http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRAAND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1990

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH SAWANT, P.B. RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (3)  72        JT 1990  Supl.  (2)   391  1990 SCALE  (1)97

ACT:     Constitution   of   India,    1950:   Article   32--Doon Valley--Loss   caused  to  ecology--Mining   operations   to stop--No petition to be entertained by Registry.

HEADNOTE:     Disposing  of on 30.8.1988 Writ Petitions Nos. 8209  and 8821 of 1983 this Court had come to the conclusion that  the entire mining operation in the Doon Valley should come to  a halt  excepting in the case of a selected few,  for  reasons indicated in that order. Since then from time to time sever- al  applications  had been moved by the  ex-lessees  seeking permission for removing the stacked material or extension of time  for appropriating the mined material. In  allowing  or rejecting each such application this Court has been express- ing  itself  clearly  that the Doon Valley  should  be  made available for afforestation to make good the loss caused  to the ecology.     By  today’s  order while disposing of  all  the  pending applications including one fresh Writ Petition in the  light of the report of the Monitoring Committee appointed by  this Court, the Court,     HELD:  No application either for original permission  or for extension of time shall hereafter be entertained by this Court  and  the Registry is directed by this  order  not  to entertain such petitions. It may be that such direction  may affect some one who has not been vigilant or has on  account of some other difficulty or hardship not been able to remove the  stacked material within his leasehold area in the  Doon Valley;  but taking the broad interest of the entire  Valley into  account such individual losses or inconveniences  have to  be  sacrificed  and/or overlooked and  equities  can  no longer be allowed to be invoked. [76A-B]     A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be placed  by the Monitoring Committee by 30th June,  1990  for consideration of the Court on 23rd July, 1990. The rehabili- tation scheme which has already been furnished by the appro- priate committee should also be 73 placed before the Court for orders on the said date. [80B-C]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 1, 3 and 10 of 1989 and 12 of 1990.                  IN Writ Petition (C) No. 8209 of 1983 etc. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).     V.A. Bobde, V. Gauri Shankar, M.K. Ramamurthy,  Prashant Bhushan,  T. Sridharan, Ms. Shobha Dixit and  M.A.  Krishna- murthy fox the Petitioners.     Ms.  Anil  Katiyar, Ms. A.  Subhashini  R.P.  Srivastava (NP), Promod Dayal, R.B. Mehrotra and Raju Ramachandran  for the Respondents. The Order of the Court was delivered by     RANGANATH  MISRA,  J.  On 30th of  August,  1988,  while disposing of two writ petitions being Nos. 8209 and 8821  of 1983,  this  Court came to the conclusion  that  the  entire mining  operation in the Doon Valley should come to a  halt. With  a  view  to effectuating this  conclusion  all  mining activity was directed to be stopped excepting in the case of a few for reasons indicated in that order.     Several  applications thereafter came before this  Court for permission to remove stacked material and almost for one and a half years now, many rounds of such applications  have been  filed  before this Court which have led  to  inquiries being  made by executive authorities, a joint inspection  by the  District  Judge  and the District  Magistrate  as  also separate reports from the Monitoring Committee appointed  by this  Court. After hearing parties in some cases  the  court has  granted  permission for removal and extended  time  for appropriating  the mined material. On the plea  that  within the time given by the Court removal was not possible,  fresh extensions of extended dates have also been asked for.     At  one  stage, the Monitoring Committee  reported  that taking advantage of such extensions further mining was being illegally undertaken. The Monitoring Committee also  pointed out that where the 74 mined material was spread over it had consolidated and grass as  also  other vegetations have started growing.  In  these circumstances, while either allowing or rejecting the appli- cations  for removal or extension or allowing removal  under restrictions, this Court has been expressing itself  clearly that the Doon Valley should be made available for afforesta- tion  to  make  good the loss that had been  caused  to  the ecology and that work should no longer be interfered with.     A  fresh  set  of applications have now  been  made  for permission  to remove the mined material,  machinery  and/or extension of time for the same. This Court had called for  a report  on  the basis of joint inspection  by  the  District Judge and the District Magistrate of Dehradun and after  the said report was received, the Monitoring Committee has  made its  report on the basis of this Court’s direction. A  group of  these applications had been heard on 12th  of  February, 1990, but as some other applications remained to be disposed of  on the basis of the report of the  Monitoring  Committee which was yet to be received, no orders had then been  made. The Monitoring Committee sent its report dated 6th of April, 1990,  and the other group of applications which  were  then pending  have in the meantime been heard on 26th  of  April, 1990. We proceed to dispose of all the pending  applications by this order.     We  have considered the submissions with some amount  of anxiety particularly as we are of the definite view that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

Doon Valley should be left free to the planters for reaffor- estation  and  the mine-owners should be put  out  in  every respect of the same. Two or three aspects have, however,  to be  borne  in mind while dealing with a case of  this  type. Mining  was  stopped by our order all of a sudden  within  a month  from  30th  of August,/988. Though  fresh  mining  is stopped,  mined material which had been appropriated by  the mine-owner  by his own efforts should ordinarily be  allowed to be taken by him. There is no doubt that the mined materi- al has been loosened from the original place by digging  and even  if it is allowed to be stacked, consolidation of  such material  is  bound to take quite some time and  within  one year  it  is not likely to  consolidate  appropriately.  The mined  material  has a market and with the  closure  of  the mining  operation  substantially in the  Doon  Valley,  this material seems to have been fetching good price as there  is demand  for the same. When mining was stopped, no  compensa- tion  was provided and the only hope our order held out  was rehabilitation. At  this stage, it is appropriate to extract a portion  from the letter 75 Of  the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee dated April  6, 1990, addressed to the Registrar of this Court. The Chairman is no other than the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. He has pointed out: "The  Committee  would seek the indulgence of the  Court  to submit  to  the Hon’ble Justices that the areas  ravaged  by these  mines including the roads leading to the  mine  areas are  in immediate need of afforestation to  consolidate  the soil  and  prevent soil erosion. Permission granted  to  the miners  will inevitably delay the process  of  afforestation and  will  destroy any natural vegetation that has  come  up along  the roads and the mine areas since the last  monsoon. Shri  David Paul (Lease No. 99) in fact broke several  check dams in the process of lifting material taking advantage  of this Court’s orders granting him permission to remove  quar- ried  material. The process of afforestation of these  areas cannot  even be started as long as various  applications  of these miners for removal of material are pending before this Hon’ble Court. It is humbly submitted that this Court  must, therefore,  once  and for all, put an end to  such  applica- tions, in order that the Monitoring Committee may vigorously take up the task of afforestation of these areas."     We  can quite appreciate the anxiety of  the  Monitoring Committee that initial permission and extension of time  for removal has disturbed afforestation. The Monitoring  Commit- tee  must, however, appreciate that the enthusiasm which  it is prepared to exhibit has to be sobered down in the initial period by such judicial directions as are called for  taking the cause of equity and justice into consideration.     Even in such of the cases where permission or  extension for  removal would be granted now, we are of the  view  that the  mine-owners should not be permitted to operate and  the District  Magistrate  should set up a  machinery  under  his control  and  subject to the supervision of  the  Monitoring Committee to enable removal. We do not propose to allow  the process  of removal to continue beyond 15th of  June,  1990. The  process of afforestation for the year would begin  only by  that  time awaiting the onset of the monsoons.  The  ex- lessees in whose case original or extended orders permitting removal  would now be made have, therefore, to  contact  the District  Magistrate within one week of this order  and  the District  Magistrate would work out removal  on  appropriate payment from the respective areas of the ex-lessees of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

76 the extracted material as mentioned in this Court’s order of today on or before 15th of June, 1990. We make it clear that no application either for original permission or for  exten- sion  shall hereafter be entertained by this Court  and  the Registry  is  directed by this order not to  entertain  such petitions. It may be that such direction may affect some one who  has not been vigilant or has on account of  some  other difficulty  or hardship been not able to remove the  stacked material  within his leasehold area in the Doon Valley;  but taking the broad interests of the entire Valley into account such  individual losses or inconveniences have to be  sacri- ficed  and/or overlooked and equities can no longer  be  al- lowed to be invoked. B INTERLOCUTORY  APPLICATIONS IN DISPOSED OF WRIT PETTION  NO. 8209 OF 1983 1. A. NO. I OF 1989     This  application is by the former lessee of  lease  No. 16--Ved Pal Singh Chaudhary. The mine closed down on 30th of September,  1988  in terms of this Court’s  direction  dated 30.8.1988.  The first report on the record is dated 18th  of February,  1989,  jointly given by the  Additional  District Magistrate, Dehradun, D.P. Sharma, Geologist of Dehradun and the  Forest Range Officer, Mussoorie. This report  indicated that  limestone extracted was found lying scattered in  dif- ferent  marble pits and also heaps of different shapes.  The estimated quantity in the heaps appeared to be 11,500 metric tons. This Court permitted removal of the mined material and the  report of the Monitoring Committee shows  that  between March  and  May,  1989, with extensions  obtained  from  the Court, 11,539 metric tons have already been removed.     The  joint inspection report of the District  Judge  and the  District  Magistrate has indicated that  there  was  no fresh mining in the area after 30th of August, 1988, and  it appeared that the scattered material had been collected  and removed while the stack has remained untouched. The  present petition is for removal of the stack which is claimed to  be more than 11,000 metric tons.     The  Monitoring Committee on the basis of the fact  that 11,539  metric tons had been removed has assumed that  there must  have been fresh mining to justify the presence of  the stack. It has also indicated in the report that there is  no danger whatsoever of any scree or stacked 77 material rolling down and affecting and choking the streams. According  to  the Committee, giving fresh  opportunity  for removal  would  encourage illicit mining and  several  mine- owners  are likely to carry on that  clandestinely.  Keeping the two reports in view,-we are inclined to hold that  there has been no fresh mining and the stack now found is the  old one;  it would not be appropriate to assume that  the  stack has  consolidated nor is it possible that the vegetation  on such  a stack would grow within a year. For the  reasons  we have already indicated earlier we think it appropriate  that ex-mine-owner  of lease No. 16 should be permitted  to  have the existing stacked material of 11,500 metric tons  removed from  the leasehold area but the same shall be  through  the agency set up by the district Magistrate on terms of payment and  the  removal shall be completed on or before  the  15th June,  1990.  It  is made clear that the  removal  shall  be supervised by the Monitoring Committee. 1. A. Nos. 3 and 10 of 1989 and 12 of 1990     These  are applications made on behalf of Punjab Lime  & Limestone  Company  for extension of time  for  lifting  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

mined  material lying in the first two lease areas  held  by the  aforesaid  lessee and for original permission  for  the lease No. 96. Under the final order of this Court dated 30th August,  1988, [1988 3 JT 787] in Paragraph 51 of the  deci- sion  three mines including lease No. 96 valid up to  12.12. 1989  were permitted to work. Therefore, mining activity  in respect of lease No. 96 must have stopped after 12th  Decem- ber, 1989. The joint inspection report of the District Judge and the District Magistrate indicated that 2,269 metric tons of material were lying at the face of the mine in lease  No. 14/ii while in regard to lease No. 14/i there was no materi- al found and the scattered scree was reported to have total- ly stabilised. The Monitoring Committee has opposed  removal from lease No. 14/ii by saying that permission to remove had been  given and utilised. We are of the view that the  peti- tion in regards to lease No. 14/i should be rejected in view of  the concurrent reports of the joint inspection  and  the Monitoring Committee that the scree has already  consolidat- ed.  So  far as 2,269 metric tons from lease  No.  14/i  are concerned there is no particular reason to take a  different view  and we direct that the same shall be  removed  through the machinery set up by the District Magistrate upon payment of the cost by the ex-mineowner. This removal shall also  to be made prior to 15th June, 1990.     Lease  No. 96 closed down operations on  12th  December, 1989. 5000 metric tons of limestone are claimed to have been scattered over 78 the area and reliance is placed upon the rule permitting six months’  time from the date of closing for removal  of  such material. ’The Monitoring Committee has reported that  there was  no scree lying on the leased area. It found that  there is some scattered material on the surface of the mine  which cannot  conveniently be stacked up. Since this is the  first application  of  the  ex-lessee after the  mining  has  been closed,  we would have directed the Monitoring Committee  to make a fresh inspection in the presence of the ex-mine-owner but  in view of the clear report that there was  no  stacked material  found by the Monitoring Committee and the  further fact stated in the report that the scree has already consol- idated  even during the currency of the mining lease, we  do not think it will be appropriate at this stage to permit any removal. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 1. A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989 This petition is by the legal representatives of C.G. Gujral who  as  lessee of lease No. 76. The first petition  is  for substitution of his legal representatives. It is allowed. So far  as the second one is concerned, the  legal  representa- tives of Shri Gujral, ex-mine-owner requests for  permission for  removal of the extracted mineral as also  some  machine parts  from  the  leasehold area. At the  instance  of  Shri Gujral this Court on 30.1.89 had made the following order:           "Heard learned counsel in C.M.P. for permission to remove the mining material already lying at the quarry site. Subject to the verification by the Collector either  person- ally  or  by a responsible officer that  the  allegation  is correct,  removal may be permitted. The entire stock  either near  the quarry or stocked in the stacking site  should  be removed  within  four  weeks  from  the  day  permission  is granted  .....  ".     It  is alleged that soon after on 18th September,  1989, C.G. Gujral, original mine lessee died and his legal  repre- sentatives  had  instituted a suit. The suit  has  now  been dismissed  by  a separate order of this  Court  and  interim relief granted has also been vacated. This petition filed in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

July,  1989,  seeks permission for removal  of  the  stacked material  and for permission to remove the  machinery  which comprises  of compressors and tools said to be lying at  the mine-site.  The joint inspection report indicates  that  the mine  site  was  not accessible. 16 Kms.  pathway  had  been damaged and even walking was not possible. If we permit  the roadway to be repaired, there is apprehension of 79 damage  to the land in the locality. If the work is left  to the  legal  representatives of the  ex-mine-owner  they  are likely  to collect material for the purpose of repair  which would definitely affect the ecology. Yet there are  valuable machines  apart from the mined material to be collected.  We leave  it to the Collector and the Monitoring  Committee  to find out if by some convenient path or any other process  by which the machinery and the mined material can be moved out. The  legal  representatives  of the  ex-mine-owner  may  now contact  the Collector and the Monitoring Committee to  find out the modality of removal and in case some convenient  way is  found out the stacked material and the machinery may  be removed with the help of the agency of the Collector subject to the payment of the cost on or before 15th June, 1990. C.M.P. No. 18702 of 1989     This  application is by the ex lessee of lease  No.  31. The  joint inspection report indicates that the  mining  was stopped  on  12th March, 1985 and there has  been  no  fresh quarrying. The report indicates: "Under the mining faces in the slopes and in the river  beds scree and fine material were seen lying and scattered. Natu- ral vegetation is overgrown. Plants like  .....  were  grow- ing.  At  some spots pine plants and furns were  also  found growing indicating that there is existence of humus and  the already quarried material has compacted and settled  binding the soil."     In  this  view  of the matter it  becomes  difficult  to entertain  this  petition  at this stage;  the  petition  is accordingly dismissed. 1. A. No. 4 of 1989     This  application  is by the ex-lessee of  mine  No.  17 asking  for  permission  for removal  of  already  extracted mineral  lying  at the mine site. In  the  joint  inspection report  it  has been indicated that this Court  had  granted some  time for removal. The ex-lessee had also  obtained  an order from the Addl. District Judge of Dehradun. The  report indicated  that there was no sign of fresh mining.  We  have taken  all aspects into account and we are of the view  that this application has to be rejected. 80 C.M.P. No. 18703 of 1989     This application is on behalf of the ex-lessee of  lease No.  8 for extension of time for lifting of  mined  mineral. The  joint inspection report indicates that mining  in  this area was stopped as early as 12th March, 1985, and  "Natural vegetation  has  overgrown in and around the  mining  faces. Considerable  quarried material was lying scattered  in  the slopes,  the quantity of which could not be  ascertained  or measured.  The  Monitoring  Committee in  its  report  dated 10.8.89 assessed that approximately 7,000 metric tons of the mining material was lying scattered in the mining area."  We have  no  intention to permit any meddling to  unsettle  the settled  situation. As the mining has stopped for more  than five years and the report is that there has been  overgrowth of  natural vegetation we do not intend to permit  extension of  time  as prayed for. The petition  is  accordingly  dis- missed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

C.M.P. 11756 of 1988     The two writ petition Nos. 8209 and 8821 of 1983 clearly relate to the Doon Valley and mining activity falling within the district of Tehri-Garhwal was not be the  subject-matter of  those two writ petitions. The CMP filed by the State  of Uttar  Pradesh is dismissed leaving it open to the State  to agitate  its  contentions in regard to  mining  activity  in Tehri-Garhwal separately. W.P. No. 151 of 1990     This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution asking for grant of leases in respect of five mines  falling within the ’A’ category of the Bhargava Committee Report  as also Category (1) of the Working Group Report to the Calcium Carbonate Manufacturers Association for carrying out limited mining  activity to meet the essential and captive  need  of the Calcium Carbonate Industry. When the main writ petitions were pending, CMP 30707/87 had been filed for the  self-same relief  and  it  wanted to be impleaded in  those  two  writ petitions.  The application was rejected on 30th of  August, 1988, by saying:           "From time to time, Civil Miscellaneous  Petitions had  been  moved  and orders were made. We do  not  see  any justification  to make any further order in such cases.  All CMPs are disposed of." Thereafter, the petitioner made another application for  the same relief 81 but  the Registry did not entertain it in view of the  final order  of 30th August, 1988. The present writ  petition,  in these  circumstances, is not maintainable. That apart,  this Court  had come to the conclusion on 30th of  August,  1988, that mining activity in the Doon Valley area must ultimately stop.  The Court has taken into consideration the  need  for availability  of minimum supply of the mineral  in  question and to make available such supply, controlled and  regulated mining  activity has been permitted. Mining leases  are  not granted by this Court and in view of the conclusion  already reached that no fresh mining activity should be carried  on, we see no justification for entertaining this writ petition. Contempt Petition No. 25 of 1989     There  is already an order that the proceeding for  con- tempt  is misconceived. We do not find any justification  to give  any further time for lifting or removal. The  contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. 1. A. No. 9 of 1989     This application is by the Monitoring Committee appoint- ed  by this Court and the prayer is to recall the  order  of 19th October, 1989, and to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to  sell the material and utilise the proceeds for the  pur- poses  of reafforestation and conservation. In view  of  the steps we have taken in the connected matters, no  particular directions are necessary.                                C     The  only other question that is left for  consideration is  the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee that  the payment  of  Rs.5 per metric ton of the  extracted  material fixed  by this Court in 1988 should be raised to  Rs.20  per metric  ton. We have heard counsel for the parties. We  have also perused the report and the papers produced on behalf of the  lessees who are still running. We are inclined, on  the materials  placed, to take the view that the rate should  be enhanced  to  Rs. 10 from Rs.5 with effect  from  1st  June, 1990. Since this will not have any retrospective effect  the liability  for such payment would be only in respect of  the lessees who are running by permission of the Court given  in

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

the main judgment of August 30, 1988.     It  has been contended by some of the lessees before  us that the money which has been collected on the basis of Rs.5 per metric ton has 82 not yet been utilised for plantation. We hope and trust that there is no basis for the criticism but would like to advise the Monitoring Committee to activise its steps in the proper direction.     A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be placed  by the Monitoring Committee by 30th June, 1990,  for the consideration of the Court on the 23rd July, 1990.     The  rehabilitation scheme which has already  been  fur- nished  by  the appropriate Committee should now  be  placed before the Court for orders also on 23rd July, 1990 R.N.J.                                        Petition  dis- posed of. 83