  in   Dehradun,  to   be  nominated  by  Shri  D. Bandopadhyay. No  part of  the minerals  lying at  the  site shall be  removed by  the lessees  except in the presence of the above  mentioned three persons. The lessees will, on the expiry of  the period of four weeks, submit a report to this Court setting out the precise quantities of minerals removed by them  from the  site pursuant to this Order made by   the Court. The  lessees shall  not be  entitled  to  remove  any minerals after the expiration of the period of four weeks.                                               [112E-H; 113A]      6(i) In  order to  mitigate the  hardship that  may  be caused to the lessees of lime stone quarries which have been directed to  be closed  down permanently  or  which  may  be directed to  be closed  down permanently after consideration of the Report of the Bandhopadjay Committee, the Court would direct the  Government of  India  and  the  State  of  Uttar Pradesh that  whenever any  other area in the State of Uttar Pradesh is  thrown open  for grant of lime stone or dolomite quarrying, the lessees who are displaced as a result of this Order shall  be afforded  priority in grant of lease of such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

area and intimation that such area is available for grant of lease shall be given to the lessees who are 172 displaced so  that they  can apply of grant of lease of such area and  on the  basis of such application, priority may be given to  them subject,  of course, to their otherwise being found fit and eligible.                                             [179G-H :180A-C]      6(ii) The  lime stone quarries which have been or which may be  directed to  be closed down permanently will have to be  reclaimed   and  afforestation   and  soil  conservation programme will  have to  be taken up in respect of such lime stone quarries.  and the  Court would  therefore direct that immediate steps  shall be taken for reclamation of the areas forming part  of such  lime stone  quarries with the help of the already  available Eco-Task  Force of  the Department of Environment, Government  of India  and the  workmen who  are thrown out of employment in consequence of this Court shall, as far  as practicable and in the shortest possible time, be provided  employment   in   the   afforestation   and   soil conservation programme to be taken up in this area.                                                     [180E-G] ^

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 8209 & 8821 of 83.        Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)      M.K. Ramamurthi B. Dutta, Anil Divan, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, O.P Rana,  S.N Kackar,  M.C. Bhandare, Shanti Bhushan. Milan K.   Banerji,    Additional    Solicitor    General,    M.A. Krishnamoorthy, Rishi  Kesh, K.N  Bhat,  M.G.  Ramachandran, Miss A.  Subhashini, K.K.  Jain. A.D.  Sangar, P. Dayal, C.V Subba Rao,  Raju Ramachandran  S.M. Suri R.N. Mehrotra, S.M. Suri,  C.M.   Nayyar,  Harjinder   Singh,   G.N.   Rao,   M. Karanjawala, Shakeel  Ahmed Syed,  S.K.  Jain,  Mrs.  Shobha Dikshit, P.P. Juneja, P.K Jain, J.B.D. & Co., Indra Makwana, A. SubbaRao,  B.P. Singh,  Parijat  Sinha,  C.P.  Lal,  Shri Narain,  S.K.   Gupta,  K.R.  Namiar,  S.S.  Jauhar,  D.  M. Nargolkar, Mrs  Rani Chhabra, Kapil Sibbal, B.P. Maheshwari, R.P. Singh, S.A. Syed for the appearing parties.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered       BHAGWATI, J. This case has been argued at great length before us not only because a large number of lessees of lime stone quarries  are involved  and each  of them  has  pains- takingly and  exhaustively canvassed  his factual as well as legal points of view but also because this is the first case of its  kind in  the country  involving issues  relating  to environment and ecological balance and the questions arising for considerations  are of grave moment and significance not only to the people residing in the Mussoorie 173 Hill range  forming part  of the Himalayas but also in their implications to  the welfare  of the  generality  of  people living in  the country.  It  brings  into  sharp  focus  the conflict between  development and conservation and serves to emphasise the  need for  reconciling the  two in  the larger interest of  the country.  But since  having regard  to  the voluminous material  placed  before  us  and  the  momentous issues raised  for decision,  it is  not possible  for us to prepare a  full and detailed judgment immediately and at the same time,  on account  of interim  order made by us, mining operations carried  out through  blasting have  been stopped and the  ends of  justice require  that the  lessees of lime

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

stone quarries  should know,  without any unnecessary delay, as to  where they  stand  in  regard  to  their  lime  stone quarries,  we   propose  to  pass  our  order  on  the  writ petitions. The  reasons for the order will be set out in the judgment to follow later.      We had  by Order  dated 11th  August 1983  appointed  a Committee  consisting   of  Shri  D.N.  Bhargav,  Controller General, Indian  Bureau of  Mines, Nagpur, Shri M.S. Kahlon, Director General of Mines Safety and Col. P. Mishra, Head of the Indian  Photo Interpretation  Institute (National Remote Sensing Agency)  for the  purpose of  inspecting,  the  lime stone quarries mentioned in the writ petition as also in the list submitted  by the  Government of  Uttar  Pradesh.  This Committee  which  we  shall  hereinafter  for  the  sake  of convenience refer  to as  the Bhargav  Committee,  submitted three reports  after  inspecting  most  of  the  lime  stone quarries and  t divided  the lime  stone quarries into three groups. The  lime stone  quarries comprised in category were those where  in the  opinion of  the Bhargav  Committee  the adverse impact  of the mining operations was relatively less pronounced; category  comprised those  lime  stone  duarries where in  the opinion  of the  Bhargav Committee the adverse impact of  mining operations  was relatively more pronounced and category  covered those  lime stone  quarries which  had been directed  to be  closed down  by the  Bhargav Committee under the  orders made  by us  on  account  of  deficiencies regarding safety and hazards of more serious nature.      It seems  that the Government of India also appointed a working Group  on Mining  of Lime Stone Quarries in Dehradun Mussoorie area,  some time  in 1983.  The Working  Group was also headed by the same Sh. D.N. Bhargav who was a member 174 of the  Bhargav Committee  appointed by  us. There were five other members  of the  Working Group  along with  Shri  D.N. Bhargav and  one of  them was  Dr. S.Mudgal  who was  at the relevant time  Director in  the Department  of  Environment, Government of India and who placed the report of the Working Group before the Court along with his affidavit. The Working Group in  its report  submitted in  September  1983  made  a review of  lime  stone  quarry  leases  for  continuance  or discontinuance of  mining operations  and after  a  detailed consideration of  various aspects  recommended that the lime stone quarries should be divided into two categories, namely category 1  and category 2; category 1 comprising lime stone quarries  considered  suitable  for  continuance  of  mining operations and  category 2  comprising lime  stone  quarries which were considered unsuitable for further mining.      It is  interesting to note that the lime stone quarries comprised in  category of  the Bhargav Committee Report were the same  lime  stone  quarries  which  were  classified  in category 1  by the Working Group and the lime stone quarries in categories  and of  the  Bhargav  Committee  Report  were classified in category 2 of the Report of the Working Group. It will thus be seen that both the Bhargav Committee and the Working Group  were unanimous  in their  view that  the lime stone  quarries   classified  in  category  by  the  Bhargav Committee Report  and category  1 by  the Working Group were suitable for continuance of mining operations. So far as the lime stone  quarries in  category of  the Bhargav  Committee Report are concerned, they were regarded by both the Bhargav Committee  and   the  Working   Group  as   unsuitable   for continuance  of  mining operations  and both  were of the view that they should be  closed down.  The  only  difference  between  the Bhargav Committee  and the  Working Group  was in  regard to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

lime stone  quarries classified  in category  B. The Bhargav Committee  Report  took  the  view  that  these  lime  stone quarries need  not be  closed down,  but it did observe that the adverse  impact of mining operations in these lime stone quarries  was  more  pronounced,  while  the  Working  Group definitely took the view that these lime stone quarries were not suitable for further mining.      While making  this Order  we are  not  going  into  the various remifications  of the  arguments advanced  before us but we may 175 observe straight  away that we do not propose to rely on the Report of  Prof. K  S. Valdia, who was one of the members of the Expert  Committee appointed by us by our Order dated 2nd September 1983,  as modified by the Order dated 25th October 1983. This  Committee consisted  of Prof.  K.S. Valdia, Shri Hukum Singh  and Shri  D.N. Kaul  and it  was  appointed  to enquire and  investigate into the question of disturbance of ecology and  pollution and  affectation of  air,  water  and environment by  reason  of  quarrying  operations  or  stone crushers or  lime stone kilns. Shri D.N. Kaul and Shri Hukum Singh submitted  a joint  report in  regard to  the  various aspects while Prof. K.S. Valdia submitted a separate report. Prof. K.S.  Valdia’s Report  was  confined  largely  to  the geological aspect  and in  the report he placed considerable reliance on  the Main  Boundary Thrust  (hereinafter shortly referred to  as M.B.T.)  and he  took the view that the lime stone quarries  which were  dangerously close  to the M.B.T. should be  closed down,  because they were in this sensitive and vulnerable  belt. We shall examine this Report in detail when we  give our  reason but we may straight away point out that we  do not  think it  safe  to  direct  continuance  or discontinuance of  mining operations  in lime stone quarries on the  basis of  the M.B.T. We are therefore not basing our conclusions on  the Report  of Prof.  K.S. Valdia  but while doing so  we may  add that  we do  not for  a moment wish to express any doubt on the correctness of his Report.      We shall  also examine  in detail  the question  as  to whether lime  stone deposits  act as  aquifers or  not.  But there can  be no  gain saying  that lime stone quarrying and excavation of  the lime stone deposits do seem to affect the perennial water  springs. This environmental disturbance has however to  be weighed  in the  balance against  the need of lime stone  quarrying for industrial purposes in the country and we have taken this aspect into account while making this order.      We are  clearly of  the view  that so  far as  the lime stone  quarries   classified  in  category  in  the  Bhargav Committee Report  are  concerned  which  have  already  been closed down  under the  directions of the Bhargav Committee, should not  be allowed  to be  operated. If  the leasees  of these lime  stone quarries have obtained any stay order from any court permitting them to continue the mining operations, such stay order will stand dissolved and if there 176 are any  subsisting leasees  in respect of any of these lime stone quarries  they  shall  stand  terminated  without  any liability against  the State  of Uttar Pradesh. If there are any suits  or writ  petitions for  continuance of expired or unexpired leases  in respect  of any  of  these  lime  stone quarries pending, they will stand dismissed.      We would  also give the same direction in regard to the lime stone  quarries in  the Shasradhara  Block even  though they are placed in category by the Bhargav Committee. So far as these  lime stone  quarries  in  Sahasradhara  Block  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

concerned, we  agree with  the Report  made by  the  Working Group and  we direct  that these  lime stone quarries should not be  allowed to  be operated  and should  be closed  down forthwith. We  would also  direct, agreeing  with the Report made by  the Working  Group that  the  lime  stone  quarries placed in  category 2  by the Working Group other than those which are  placed in categories and by the Bhargav Committee should also  not be  allowed to  be operated  and should  be closed down  save and  except for  the lime  stone  quarries covered by  mining leases  Nos. 31,  36 and  37 for which we would give  the same  direction as  we  are  giving  in  the succeeding paragraphs  in regard  to the lime stone quarries classified as  category in  the Bhargav Committee Report. If there are  any subsisting  leases in respect of any of these lime stone  quarries they  will forthwith come to an end and if any suits or writ petitions for continuance of expired or unexpired leases  in respect  of any  of  these  lime  stone quarries are pending, they too will stand dismissed.      So  far  as  the  lime  stone  quarries  classified  as category in  the Bhargav  Committee Report and/or category 1 in the  Working Group  Report arc concerned, we would divide them into  two classes,  one class  consisting of those lime stone quarries which are within the city limits of Mussoorie and the other consisting of those which are outside the city limits. We  take the  view  that  the  lime  stone  quarries falling within  category of  the  Bhargav  Committee  Report and/or category  1 of  the Working  Group Report and falling outside the  city limits  of Mussoorie, should be allowed to be operated  subject of  course to  the  observance  of  the requirements of  the Mines  Act 1952, the Metallferous Mines Regulations, 1961  and other  relevant statutes,  rules  and regulations. Of  course when  we say  this we  must make  it clear 177 that we  are not  holding that  if the  leases in respect of these lime  stone quarries  have expired  and suits  or writ petitions for  renewal of  the leases  are  pending  in  the courts, such leases should be automatically renewed. It will be for  the appropriate courts to decide whether such leases should be  renewed or not having regard to the law and facts of each  case. So  far as the lime stone quarries classified in category  in the Bhargav Committee Report and or category 1 in  the Working  Group Report  and falling within the city limits of  Mussoorie are  concerned, we  would give the same direction  which  we  are  giving  in  the  next  succeeding paragraph in regard to the lime stone quarries classified as category in the Bhargav Committee Report.      That takes  us to the lime stone quarries classified as category in  the Bhargav  Committee Report and category 2 in the Working  Group Report.  We do not propose to clear these lime stone quarries for continuance of mining operations nor to close  them down  permanently without further inquiry. We accordingly appoint  a high  powered Committee consisting of Mr.  D.   Bandyopadhyay,  Secretary,   Ministry  for   Rural Development  as  Chairman  and  Shri  H.S.  Ahuja.  Director General, Mines  Safety, Dhanbad,  Bihar, Shri  D.N. Bhargav, Controller General,  Indian Bureau of Mines, New Secretariat Building, Nagpur  and two  experts to  be nominated  by  the Department of  environment, Government  of India within four weeks from  the date  of this Order. The lessees of the lime stone quarries  classified as  category in Bhargav Committee Report and  for Category  1 in  the working Group Report and falling within  the city  limits of  Mussoorie as  also  the lessees of the lime stone quarries classified as category in the Bhargav  Committee Report will be at liberty to submit a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

full  and  detailed  scheme  for  mining  their  lime  stone quarries  to   this  Committee   (hereinafter   called   the Bandyopadhyay Committee)  and if  any such scheme or schemes are submitted  the Bandyopadhyay  Committee will  proceed to examine the  same without any unnecessary delay and submit a report to  this Court  whether in its opinion the particular lime  stone   quarry  can  be  allowed  to  be  operated  in accordance with  the scheme  and  if  so,  subject  to  what conditions and  if it  cannot be allowed to be operated, the reasons for taking that view. The Bandyopadhyay Committee in making its report will take into account the various aspects which we  had directed  the Bhargav  Committee and  the Kaul Committee to  consider while making their respective reports including 178 the circumstance  that the  particular lime stone quarry may or may  not be  within the city limits of Mussoorie and also give an  opportunity to  the concerned  lessee to  be heard, even though  it be briefly. The Bandyopadhyay Committee will also consider while making its report whether any violations of the  provisions of  the Mines Act 1952, the Metalliferous Mines Regulations,  1961 and  other relevant statutes, rules and regulations  were committed by the lessee submitting the scheme or  schemes and  if so,  what were the nature, extent and frequency of such violations and their possible hazards. The Bandyopadhyay Committee will also insist on a broad plan of exploitation  coupled  with  detailed  mining  management plans to  be submitted  along with the scheme or schemes and take care  to  ensure  that  the  lime  stone  deposits  are exploited in  a scientific  and  systematic  manner  and  if necessary, even  by two  or more lessees coming together and combining the  areas  of  the  lime  stone  quarries  to  be exploited by  them. It  should also  be the  concern of  the Bandyopadhyay Committee  while  considering  the  scheme  or schemes submitted  to it  and making  its report,  to ensure that the lime stone on exploitation is specifically utilised only in  special industries having regard to its quality and is not wasted by being utilised in industries for which high grade lime  stone is  not required.  The necessary funds for the purpose  of meeting  the expenses  which may  have to be incurred by  the members of the Bandyopadhyay Committee will be provided  by the  State of  Uttar Pradesh including their travelling and other allowances appropriate to their office. The State  of Uttar Pradesh will also provide to the members of the Bandyopadhyay Committee necessary transport and other facilities for  the purpose  of enabling  them to  discharge their functions  under this  Order. If any notice, are to be served  by   the  Bandyopadhyay   Committee   the   District Administration  of   Dehradun  will  provide  the  necessary assistance for  serving of  such notices  on the  lessees or other interested  parties. The  Bandyopadhyay Committee will also be entitled before expressing its opinion on the scheme or schemes  submitted to  it, to  hear the  petitioner,  the interventionists in  this case  and such  other  persons  or organisations  as  may  be  interested  in  maintenance  and preservation of  healthy environment and ecological balance. The  Indian   Bureau  of   Mines  will  provide  secretarial facilities  to   the  Bandyopadhyay  Committee.  The  report submitted by  the Bandyopadhyay  Committee in each case will be considered by the Court and a decision will then be taken whether the  limit stone  quarry or  quarries in  respect of which the report has been 179 made should be allowed to be operated or not. But until then these lime stone quarries will not be allowed to be operated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

or worked and the District Authorities of Dehradun will take prompt and  active steps  for the  purpose of  ensuring that these lime  stone quarries are not operated or worked and no mining activity is carsied on even clandestinely. This order made by  us will  supersode any  stay or  any other  interim order obtained  by the  lessee of  any of  these lime  stone quarries permitting  him to  carry on  mining operations and notwithstanding such  stay order  or other  interim order or subsisting lease, the lessees shall not be entitled to carry on any mining activity whatsoever in any of these lime stone quarries and  shall desist  from doing  so. The  lessees  of these limestone  quarries will  also not in the meanwhile be permitted to  rectify the  defects pointed out in the orders issued by the District Mining authority but they may include the proposal  for  which  rectification  in  the  scheme  or schemes  which   they  may   submit  to   the  Bandyopadhyay Committee.  We   may  however   make  it   clear  that   non rectification of  the defects pursuant to the notices issued by the  District  Mining  authorities  shall  not  be  taken advantage of  by the  State of Uttar Pradesh as a ground for terminating the lease or leases.      We may point out that so far as the lime stone quarries at Sl.  Nos. 1  7 to 20 in category in the Bhargav Committee Report are  concerned we are informed that they have already been closed  down and  no  further  direction  therefore  is necessary to  be given  in regard to them save and except in regard to  removal of  the lime  stone, dolomite  and marble chips which  may have  already been  mined and  which may be lying  at   the  site  for  which  we  are  giving  separate directions in  one of  the  succeeding  paragraphs  in  this order.      The consequence  of this Order made by us would be that the lessees  of lime stone quarries which have been directed to be  closed down permanently under this Order or which may be  directed   to   be   closed   down   permanently   after consideration of  the report  of the Bandopadhyay Committee, would be  thrown out of business in which they have invested large sums  of money  and  expanded  considerable  time  and effort. This  would undoubtedly cause hardship to the but It is  a   price  that  has  to  be  paid  for  protecting  and safeguarding the  right of  the people  to live  in  healthy environment with minimal H 180 disturbance of  ecological  balance  and  without  avoidable hazard to  them and  to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and  undue affectation  of air,  water and  environment However, in  order to  mitigate  their  hardship,  we  would direct the  Government of  India  and  the  State  of  Uttar Pradesh that  whenever any  other area in the State of Uttar Pradesh is  thrown open  for grant of lime stone or dolomite quarrying, the lessees who are displaced as a result of this order shall  be afforded  priority in grant of lease of such area and intimation that such area is available for grant of lease shall  be given  to the  lessees who  are displaced so that they  can apply  for grant of lease of such area and on the basis of such application, priority may be given to them subject, of  course, to  their otherwise being found fit and eligible. We  have no  doubt that  while throwing  open  new areas  for  grant  of  lease  for  lime  stone  or  dolomite quarrying, the  Government of  India and  the State of Uttar Pradesh will  take into  account the considerations to which we have averted in this order.      We are conscious that as a result of this Order made by us, the  workmen employed  in the  lime stone quarries which have been  directed to be closed down permanently under this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

Order or which may be directed to be closed down permanently after  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  Bandopadhyay Committee, will  be thrown  out of employment and even those workmen who  are employed  in the  lime stone quarries which have been  directed to  be closed  down temporarily  pending submission  of   scheme  or   schemes  by  the  lessees  and consideration of such scheme or schemes by the Bandyopadhyay Committee, will  be without work for the time being. But the lime stone quarries which have been or which may be directed to be  closed down permanently will have to be reclaimed and afforestation and  soil conservation  programme will have to be taken  up in  respect of  such lime stone quarries and we would therefore  direct that  immediate steps shall be given for reclamation  of the areas forming part of such limestone quarries with  the help  of the  already available  Eco-Task Force of  the Department of Environment, Government of India and  the  workmen  who  are  thrown  out  of  employment  in consequence of  this Order  shall, as far as practicable and in the shortest possible time, be provided employment in the afforestation and soil conservation programme to be taken up in this area.      There are several applications before us for removal of lime 181 stone, dolomite and marble chips mined from the quarries and lying   at the  site and  these applications  also are being disposed of  by this  Order. So  far as  lime stone quarries classified as  category in  the Bhargav Committee Report and for category  1 in  the Working  Group  Report  and  falling outside the  city limits of Mussorrie are concerned, we have permitted the  lessees of these lime stone quarries to carry on mining  operations and  hence they  must  be  allowed  to remove whatever minerals are lying at the site of these lime stone quarries  without any restriction whatsoever, save and except  those   prescribed  by   any  statutes,   rules   or regulations and subject to payment of royalty. So far as the other lime  stone quarries  are concerned, whether comprised in category of Bhargav Committee Report or category 1 of the Working Group  Report and  falling within the city limits of Mussorrie or  falling within  category or  category  of  the Bhargav Committee  Report or category 2 of the Working Group Report, there  is a  serious dispute  between the lessees of these lime  stone quarries  on the  hand and the petitioners and the  state of  Utter Pradesh  on the other as to what is the exact  quantity of  minerals mined  by the  lessees  and lying at  the site.  We had  made an  order on 15th December 1983 requiring  the District  Magistrate Dehradun  to depute some officer  either of  his Department  or  of  the  Mining Department to  visit the  site of  these lime stone quarries for the  purpose of  assessing the  exact quantity  of  lime stone lying  there and  to report  in this  connection.  The District Magistrate,  Dehradun  deputed  the  Sub-Divisional Magistrates of  Mussoorie and Tehsildar (Quarry) Dehradun to inspect the  20 stone  quarries comprised in category of the Bhargav Committee Report which had been ordered to be closed down under  the directions  of the  Bhargav Committee and an affidavit was  filed on  behalf of  the District  Magistrate Dehradun, by  Kedar Singh Arya, Tehsildar (Quarry) Dehradun, annexing a  chart showing  the details of the minerals mined by the lessees of those lime stone quarries and lying at the site. Thereafter,  when again  the case  came up for hearing before us  an 5th  January 1984,  we, in  order to allay any apprehensions on  the part  of the lessees that the District Authorities had  not done  their job  correctly in assessing the quantity  of minerals  lying at  the site,  appointed  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

Committee of  two officers, namely, Shri D. Bandophadyay and Director of  Geology (Mines)  Lucknow  for  the  purpose  of visiting the  time stone quarries which had been directed to be closed  down and to assess the quantity of minerals lying on the site of those limestone quarries 182 after giving  notice to the concerned lessees as also to the District Magistrate  Dehradun and the representatives of the petitioners. Pursuant  to this  order made  by us,  Shri  D, Bandhopadhyay and  the Director  of Guology  (Mines) Lucknow visited the lime stone quarries comprised in category of the Bhargav Committee  Report and directed to be closed down and assessed the  quantity of minerals lying at the site of each of these lime stone quarries. The quantity of minerals lying at the  site, a  cording to  Shri D.  Bandopadhyay  and  the Director of  Geology (Mines),  was very  much less than what was claimed  by the  lessees and  it does appear that though these lime  stone quarries  were directed to be closed down, illegal mining  was being  carried on clandestinely, because otherwise it  is difficult  to understand how the figures of the quantity  of the  minerals lying at the site as assessed in  December.   1983  by  the  District  Authorities  became inflated when  Shri D.  Bandophadyay and Director of Geology (Mines) made their assessment in January 1984 and thereafter the figures  again got inflated if the quantity  now claimed by the  lessees as  lying on the site is correct. We do not, however, propose  to go into the question as to what was the precise quantity  of minerals  mined by the lessees of these limestone quarries  and lying  at the  site at the time when these  lime  stone  quarries  were  closed  down  under  the directions of  the Bhargav  Committee. We  would permit  the lessees of  these lime  stone   quarries to  remove whatever minerals are  found  lying  at  the  site  or  its  vicinity provided and  of course  such minerals  are covered by their respective leases  or quarry  permits. Such  removal will be carried out  and completed  by the lessees within four weeks from the  date of  this Order  and it  shall be done ill the presence  of  an  officer  not  below  the  rank  of  Deputy Collector to  be nominated  by  the    District  Magistrate, Dehradun, a  gazetted  officer  from  the  Mines  Department nominated by  the Director  of Mines  and  a  public  spirit individual in Dehradun, other than Mr. Avdesh Koushal, to be nominated by Shri D. Bandopadhyay. These nomination shall be made within  one week  from today  and they  may be  changed from time  to  time  depending  on  the  exigencies  of  the situation. Notice  of intended  removal of minerals lying at the site  shall be  given by  the lessees  to  the  District Magistrate Dehradun,  Director of  Mines  Dehradun  and  the person nominated  by Shri  D. Bandophadyay.  No part  of the minerals lying  at the  site shall be removed by the lessees except in the presence of the above mentioned three persons. The lessees will on the expiry of the period of four weeks 183 submit a  report to  this  Court  setting  out  the  precise quantities  of  minerals  removed  by  them  from  the  site pursuant to  this Order made by us. The lessees shall not be entitled to  remove any minerals after the expiration of the period of four weeks.      Before we  close  we  wish  to  express  our  sense  of appreciation for the very commendable assistance rendered to us by  Shri Pramod  Dayal,  learned  advocate  appearing  on behalf  of   some  of   the  lessees.   He   undertook   the responsibility  of  arranging  the  various  affidavits  and written submissions in a proper and systematic manner and we must confess  that but  for the  extremely  able  assistance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

rendered by  him, it  would not have been possible for us to complete the hearing of this case satisfactorily and to pass this order  within such  a short  time. We would direct that the Government  of India  and the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh should each  pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 to Shri Pramod Dayal for the work  done by him. We may point out that this payment to Shri Pramod  Dayal is  not  in  lieu  of  costs  but  is  an additional remuneration which we are directing to be paid in recognition of  the very valuable assistance rendered by him to the Court. M.L.A. 184