http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 32  

PETITIONER: RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/08/1988

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR  594            1989 SCC  Supl.  (1) 537  JT 1988 (4)   710        1988 SCALE  (2)1574

ACT:     Constitution  of  India,  1950:  Article  32   Limestone quarries- Dehradun Mussoorie belt-Public interest litigation against  pollution- High Powered Committee to be set  up  to look  after  re-afforestation, mining activities  and  bring about natural normalcy in the Doon Valley. %     Forest  (Conservation) Act 1980: Limestone  guarries  in Doon    Valley--    Continuance   of    mining    activity-- Impermissibility Of.     Public  Interest  Litigation: Procedure laws  apply  but every  technicality  in  procedural laws  not  available  in matters of grave public importance.

HEADNOTE:     A   letter-petition,  and  an  application,   containing allegations  of  unauthorised  and  illegal  mining  in  the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt, affecting adversely the ecology and environmental  order  of  the  area,  were  directed  to  be registrered as   writ   petitions  under   public   interest litigation.  Apart from the Governments of the Union and  of Uttar  Pradesh,  several governmental  agencies  and  mining lessees appeared in the proceedings. A number of  committees and  working  groups were set up both by the Court  and  the Central  Government to look into the various aspects of  the problem,  their reports received and  several  comprehensive interlocutory directions issued.     One  of  the  Committees, referred to  as  the  Bhargava Committee, classified the mines into three groups, being  A, B,  C. On the basis of the recommendations of  the  Bhargava Committee  Report and other material the Court directed,  by its  order dated 12th March, 1985, that  category  mines  of the   Bhargava  Committee  Report  should  be  closed   down permanently.  Similar order was made in regard to   category mines  situated in the shasradhara block. The Court  further directed   category  mines  located  within  the   Mussoorie municipal  limits  and  the remaining B  category  mines  to submit their mining scheme for scrutiny of the Bandyopadhyay Committee.  The  Court,  however,  allowed   category  mines located outside the city limits to operate.                                                   PG NO 690                                                   PG NO 691

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 32  

   Some  of the mines which were ordered to be closed  down had  earlier been refused renewal of their mining  licences. These mines, however, continued to operate under the  orders of  various  courts  which had granted  extension  of  their leases  pending the final orders of the courts. This  Court, in its order dated 12th March, 1985 had therefore,  directed that if any mining lessee of a mine, which had been  ordered to  be  closed down, was running under the  first  grant  or under  Court’s  orders  after its expiry, it  would  not  be entitled to take advantage of that  position.     In  its  order  dated 16th  December,  1986  this  Court recognised the need to strike a balance between preservation and  utilisation  of deposits, and urged the  Government  to take  a  policy  decision  in  the  matter.  The  Government thereupon set up another committee to examine the working of the  limestone  mining operations in the Doon  valley.  This Committee inspected six mines which were operating. Three of these mines were operating under valid mining leases and the other three, whose leases had expired in December 1982? were operating under orders of different courts.     Keeping  in  view the reports of the committee  and  the submissions at the Bar, the Court passed further orders.     On behalf of the lessees it was contended: (1)  decision of  this Court dated 12th March, 1985 was final  in  certain aspects  including  the   release of the  A  category  mines outside the city limits from the proceedings, and in view of such  finality  it  is not open to this Court  in  the  same proceedings at a later stage to direct differently in regard to what has been decided earlier; (2) during the pendency of these writ petitions, the Environment Protection Act of l986 has  come  into force and since that Statute and  the  Rules made thereunder provide detailed procedure to deal with  the situations  that arise in these cases, this Could should  no more deal with the matter and leave it to be looked into  by the  authorities  under the Act, and (3) there  would  be  a total  stalemate in the manufacture of drugs and  sugar,  as also steel,in case mining activity is stopped.     Disposing of the writ petition, this Court,     HELD: (1) "Forest" was initially a State subject covered by  Entry  19 in List II of the Seventh Schedule.  In  1976, under the 42nd Amendment the Entry was deleted and Entry 17- A  in the concurrent List was lnserted. The change from  the State  List  to  the  Concurrent  List  was   brought  about                                                   PG NO 692 following  the realisation of the Central   Government  that ‘forests’  were of national importance and should be  placed in  the Concurrent List to enable the Central Government  to deal with the matter. The same amendment of the Constitution brought  in  Article 48,A and Article 51A(g)  is  Part  IVA. [713H; 714A-B]     (2) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 does not  permit mining  in  the forest area. If mining activity  even  to  a limited  extent  is  permitted in future, it  would  be  not congenial  to ecology and environment, and the natural  calm and  peace  which is a special feature of this area  in  its normal condition shall not be restored. This tourist zone in its  natural setting would certainly be at its best  if  its serenity is restored in the fullest way. [7l0E-F]     (3)  By  the Court’s order of 12th March,  l985,  the  A category  mining  leases outside the city limits  were  only exempted  from  further scrutiny and not released  from  the proceedings.  If the court really intended to release the  A category  mines outside the city limits, it could very  well pronounce that in clear terms. [706E-H]     (4) The examination by this Court when it made the order

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 32  

of  12th March, 1985, omitted to consider the impact of  the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which was then a statute  in force.  If  the provision of the Conservation Act  had  been noticed  and  impact thereof for the continuance  of  mining activity  bad been considered, perhaps the Court would  have made  no exemptions and no mining may have  been  permitted. [706G]     (5) The writ petitions are not inter-party disputes  and have  been raised by way of public interest litigation,  and the controversy before the Court is as to whether for safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people  to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or  stopped. The  Court  may not be taken to have said  that  for  public interest  litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At  the same  time, it has to be remembered that every  technicality in  the procedural law is not available as a defence when  a matter  of  grave  public importance  is  for  consideration before the Court. Even if it is said that there was a  final order,  in a dispute of this type it would be  difficult  to entertain  the  plea of res judicata. Leaving  the  question open  for  examination in future would lead  to  unnecessary multiplicity  of  proceedings  and  would  be  against   the interest of society. [707B-D]     (6)  These  writ petitions were filed  more  than  three years  before  the Environment (Protection) Act,  l986  came                                                   PG NO 693 into force. This  Court appointed several expert  commitees, received  their   reports and made directions.  The  several parties and their counsel have been heard  for days together on different issues during the three and a quarter years  of the    pendency   of  the   proceedings.   The   Environment (Protection)  Act  does does purport to- and  perhaps  could not--take away the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with a case   of this type. In consideration of these facts,  there is no justification to decline  the exercise of jurisdiction at this stage. [707E-G]     (7) Ordinarily, the Court would not entertain a  dispute for  the adjudication of which a special provision has  been made  by law but that rule is not attracted in  the  present situation in these cases. Besides it is a  rule of  practice and prudence and not one of jurisdiction. [707H]     (8)  The  Forest  (Conservation) Act,  1980  applies  to renewals  as  well  and even if there was  a  provision  for renewal  in  the  lease agreement on  exercise  of  Lessee’s option,the  requirements  of l980  Act had to  be  satisfied before such renewal could be granted. [717G-H]     Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat  & Ors.,  [1987] 1 SCC 213; State of Rajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajindra  Pal, [l965l  3  SCR 402 and State of Bihar v.  Banshi  Ram  Modi, [l985] 3 SCC 643, referred to.     (9)  It  is clear from the directions contained  in  the order  of  12th   March,  1985, as also  the  ratio  of  the judgment in the Ambica Quarry Works case, that even if there has  been an order of the Court and no challenge  is  raised against such order, this Court could invoke its jurisdiction to  nullify  the  direction  or order,  and  if  any  order, direction or decree has been passed ignoring the  provisions of  the  Conservation  Act of 1980 the  same  would  not  be binding. [7l8B-C]     (10)  Parties  have been heard on  various  aspects.  An order  made  by this Court to nullify the  decrees  in  such circumstances  would not be violative of the  principles  of natural justice. [718F]     (11)  it any decree or order has already  been  obtained from  any   court relating to renewal of these  leases,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 32  

same shall stand vacated, and similarly any appeal or  other proceeding   taken   to   obtain  a   renewal   Or   against order/decrees  granting  renewal shall also  become  nonest. [718G-H]     (12)  Most  of these mines are  either  within  reserved forests or in forest  lands as covered by the U.P. Amendment of  the Forest Act. To  these areas the Forest  Conservation                                                   PG NO 694 Act  applies and to allow mining ia these areas  even  under strictest  control as a permanent feature would not only  be violative of the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act but would be detrimental to restoration of the forest growth  in a  natural way in this area. Once the importance of  forests is  realised and as a matter of national policy and  in  the interests  of  the  community, preservation  of  forests  is accepted as the goal, nothing which would detract from  that end  should  be  permitted. In  such  circumstances,  mining activity in this valley must be completely stopped. But such a situation will be available only after the original leases of the working mines are over. [726G-H; 727Al     (13) The court accepts the position that manufacture  of drugs  and  sugar,  as steel, would be  hard-hit  if  mining activity  in this area is stopped all of a sudden. With  the pressing  demand  in  the market  and  discovery  of  useful limestone deposits in other parts of the country apart  from what has been indicated in the second affidavit of the Union of  India, the trade would adjust itself as  every  economic activity does. However, the position should be monitored and the  switch-over  from the present position to a  total  ban should be spread over a period and not be sudden. [727D-E]     (14)  In the circumstances, allowing the three  on-going mines  to operate for their initial period of lease  is  the most  appropriate  direction that can be  given  during  the switch  over  from the present position to one  of  complete closing down of mining operation. [730C-H]     (15)  There  is no dispute that  continuance  of  mining operations effects environment and ecology adversely and  at the  same  time  creates  a  prejudicial  situation  against conservation  of forests. It is, therefore,  necessary  that each  of  these  working mines shall have to  work  with  an undertaking given to the Monitoring Committee that all  care and  attention shall be bestowed to preserve ecological  and environmental  balance while carrying on mining  operations. [731D-E]     (16) The Court ordered the setting up of the  Monitoring Committee  to look after reafforestation, mining  activities and  all  other  aspects necessary to  bring  about  natural normalcy   in  the  Doon  Valley.  The  Court  also   issued directions regarding the finances, powers and duties of  the Monitoring Committee. [733E]     (17) The Court has no other option but to close down the mining  activity  in the broad interests of  the  community. This, however, does not mean that the displaced mine  owners                                                   PG NO 695 should  not be provided with alternative  occupation.  Pious observation  or even a direction in that regard may  not  be adequate.  What is necessary is a time frame functioning  if rehabilitation  is to be made effective. It  is,  therefore, necessary  that a Committee should be set up to oversee  the rehabilitation of the displaced mine owners. [732B-C]

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL JURISDlCION : Write petition (Civil) Nos.  8209

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 32  

and 8821 of 1983.     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).     M.K. Banerjee, Solicitor General, M.K. Ramamurthy,  A.K. Ganguli,  A.K. Sen, R.K. Jain, Kapil Sibbal,  B.D.  Agarwal, O.P.  Rana,  F  S. Nariman, Tapas Ray,  Dr.   L.M.  Singhvi, Rajendra  Sachhar,  Yogeshwar  Prasad,  G.L.  Sanghi,   W.C. Mahajan, G.A. Shah, M.A. Krishnamurthy, R.P. Srivastava, Ms. A. Subhashni, Ravi Prakash Gupta, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Badri Dass Sharma, Aruneshwar Gupta, lnderbir Singh, Arun  Jaitey, Ms.  Bina  Gupta,  Atul   Tewari,  Raju  Ramachandran,  M.V. Goswami,  S.K.   Jain,  E.C. Agarwal,  S.  Atreya,  Ravi  P. Wadhwani,  M.G.  Ramachandran, Mrs. Rachna Gupta,  Dr.  S.R. Srivastava,  Pramod Dayal, Rishi Kesh, R.B.  Mehrotra,  C.M. Nayar,  Mrs.  M. Karanjawala, S.A. Syed, P.P.  Juneja,  P.K. Jain,  K.N. Bhatt, D.N. Mishra, Ms. lndra Makwana, A.  Subba Rao, Harjinder Singh, Parijat Sinha. C.P. Lal, Shri  Narain, S.K.  Gupta, K.R. Namibiar, S.S Khanduja, K.K.  Jain,.  D.M. Nargolkar,  Devi  Ditta Mal-ln-person,  A.k.  Panda,  Ranjit Kumar,  A.K.  Shrivastava, A.K. Jain,  A.D.  Sanger.  Pramod Dayal,  R.S.  Hedge, K.R. Nagaraja, P.K. Rao,  M.N.  Shroff. N.N. Keshwani, R.N. Keshwani Prashant Bhushan and Mr.  Nevva Gupta Advocates for the appearing parties.     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by    RANGANATH  MlSRA, J. On July 14, 1983, a letter  received from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera, Dehradun, bearing   the  date  July  2,  1993,  was  Directed  to   be registered  as  a  writ petition under  Article  32  of  the Constitution  and notice was ordered to the State  of  Uttar Pradesh  and  the  Collector  of  Dehradun.  Allegations  of unauthorised  and illegal mining in the Mussoorie-  Dehradun belt  which adversely affected the ecology of the  area  and led  to  environment disorder were made.  Later  on  another application  with  similar allegations was  directed  to  be tagged  with  the earlier one. That is how  these  two  writ                                                   PG NO 696 petitions were both in the registry of this Court in a  very innocuous  manner as public interest litigation. The  number of  parties inflated both under the orders of the Court  and on  application to be added. Apart from the  Governments  of the  Union  and  of  Uttar  Pradesh,  several   governmental agencies  and  mining lessees appeared in  the  proceedings. What  initially appeared to be two simple  applications  for limited relief got expanded into a comprehensive  litigation requiring appointment of committees, inspection and  reports in them from time to time, serious exercises on the part  of the mine owners before the committees, filing of  affidavits both  original  and further, and lengthy  arguments  at  the Bar.These    also   necessitated    several    comprehensive interlocutory   directions  and  orders.  These   two   writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.     On August If, 1983, this Court appointed a Committee for inspection  of the mines with a view to securing  assistance in  the  determination as to whether safety  standards  laid down in the Mines Act of 1952 and the Rules made  thereunder have been followed and whether there was any danger of land- side on account of quarrying operations particularly  during the  rainy season, and if there was any other hazard to  any individual,  cattle  or  agricultural lands  on  account  of carrying of the mining operations. At the preliminary  stage this  Court directed total stopping of  blasting  operations which,  however,  was modified later.  The  said  Committee, referred  to as the Bhargava Committee after  its  Chairman, classified  the mines which it inspected into three  groups, being  A, B and C. It took note of the fact that earlier  an Expert Committee known as the Working Group had been set  up

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 32  

by  the  Union  Government which had  also  inspected  these mines.  The  Bhargava Committee was of the view that  the  C Group mines should be totally stopped; in the A Group mines, quarrying could be carried on after ensuring that there  was no ecological or environmental hazard; and in regard to  the B  Group mines, the Committee opined that those may  not  be closed  down  permanently but the matter  should  be  probed further.     A  three-Judge  Bench of this Court by  an  order  dated March  12, 1985 (l985 3 SCR 169) directed closure of  the  C category mines as also certain B category mines on permanent basis and gave directions in regard to further action to  be taken by the Bhargava Committee. While making the order  the Court  specifically  stated that the reasons for  the  order would  follow.  One of the learned Judges  constituting  the three-Judge  Bench retired from the Court on  September  30, 1985,  and the said learned Judge (A.N. Sen,  J.)  expressed his  views in a short order dated 30th September, 1985.  The                                                   PG NO 697 working  Group appointed by  the Union Government  was  also headed by the same Mr. Bhargava and had five other  members. The  examination by the two Committees appeared to  be  with the  same  object, namely, as to whether  the  mining    was being  properly  done and whether such  activity  should  be carried  on in this area. The Working Group  and  classified the mines into two categories being I and II. They put those mines which according to  them were suitable for  continuing operation  under  Category I and the mines  which  in  their opinion  were unsuitable for further mining  under  Category II. An interesting feature in these two Reports seems to  be that almost the same lime stone quarries which have been put by  the  Bhargava  Committee under  Category  A  feature  in Category I of the Working Group. This Court in its order  of March 12, 1985, referred to   those aspects and pointed out:     "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 A by the  Bhargav committee  Report and category I by the Working  Group  were suitable for continuance of mining operations. So far as the lime  stone quarries in category C 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 lime stone quarries classified in category B."    This  Court  had  also  appointed  an  Expert   Committee consisting  of  Prof. K.S. Valdia, Mr. Hukum Singh  and  Mr. D.N.  Kaul to enquire and investigate into the  question  of disturbance of ecology and pollution and affectation of air, water  and environment by reason of quarring  operations  or stone crushers and setting up of lime stone kilns. Mr.  Kaul and Mr. Hukum Singh submitted a joint report with  reference to  various aspects indicated in their order of  appointment while Prof. Valdia submitted a separate report. In the order of  March  12. 1985,  this Count took note of  the  position that  Prof.  Valdia’s  report was confined  largely  to  the geological  aspect  and considerable reliance  on  the  Main Boundary  Thrust (MBT) had been placed by him in  making  of the  report  and he had taken the view that the  lime  stone quarries  which were dangerously close to the MBT should  be closed  down in such as that was a sensitive and  vulnerable belt.  This  Court  then   took  the  view  that  not   much                                                   PG NO 698 importance  could be placed to Dr. Valdia’s report for  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 32  

litigation. The joint report submitted by Mr. Kaul  and  Mr. Hukum  Singh  had been taken into account by this  Court  in making  interim directions and for the making of  the  final order no specific reference is called for.     In the order of March 12, 1985, this Court directed that the C Category mines of the Bhargav Committee Report  should be closed down permanently and if any mining lessee of  such a  mine was running under the first grant or  under  Court’s orders  after its expiry, it would not be entitled  to  take advantage of the position. Similar order was made in  regard to  the B category mines situated in the Shasradhara  block. This  Court  directed A category mines  located  within  the Mussoorie  municipal  limits and the  remaining  B  category mines  to  submit schemes subjected to further  enquiry  and ordered:     "We   accordingly  appoint  a  high  powered   Committee consisting  of Mr. D. Bandyopadhyay, Secretary, Ministry  of 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 A in Bhargav Committee Report  and for Category P 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  B in the Bhargav Committee 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 reports  including                                                   PG NO 699 the circumstances 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. "     Several  mining  lessees submitted their  schemes  which were examined by the Committee but none of them was cleared. Objections  against rejection of the schemes had been  filed before  this Court by many of the aggrieved lessees. It  was directed  in the aforesaid order of 12th March,  1985,  that until  the  Bandyopadhyay Committee cleared  the  particular mines for operation, mining activity in regard to all  mines covered within the purview of examination by that  Committee would  stop. This Court, however, allowed A  category  mines located outside the city limits to operate. While  directing closure of the Shasradhara area B category mines and all the C category mines, as also A and B category mines within  the municipal  limits  this  Court made it clear  that  the  ban indicated  by  it  would supersede any order  of  any  other court. The Court observed:     "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   Bandyopadhyay).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 32  

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 them  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 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. "     The  Order  of 12th March, 1985, did not  refer  to  the Forest  (Conservation) Act of 1980 when it permitted  the  A category lime stone quarries located outside the city limits to operate.     This  Court  made several orders  relating  to  specific aspects after the order of 12th March, 1985. One such  order was  made on 30th May, 1985, (1985 (3) SCC 614), another  on ’18th  December, 1986, (1986 Suppl. SCC 517)  where  reasons for  the order of 12th March, 1985, given, and  yet  another order was made on 19th October, 1987 (AIR 1987 SC 2426).  We                                                   PG NO 700 shall  refer to the last of these orders in a later part  of this Judgment. In the order of 16th December, 1986, when the reasonings for the order dated 12th March, 1985 were  given, this Court had stated:     "It is for the Government and the Nation-and not for the Court to-decide whether the deposits should be exploited  at the  cost of ecology and environmental consideration or  the industrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied. It may be  perhaps possible to exercise greater control  and  vigil over the operation and strike a balance between preservation and utilisation; that would indeed be a matter for an expert body  to  examine and on the basis  of  appropriate  advice, Government   should  take  a  policy  decision  and   firmly implement the same."     The  Court had also indicated in its earlier order  that it should be ensured that the low grade cilica content  lime stone  is specifically utilised only in  special  industries having  regard  to its quality and should not be  wasted  by being  utilised  for purposes for which this  special  grade lime stone is not required.     Keeping  these aspects in view, the Government of  India in  the Ministry of Environment and Forests,  Department  of Environment,  Forests and wildlife, constituted a  Committee to  examine the working of the lime stone mining  operations in the  Doon Valley by its memorandum No.  J-20012/48/86-1A, dated  30th  of December,  1986, which was also  called  the Working Group. Shri D.N. Bhargava was nominated as  Chairman and the Committee had three other members, namely, Shri V.C. Verma,  Director General, Mines Safety, Dhanbad; Prof.  B.D. Dhar, Department of Mining Engineering of the Banaras  Hindu University,   Varanasi;   and  Shri  R.   Mehta,   Principal Scientific  Officer, Department of Environment,  Forest  and Wildlife,  New Delhi. Shri Verma was substituted by Shri  N. Mishra, Deputy Director General, Northern Zone. The terms of reference of the Committee were:     (i)   Whether  the operations are being carried  out  on scientific lines?     (ii) Whether the limestone quarried is being supplied to end-users as stipulated by the Supreme Court; and     (iii)  The  extent to which the  mining  operations  are contributing to environmental damage?                                                   PG NO 701     This Committee visited the six mines which are operating and indicated:     "The  limestone deposits of Dehradun-Mussoorie area  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 32  

highly valuable mineral resource now essentially required by the  steel  industry and it would be  necessary  to  exploit them, of course, in a very planned and systematic Manner.’     The Committee addressed itself to two aspects, namely,-     (i)  those  which were considered  suitable  for  mining operations, and     (ii) those which were considered unsuitable for  further mining.     The   Committee  whose  entire  report  has  been   made available to us came to the following conclusions in  regard to each of the six operating mines.     (i) Lambidhar limestone Mine of M/s Uttar Pradesh  State Mineral  Development  Corporation Ltd. (UPSMDC) is  a  State Undertaking and holds a mining lease of 97 hectares covering the  Lambidhar  Hills  and the lease is valid  up  to.  10th March, 1996. The Committee found that 36% of its  production was supplied to steel and chemical industries, 12% to sugar, 6%  to cement and other miscellaneous industries and 46%  to chips  and  lime  kilns  industries  and  disapproved   this position. It further found that while colour limestone which is  a  metamarphose  is being recorded as  a  minor  mineral whereas it was learnt that it was being used for despatch as major  mineral.  The arrangement for classification  of  the lime  stone  also was not acceptable to  the  Committee.  It further found:     "The  hill slopes and the river/nallah base are  covered by scree generated both during road construction as well  as subsequent mining operations. This is the result of allowing the  excavated  material  to  roll  down  the  slopes.   The Committee  is  of the opinion that road making may  be  done with  front-end loader instead of bulldozer as with   latter equipment  excavated  materials roll down  the  hill   slope uncontrolably.  The  vegetation cover along the  slopes  has been  damaged  by  the  rolling  material  as  well  as  the                                                   PG NO 702 excavation made for the road making and the hills present an ugly  look.  Hydro-seeding may be done to improve  looks  of hill  slopes.  Deposition  of debris/scree  in  the  nullahs specially  in  Betarli is the cause of  concern  because  it happens  to  be one of the main steams  which  is  source-of water  supply to the villages as well as Dehradun city.  The approach road has reached the top and mining operations have been  started but not work on reclamation of mined out  area has  yet  commenced.  A proper disposal  yard  for  stocking debris  must  be provided so that the  present  practice  of disposing it near the camp office on the bank of the  violet is  prevented. Details of arrangements for controlling  dust both in mining and crushing operations are not available." UPSMDC  is the largest of the working mines and  apart  from the fact that it belongs to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, it  has also the largest of investment. It has been  claimed before us on its behalf that it operates most scientifically and   satisfies   all  the  requirements   appropriate   fOr ecological  and environmental safeguards. The Report of  the Committee, extracted above, negatives all these claims.     (ii) We shall now refer to M/S Punjab Lime and Limestone Company which has two mines both of which are working. Lease No. 14 covers 44.5 hectares and is a lease for 20 years from 1966;  as such it has already expired. Lease No. 96  is  for 28.92 hectares and would expire in December, 1989. Lease No. 14  had  two areas and this Court disallowed mining  in  the Northern block. The Committee found that 16.4 hectares equal to  41 acres, out of lease No. 96 comprised of thick  forest and the lessee had surrendered the forest area.  The  mining operation  is being carried on in lease No. 14 under  orders

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 32  

of  the Court and the residual portion of lease No. 96.  The Committee  found that the scheme which had been  offered  to the  Bandyopadhyay Committee was in regard to the mining  in the  northern  block of lease No. 14 which  has  since  been abandoned.  It  further  transpires that about  27%  of  its output during  1986 was supplied for the steel industry. The report  indicates that there is little generation of  scree. As  there is sparse growth of trees in the area  covered  by the   mines,  no  significant  deforestation  is   involved. Disposal  of overburden is not significant Check  dams  have been set up in the lower reaches which are on the right bank of Bhitarli river and no significant fall of the scree  into the river was apprehended:     (iii)  Next  is lease No. 72 of Shri R.K.  Oberai  which would expire on 10th of April, 1994. It has an area of 15.92                                                   PG NO 703 hectares.  The  Committee found that this mine lies  in  the upper reaches of the Song river. Thick forest growth is seen close to the mine and the Committee gathered that the forest authorities  have  declined permission to  extend  the  mine workings beyond RL 1280. The Committee found that the lessee has  undertaken  to  carry out afforestation  and  has  also started compensatory forestory in the adjacent areas.  There was no apprehension of spreading of scree and future  mining operations  are  not  likely  to  involve  any   significant deforestation.  The Committee also has opined that there  is no  apprehension of choking of the water-ways due to  mining operations as the Song river flows about 400 mts. away.     Apart  from these three mines which are operating  under valid  mining  leases,  the Committee  inspected  the  mines corresponding to  Iease Nos. 16, 17 and 76, belonging to Ved Pal  Singh  Chaudhary, Seth Ram Avtar and Shri  C.G.  Gujral respectively.  All  these leases have expired  in  December, 1982,  and under orders of different courts mining is  being carried on.     Bhitarli  Kalan  Limestone Mines of Shri Ved  Pal  Singh Chaudhary was a lease for 38.8 hectares and expired on  29th December,  1982. This Court has already directed closure  of mining  operation  in  a  small area on  the  left  bank  of Bhitarli river.     Seth  Ram  Avtar has a lease of 14. 18 hectares  on  the left  bank  of Bhitarli river and the lease expired  on  2nd December,   1982.  The  Committee  found  that  he  had   no environment  management plan. The working plan submitted  by the Iessee did not show any plantation area.     The  last  of  the working  mines  which  the  Committee visited  is  that of Shri C.G. Gujaral. The  Iease  was  for 24.16  hectares  and  expired on 17th  December,  1983.  The Committee  found  that the Iease area  contained  very  good forest.  The  rolling of scree/debris along the  slopes  had left not only ugly scars but also resulted in destruction of the green cover. The debris flow has also choked the Sansaru nullah  which once used to be a perennial stream. There  was no environmental management plan. In fact the Committee came to  the  conclusion that the working of this  mine  was  not conducive to the environmental conservation.     We  have in another part of this judgment indicated  our conclusion that mining activity as a whole should be stopped in the Doon Valley but for the reasons indicated therein, we have  also  come to  the conclusion that  the  three  mining                                                   PG NO 704 lessees  who have been  operating under valid lease  may  be permitted  to work subject to such conditions as  have  been indicated.  Keeping the report of the Working Group in  view and  for the reasons we have elsewhere indicated, we  direct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 32  

that mining operations in lease Nos. 16, 17 and 76 where the respective leases have expired and mining operation is being carried on under Court’s Orders, shall stop and the  several orders  of the courts enabling mining activity  shall  stand superseded.     This  Court  in its order dated 19th of  October,  1987, (AIR 1987 SC 2426) came to the clear conclusion:     "We are of the view that the stone quarrying in the Doon Valley area should generally be stopped and reasons therefor we shall provide in due course."     In another part of this judgment, reasons in support  of that  conclusion have been provided. The direction to  close down the three operating mines where the period of lease has expired  is  to  bring  the position  in  accord  with  that conclusion.     One  of the submissions advanced at the Bar is that  the decision of this Court dated 12th March, 1985, was final  in certain  aspects  including the release of  the  A  category mines  outside  the  city  limits  of  Mussoorie  from   the proceedings  and in view of such finality it is not open  to this  Court  in the same proceedings at 3  latter  stage  to direct  differently  in  regard to  what  has  been  decided earlier.  Connected with this submission is  the  contention that  during  the  pendency of  these  writ  petitions,  the Environmental  (Protection) Act of 1986 has come into  force and  since  that  Statute and  the  Rules  made:  thereunder provide detailed procedure to deal with the situations  that arise  in these cases, this Court should no more  deal  with the matter and leave it to be looked into by the authorities under  the Act. Counsel have relied upon what was stated  by this  Court while giving reasons in support of the order  of March  12, 1985, namely, "it is for the Government  and  the Nation-and not for the Court-to decide whether the  deposits should be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental considerations."   In  the order of 12th March,  1985,  this Court had pointed out:     "So  far  as  the  lime  stone  quarries  classified  as category). A in the Bhargav Committee Report and/or category 1 in the Working Group Report are concerned, we would divide them  into two classes, one class consisting of  those  lime                                                  PG NO 705 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 A 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 the  operated subject, of course, to the observance  of  the requirements of the Mines Act, 1952, the Metalliferous Mines Regulations,  1961  and other relevant statutes,  rules  and regulations.  Of  course when we say this, we must  make  it clear 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 A in the Bhargav Committee Report and 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 B in the Bhargav Committee Report."     The  argument  that A category mines  outside  the  city

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 32  

limits  had  been  cleared  is  based  upon  what  has  been indicated  above. Dealing with this of the  direction,  this Court in its order of 19th October, 1987, stated :     Consciousness  regarding  environmental  upkeep  is   of recent  origin.  Cognizance  of  ecological  importance  has entered  into  governmental activity only  in  this  decade. Everyday  that  consciousness as also the  sense  of  social obligation  in this regard are on the increase. It has  been pointed  out  to us in course of hearing of  the  objections that  the  classification  of  the  A  category  Iime  stone quarries on the basis of their location-within the municipal limits and outside--was indeed not a real one. We have  been shown  and  it seems to be factually true that some  of  the lime  stone quarries said to be outside the city limits  are closer  to  the heart of the city of Mussoorie  that  others located  within the city limits. If the real purpose of  the order made by this Court was not to permit mining within the                                                   PG NO 706 city  limits  without further scrutiny as in the case  of  B category   stone  quarries,  we  really  do  not   see   any justification as to why these stone quarries located outside the  city limits but close to the heart of the  city  should not  have  been subjected to such scrutiny. Since  the  writ petitions  have not been finally disposed of and  the  order made  in regard to the A category quarries  located  outside the  city  limits  by the judgment referred  to  above  only exempted  them  from  further scrutiny as  was  directed  in respect  of the other quarries, we see no impediment in  the matter of giving a re-look at the matter even with reference to the A category  quarries located outside the city limits.     In  this connection it is relevant to take note  of  the fact  that  the  State  Government  has  already  formed  an improvement programme of the area by constituting a combined body  for Mussoorie and Dehradun. The  considerations  which had weighed with the Court on the basis of municipal  limits has indeed to be extended not to the entire area covered  by the  new scheme. We are, therefore  of the view that  the  A category  stone  quarries  in  this  area  irrespectlve   of location  within or outside city limits should be  subjected to  further  order  of  this Court and  there  is  no  legal impediment for this Court to do the same." We  reiterate our opinion that by the order of  12th  March, 1985, the A category mining leases outside the  city  Iimits were  only exempted from further scrutiny and  not  released from the proceedings. Our order of 18th December, 1986, left certain   aspects  to  be  considered  by  the   State   and immediately  the Central Government responded by  appointing the second Working Group. We would like to reiterate what we have  already  said in the order of 19th of  October,  1987, that the examination by this Court when it made the order of 12th  March,  1985, omitted to consider the  impact  of  the Forest  (Conservation) Act of 1980 which was then a  statute in force. If the provisions of the Conservation Act had been noticed  and  impact thereof for the continuance  of  mining activity  had been considered, perhaps the Court would  have made  no exemptions and no mining may have  been  permitted. Besides,  if  the  Court really intended to  release  the  A category  mines outside the city limits, it could very  well pronounce that in clear terms.                                                   PG NO 707    In view of what we have indicated above, it is  difficult to accept the stand taken by some of the lessees and by  Mr. Nariman appearing for the intervener that a final order  has been by this Court in regard to the A category mines outside the city limits of Mussoorie.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 32  

   The  writ  petitions  before  us  are  not   inter-party disputes  and  have been raised by way  of  public  interest litigation  and  the controversy before the Court is  as  to whether  the  social safety and for  creating  a  hazardfess environment  for the people to live in, mining in  the  area should be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to  have said  that for public interest litigations, procedural  laws do not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered  that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a  defence when a matter of grave public importance  is  for consideration  before  the Court. Even if it  is  said  that there was a final order, in a dispute of this type it  would be  difficult to entertain the plea of res judicata.  As  we have  already  pointed out when the order  of  12th6  March, 1985,  was made, no reference to the  Forest  (Conservation) Act  of 1980 had been done. We are of the view that  leaving the  question open for examination in future would  lead  to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and would be against the  interests of society. It is mete and proper as also  in the  interest  of the parties that the  entire  question  is taken into account at this stage.     Undoubtedly, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986  (29 of 1986) has come into force with effect from 19th November, 1986.  Under  this  Act  power  is  vested  in  the  Central Government  to  take  measures to protect  and  improve  the environment.  These  writ petitions were filed as  early  as 1983-more  than three years before the Act came into  force. This  Court  appointed several expert  Committees,  received their  reports and on the basis of materials  placed  before it, made directions, partly final and partly  interlocutory, in  regard to certain mines in the area. Several  directions from  time to time have been made by this Court. As many  as four reportable orders have been given. The several  parties and  their  counsel  have been heard for  days  together  on different issues during the three and a quarter years of the pendency  of  the proceedings. The Act does not purport  to- and  perhaps  could not-take away the jurisdiction  of  this Court to deal with a case of this type. In consideration  of these  facts, we do not think there is any justification  to decline   the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  at  this   stage. Ordinarily  the Court would not entertain a dispute for  the adjudication  of which a special provision has been made  by law but that rule is not attracted in the present  situation in  these  cases.  Besides  it is a  rule  of  practice  and prudence and not one of jurisdiction. The contention against                                                   PG NO 708 exercise  of  jurisdiction advanced by Mr. Nariman  for  the intervener and reiterated by some of the lessees before this Court must stand overruled.     We shall now briefly indicate reasons in support of  our conclusion mentioned in the order of October 19, 1987,  that mining in this area should be stopped.     Kalidas,  the  greatest of the Indian  poets,  sang  the praises of the Himalayas in ’Meghadoot’ by describing it  as the loftiest mountain on earth surface located on the  north of the country. The Himalayan ranges apart from operating as a  natural  seal on the northern border  against  intruders, have   influenced   the  climate,   culture,   ecology   and environment of the sub continent. These are the ranges  from where originate several perennial rivers like the Ganges and the  Yamuna. These two rivers which mingle at Allahabad  and later flow into the Bay of Bengal as one river have built up what is known as the gangetic belt-the most fertile part  of lndia.  The  lcgendary tradition of our  culture  is  deeply associated  with  these  two rivers.  Apart  from  providing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 32  

succour to millions of people who inhabit this belt.  Yamuna is said to have provided the backdrop of Krishna Leela.  The catchment  area of this river is spread over  the  Mussoorie Hills-otherwise  known as the Doon Valley with which we  are concerned. Before a quarter of a century, Yamuna was  having adequate water flow through-out the year. Unlike the  Ganges which  has her main tributaries originating from  the  snow- clad  regions  of  the mountain range and  melting  snow  in summer helping the tributaries to be perennial,  the  Yamuna used  to  receive  the bulk of her water  from  the  streams joining  her in the lower regions. The Doon Valley  used  to receive  sumptuous rains during the season; the  tree  roots helped the water to be stored; the lime stone mines operated as  aquifers. The stored water was released in a  continuous process  and  that  streams  even  without  the  support  of melting  snow,  provided  perennial supply  to  the  Yamuna. Assured  of  such supply, the twin cities of  Mussoorie  and Dehradun grew up. Lower down, hundreds of villages and small towns had also sprung up.     Lime  stone mining operations in the Doon Valley  became wide-spread during the decade between 1955 and 1965 and many of  the  leases were granted in 1962. In  the  decade  after 1965. the depredation, of mining began to be felt. Peace and tranquillity  of the Valley was gone. Trees were  felled  at random and lush green forests disappeared. Blasting affected and  shook  up the hills. Rocks and scree  rolled  down  and killed  or injured the cattle, damaged the cultivable  lands and adversely affected the villagers. The natural beauty  of                                                   PG NO 709 the Queen of the hill stations was no more to be seen.  With the  felling  of the forests, rains became  less,  with  the trees  gone and the lime stone dug out, the aquifers  ceased to  exist. The streams got blocked by scree and  stones  and the flow of water was substantially reduced. Tourist traffic was adversely affected. Irrigation was no more possible. The tributaries no longer fed the Yamuna sufficiently.  Dehradun experienced  scarcity of even drinking water. These  led  to the despatch of the letter in July, 1983 to this Court.     The Doon Valley lime stone deposits are a gift of Nature to  mankind.  Underneath the soil cover there is  an  unseen store house of bountry almost everywhere. Similarly  forests provide  the  green  belt  and are a  bequest  of  the  past generations to the present. Lime stone deposits if excavated and  utilised get exhausted while if forests are  exploited, there  can  be  regeneration  provided  reafforestation   is undertaken. Trees, however, take time to grow and ordinarily a 15 to 25 year period is necessary for such purpose.     We have already indicated that several expert Committees appointed  by  this  Court  have  opined  generally  against continuing  the  mining activity in the Valley.  The  Second Working  Group found in as late as 1987 that limited  mining in  the on-going mines was not congenial to  ecological  and environmental discipline. This Court by its order on October 19, 1987, (AlR 1987 SC 2426) called the Union of India:     ".....  to  place  before the  Court  on  affidavit  the minimum  total requirement of this grade of lime  stone  for manufacture  of  quality steel and  defence  armaments.  The affidavit  should also specify as to how much of high  grade ore  is  being imported into the country and as  to  whether other  indigenous  sources  are  available   to  meet   such requirement. This Court would also require an affidavit from responsible authorities of the Union of lndia as to  whether keeping the principles of ecology, environmental  protection and  safeguards  and anti-pollution measures, it is  in  the interest of the Society that the requirements should be  met

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 32  

by import or by taking other alternate indigenous sources or mining  activity  in  this area should  be  permitted  to  a limited  extent.  The Court expects the Union  of  lndia  to balance these two aspects and place on record its stand  not as  a  party  to the litigation but as a  protector  of  the                                                   PG NO 710 environment  in  discharge  of  its  statutory  and   social obligation for the purpose of consideration of the Court . .     The two affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of India have been dealt with elsewhere in the judgment and it  would be  sufficient  for the instant aspect to extract  from  the affidavit of Mr. Seshan, Secretary to the Government in  the Ministry of Environment and Forests, where he has stated :     "5.1 Union of India submits that from the point of  view of protection of the environment in the unique Doon  Valley, it  would be desirable that lime stone mining operations  in the Valley are stopped completely."     Nariman  questioned the value of this statement in  view of  the  indication  in  the  affidavit  that  it  was   the department’s  submission to the Court. We do not think  that the Ministry Secretary’s affidavit can be brushed aside that way.  Read in the background of the directions in the  Order of  19th  October, 1987, and in the sequence  of  the  first affidavit   not  having  been  accepted  by  the  Court   as compliance, we must assume that Mr. Seshan has disclosed the stand of the Union of India with full authority and with the intention of binding the Union of India by his statement.     We are separately dealing with the Forest (Conservation) Act  and  its  bearing  and effect on  this  aspect.  It  is sufficient  to note that the Act does not permit  mining  in the  forest  area.  We are also  satisfied  that  if  mining activity even to a limited extent is permitted in future, it would  be not congenial to ecology and environment  and  the natural  calm and peace which is a special feature  of  this area  in  its normal condition shall not be  restored.  This tourist  zone in its natural setting would certainly  be  at its best if its serenity is restored in the fullest way.  We are  of the considered opinion that mining activity in  this Valley  must  be  completely stopped  but  as  indicated  in another  part  of  this judgment such a  situation  will  be available  only  after the original leases  of  the  working mines are over.     It  is  time  to  turn to  the  contention  relating  to forests.  Air and water are the most indispensable gifts  of Nature for preservation of life. Abundant sun-shine together with adequate rain keeps Nature’s generating force at  work. Human habitations all through the Ages have thrived on river banks and in close proximity of water sources. Forests  have natural  growth  of herbs which provide cure  for  diseases.                                                   PG NO 711 Our  ancestors knew that trees were friends of  mankind  and forests were necessary for human existence and  civilization to thrive. It is these forests that provided shelter for the ’Rishies  ’ and accommodated the ancient  ’Gurukulas’.  They too  provided food and sport for our forefathers  living  in the State of Nature. That is why there is copious  reference to forests in the Vedas and the ancient literature of  ours. In  ancient times trees were worshiped as gods  and  prayers for  up-keep of forests were offered to the Divine.  In  the Artharva Veda (5.30.6) it has been said:     "Man’s paradise is on earth;     This living world is the beloved place of all ;     It has the blessings of Nature’s bounties ;     Live in a lovely spirit."     In  due  course civilization developed and men  came  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 32  

live  away  from forests. Yet the human  community  depended fieavily  upon the forests which caused rains  and  provided timber, fruits, herbs and sports. With sufficient  sun-shine and  water  there  was luxuriant growth of  forests  in  the tropical  and semi-tropical zones all over the  globe.  Then came  the age of science and outburst of  human  population. Man   required  more  of  space  for  living  as  also   for cultivation  as well as more of timber. In that pursuit  the forests  were  cleared and exploitation  was  arbitrary  and excessive;  the  deep forests  were  depleted;  consequently rainfall  got  reduced; soil erosion took place.  The  earth crust  was washed away and places like Cherapunji  in  Assam which  used  to receive an average annual  rainfall  of  500 inches suffered occasional drought.     Scientists  came  to realise that forests play  a  vital role  in maintaining the balance of the  ecological  system. They  came to know that forests preserve the soil and  heavy humus  acts  as a porous reservoir for retaining  water  and gradually releasing it in a sustained flow. The trees in the forests  draw water from the bowls of the earth and  release the same into the atmosphere by the process of transpiration and the same is received back by way of rain as a result  of condensation  of  clouds  formed  out  of  the   atmospheric moisture. Forests thus help the cycle to be completed. Trees are  responsible to purify the air by releasing oxygen  into the  atmosphere  through the process of  photosynthesis.  It has, therefore, been rightly said that there is a balance on earth  between air, water, soil and plant. Forests  hold  up the  mountains,  cushion the rains and they  discipline  the rivers  and  control the floods. They sustain  the  springs; they   break  the  winds;  they  foster  the   bulks;   they                                                   PG NO 712 keep the air cool and clean. Forests also prevent erosion by wind and water and preserve the carpet of the soil.     In the second half of the 19th Century felling of  trees came  to be regulated. In 1858, the Department  of  Forestry was  set  up  and in 1864 the  first  Inspector  General  of Forests  was  appointed.  In the following  year  the  first Indian Forest Act came into the Statute Book to be  followed by  another  Act in 1878 and yet another in  1927  which  is still  in force providing measures of regulation.  This  Act has  been  amended  in  the  various  States  and  presently reference shall be made to the relevant amendments in  Uttar Pradesh.     Laying the railway track and providing sleepers therefor required clearing of forest areas and cutting down of trees. During  the Second World War Indian forests were very  badly mauled  for  various  defence purposes. By  the  time  India became  independent it had about 2 per cent of  the  earth’s land area, 1 per cent of productive forest area 15 per  cent of  world’s  population and 10 per cent  of  world’s  animal life-a situation indicative of the fact that there was acute deficit of forest area. The Government of lndia declared its National Forest Policy in 1452 which laid down that  forests should occupy 33 per cent of the land surface as against  23 per  cent  then attention was intended to the  bestowed  for expansion  of  forests in each of the Five-Year  Plans  that followed  with  a view to rehabilitating  the  forests.  The demand  occasioned by the growing population and the  spread of  economic development and consequent demand of timber  as raw  material as also feul led a  excessive exploitation  of the  forests  and  consequent   clearing  of  forest   areas notwithstanding the declared of National Forest Policy.     It  is interesting to note that the national per  capita average of forest area works out to 0. 11 hectare as against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 32  

an   international  average  of  1.5  hectare.   State-wise, Arunachal  Pradesh has per capita forest of  8.2.1  hectares which is the maximum and Haryana has the minimum being  0.01 hectare  (figures  based on Census Report of  1981  and  the report  of the Central Forestry Commission). While  some  of the  advanced  countries like  Australia,  Canada,  Germany, Japan  and  United States have forest cover of higher  area, on  account of want of regulation and appropriate  care  and attention, this unhappy situation has arisen in India.     The Birla Institute of Scientific Research in its Report on  Social Forestry in India: Problems and Prospects  [1986] has indicated:                                                   PG NO 713     ‘The  treeless expense of land provides  an  environment least conductive to healthy living. Tree leaves recharge the atmosphere  with  life  giving  oxygen,  take  away   excess carbondioxide and transmit moisture to the atmosphere by way of  transpiration.  It  is estimated  that  one  hectare  of woodland consumes 3.7 tonnes of carbondioxide and gives  out 2  tonnes  of  oxygen  per  year.  Denied  these  beneficial processes,   life   becomes  lead   heavy.   A  tree-covered environment  is much healthier to live and work in.  Amongst the  immediately perceptible effects of loss  of  vegetative protection  are soil erosion, floods and droughts. If  trees and  other vegetations are present, they bear the  burnt  of winds, heat, cold and rain water, first in their crowns  and foliage.  The  soil remains covered  by  humus,  decomposing litter  and  freshly  fallen leaves which  protect  it  from direct  action  of the adverse natural forces. In  a  wooded area  the  flow  of rain water gets  regulated  through  the Ieaves and the spongy material overlying the soil; but in  a barren,  unprotected  surface the rain drops  hit  the  soil directly  and the water flows torrentially,  dislodging  and carrying  with  it  the soil participles  which  have  taken hundreds of years to form. This results in disastrous floods in  lower  areas causing damage to life and  property.  Fast running water also causes landslides and other calamities en route.  With all the rain water having run away in the  form of  floods the land surface losses its resiliance  to  drier spells  and severe droughts are caused. The removal of  soil by  water produces fertility and the productive capacity  of the up-lands to a considerable degree.     It is estimated that nearly 6,000 million tonnes of soil is  washed  away  every year in floods.  With  that  go  6.0 million  tonnes  of nutrients-more than the amount  that  is applied in the form of fertilisers."     We shall now deal with legislative measures to  preserve the  forests and impact of such provisions on  mining  after briefly  referring  to the legislative power  in  regard  to forests.     "Forest" was initially a State subject covered by  Entry 19  in List II of the Seventh Schedule: In 1976,  under  the 42nd  Amendment the entry was deleted and entry 17-A in  the Concurrent List was inserted. The change from the State List to  the  Concurrent  List was brought  about  following  the                                                   PG NO 714 reallsation of the Central Government  that forests were  of national  importance and should be placed in the  Concurrent List  to  enable  the Central Government to  deal  with  the matter.  The same amendment of the Constitution  brought  in Article 48-A in Part IV providing thus:     "The  State shall endeavour to protect and  improve  the environment  and to safeguard the forests and wild  life  of the country."     Article  51-A in Part IV-A of the Constitution  inserted

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 32  

by  the same amendment provided a set of fundamental  duties and clause (g) runs thus:     "It shall be the duty of every citizen of India-     (g)  to  protect  and improve  the  natural  environment including  forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to  have compassion for living creatures." 1972  marks  a  watershed in the  history  of  environmental management  so  far  as India  is  concerned.  The  National Committee  of Environment and Planning and Coordination  was set  up  and  various  steps were  taken  to  implement  the recOmmendations already made and to be made: thereafter. The National  Commission  on Agricultural in  1976  noticed  the inadequate implementation of the 1953 National Forest Policy and proposed the following amendments:     (i)   Provision  for  prior  approval  of  the   Central Government   before  taking  steps  for   dereservation   or diversion of forest lands to non-forest use.     (ii)   Preventing  and evicting encroachment  of  forest lands.     (iii)  Safeguarding  against  monoculture  practices  in raising forest plantations so that preservation of  habitats for natural flora and fauna is ensured.     (iv)  Encouraging large scale industrial  plantation  to foster growth of forest industries.                                                   PG NO 715     The problem of forest preservation and protection was no more  to  be separated from the life style of  tribals.  The approach  required  a shift from the dependence on  law  and executive implementation to dependence on the conscious  and voluntary   participation  of  the  masses.  This   required educating the masses as well as appropriate education of the departmental  employees.  In  this  background  the   Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 was enacted with which we propose presently  to deal after noticing certain provisions of  the Indian Forest Act of 1927.     The  Forest  Act of 1927 deals with four  categories  of forests, namely-      1. Reserved Forests in Chapter II      2. Village Forests in Chapter 111      3. Protected Forests in Chapter IV      4. Non-Government Forests in Chapter V. The  first  three  categories deal with  forests  which  are Government  property while the last refers to  control  over forests and lands which are not Government property. Most of the  private forests covered under the fourth category  were earlier  parts of estates which have now been abolished  and thus  such forests have also become Government property.  In Uttar  Pradesh  there have been several  amendments  of  the Forest  Act  and  Chapter V-A has  been  incorporated  which provides  for  control over forests of  claimants.  Detailed procedure has been laid in Chapter II in respect of reserved forests.  Section 3 vests power in the State  Government  to reserve  forests.  The process for  reservation  of  forests starts with section 4 and ends up with the final declaration under  section  20.  Section 27 vests  power  in  the  State Government to declare a forest to be no longer reserved.     As  noticed  earlier,  notwithstanding  the   regulatory provisions  in the Forest Act of 1927 and  the  Government’s National  Forest  Policy  of  1952,  forests  generally  got rapidly depleted. To meet this alarming situation the Forest (Conservation)  Ordinance  of 1980 was  promulgated  by  the President  and  the  Ordinance was followed  by  the  Forest (Conservation)  Act  of 1980. The statement of  objects  and reasons, as far as relevant, point out:                                                   PG NO 716

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 32  

   "Deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads  to environmental  deterioration. Deforestation had been  taking place  on  a large scale in the country and  it  had  caused widespread concern.     With  a  view  to  checking  further  deforestation  the President promulgated on the 25th October, 1980, the  Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Ordinance made the prior approval   of   the   Central   Government   necessary   for dereservation of forests and for use of forest land for non- forest  purposes.  The  Ordinance  also  provided  for   the constitution of an advisory committee to advice the  Central Government with regard to grant of such approval."     Section 2 of the Act which is relevant provides:     "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the  time being in force in a State, no State Government  or other  authority shall make, except with the prior  approval of the Central Government. any order directing-     (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of  the expression reserved forest) in any law for the time being in force  in that State or any portion thereof, shall cease  to be reserved ;     (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may  be used for any non-forest purpose.     Explanation- For the purposes of this section non-forest purpose means breaking up or clearing of any forest land  or portion thereof for any purpose other than reafforestation." Thus  the  power which was vested in  the  State  Government under  section  27 of the Indian Forest Act of 1927  or  any other law containing a similar provision is now  exercisable subject to prior approval of the a Central Government.     This Court dealt with the provisions of the 1980 Act  in the  case  of Ambica Quarry Works v. State  of  Gujarat  and Ors.,  [1987] 1 SCC 213. The question of renewal  of  mining leases in Gujarat came for consideration in this case before                                                   PG NO 717 the Court. At page 219 of the Reports, it was stated:     "The  rules dealt with a situation prior to  the  coming into  operation  of  1980  Act. ’1980 Act’  was  an  act  in recognition   of  the  awareness  that   deforestation   and ecological  imbalances  as a result  of  deforestation  have become   social  menaces  and  further   deforestation   and ecological  imbalances  should be prevented.  That  was  the primary  purpose writ large in the Act of  1980.  Therefore, the  concept that power coupled with the duty enjoined  upon the  respondents  to renew the lease stands  eroded  by  the mandate  of the legislation as manifest in 1980 Act  in  the facts and circumstances of these cases. The primary duty was to  the  community  and that duty took  precedence,  in  our opinion, in these cases. The obligation to the society  must predominate over the obligation to the individuals." Again in paragraph 19, this Court observed:     "In  the  instant  appeals  the  situation  is  entirely different.  The appellants are asking for a renewal  of  the quarry  leases. It will lead to further deforestation or  at least  it  will  not help reclaiming back  the  areas  where deforestations have taken place. In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our  opinion, the ratio of the said decision State of Bihar v. Banshi  Ram Modi, [ 1985] 3 SCC 643 cannot be made applicable to support the appellants’ demands in these cases because the facts are entirely  different  here. The primary purpose  of  the  Act which must subserve the interpretation in order to implement the  Act  is to prevent further deforestation.  The  Central Government has not granted approval. ......" The  ratio  of  the  decision of  this  Court  in  Stare  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 32  

Rajasthan  v.  Hari Shankar Rajindra Pal, [l965] 3  SCR  402 has  obviously no application to the facts of this case.  In Banshi Ram Modi’ case (supra) what was being considered  was extension of the leases for another mineral which was  found while  exploitation,  under the existing  mining  lease  was undertaken.  We  agree with the view  expressed  by  Brother Mukharji  that  the  Conservation Act  of  1980  applies  to renewal  as  well  and even if there  was  a  provision  for renewal  in  the  lease agreement on  exercise  of  lessee’s option,  the  requirements of 1980 Act had to  be  satisfied before such renewal could be granted.     Many  of   these  leases, as already  indicated  by  us, expired in 1982. Renewal had been applied for and in many of                                                   PG NO 718 these  cases  the request for renewal was rejected.  On  the plea  that the State had no right to reject the request  for first  renewal, the aggrieved lessees went before  different courts  and  obtained  decrees or interim  orders.  We  have already  pointed out that in the order of 12th March,  1985, this  Court vacated such orders or decrees regarding  all  C category  and  some B category mines. It is clear  from  the directions  contained in the order of 12th March,  1985,  as also  the ratio of the judgment in the Ambica  Quarry  Works case  (supra)  that even if there has been an order  of  the Court  and  no challenge is raised against such  order  this Court could invoke its jurisdiction to nullify the direction or  order  and if any order, direction or  decree  has  been passed  ignoring the provisions of the Conservation  Act  of 1980  the same would not be binding. We have been  given  to understand  during the hearing of these cases  that  appeals have  been  preferred by the State of  Uttar  Pradesh  where decrees have been passed directing renewal. When this  Court left  the litigations to be continued, the Conservation  Act of  1980 had not been noticed. Therefore, liberty  had  been granted  to agitate the disputes arising out of  refusal  to renew. In view of the provisions in the Conservation Act and the  opinion expressed in Ambica Quarry Works case  (supra), with  which we are in agreement, the decrees also would  not be   sustainable  where  prior  approval  of   the   Central Government  has  not been obtained. We  agree  with  Brother Mukharji that whether it is a case of first grant or renewal following  exercise of option by the lessee, the  compliance of  section  2  of the Conservation Act is  necessary  as  a condition  precedent. No useful purpose would be  served  by allowing  the  litigations  to  be  continued  in  different courts,  particularly  when keeping the  broad  interest  of society  with reference to ecology and environment, we  have come  to the conclusion that mining in this area has  to  be stopped.  Notice has to be taken of the situation  that  the entire  dispute has been before this Court and the scope  of the  dispute is comprehensive. All parties are  before  this Court.  Parties have also been heard on various  aspects  at different times. An order made by this Court to nullify  the decrees in such circumstances would not be violative of  the principles  of  natural  justice.  Apart  from  the   notice contained in the Court’s Order of 19th October, 1987,  where it  had been specifically stated that this Court was of  the view  that mining in the Doon Valley area should be  totally stopped.  the  position  was also made  clear  to  different parties in course of the hearing which continued for several weeks.  We, therefore, hold that if any decree or order  has already been obtained from any court relating to renewal  of these Ieases, the same shall stand vacated and similarly any appeal  or  other proceeding taken to obtain  a  renewal  or against orders/decrees renewal shall also become nonest.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 32  

                                                 PG NO 719     We shall now turn our attention to the consideration  as to whether mining should be totally stopped outright or in a phrased manner.     In   our  order  dated  14th  October,  1987,   we   had categorically  indicated that mining in this area has to  be stopped  but instead of outright closing down  total  mining operations  we  were of the view that  mining  activity  may have  to be permitted to the extent it was necessary in  the interest  of  defence of the country as also by way  of  the safe-guarding of the foreign exchange position. Pursuant  to our direction in the said order (AIR 1987 SC 2426) the Union of lndia filed an affidavit on 18th November, 1987,  through Dr.  S. Maudgal, Director in the Department of  Environment, Forests  &  Wildlife  in the  Ministry  of  Environment  and Forests. That affidavit inter alia stated:     "3.l  The Ministry of Defence do not require  any  high- grade low silica limestone over and above what is needed for production of steel. Therefore, the limestone requirement of the Defence Ministry are fully covered in the requirement of the steel industry in the country.     3.2  High-grade  limestone with low  silica  content  is required  in  steel production only in the units  which  are operating  on  the  LD process. As of  today,  only  Bhilai, Rourkela, Bokaro and TISCO, Jarnshedpur are operating on the LD process. The requirement of low-silica limestone in 1986- 87 as provided by the Steel Authority of lndia Ltd. for  its plants at 2,20,550 tonnes with the break-up given in  Table- I.                         TABLE I     Source              Quantity received        Planned                         1986-87                  1987-88     UPSMDC, Dehradun    18,300                   100.000     RSMDC               183,000                  200,000     (Gotann/Jaisalmer     lmported            19,250                   100,000 __________________________________________________________________                         220,550                  400,000 ___________________________________________________________________                                                   PG NO 720     3.3  In addition to these steel plants,  Durgapur  Steel Plant & IISCO, Burnpur Plant is also expected to switch over tO the LD Process by 1994-95. The requirement of low  silica limestone for the steel plants as projected in the report of the  Steel and Mines, Department of Steel in March, 1987  is given in Table-Il.     Plant               1989-90        1994-95   1999-2000     Bhilai Steel        600            800       1,700     Plant     Durgapur Steel      -              540       890     Plant     Rourkela Steel      340            580       920     Plant     Bokaro Steel        1,360          1,530     1,800     Plant     Indian Iron &       -              330       610     Steel Co. Ltd. _____________________________________________________________________     SAIL TOTAL          2,300          3.780     5,990     Tata Iron &         480            810       810     Steel Co. Ltd.     Vizag Steel         300            550       750     Plant     Mini Steel          50             100       200     Plants

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 32  

   TOTAL               3,130          5,240     7,750     REQUIREMENTS ______________________________________________________________________     3.4  The occurrence of LD grade limestone  deposits  has been  identified at Lambidhar. Barkot (Distt.  DehraDun)  in U.p..  Gotan and Jaisalmer in Rajasthan, Solan  in  Himachal Pradesh   and Khorram  in  Meghalaya.  The deposits  outside U.P. have not, however, been prospected/explored in  detail. Detailed exploration of these deposits is necessary for  the preparation  of mining and environmental manageement  plants before  definite assessment of the extent of  production  of LD-grade  from these deposits can be determined.   Jaisalmer being  the  most  favoured deposit  should  be  explored  on                                                   PG NO 721 priority.  All the same. prima facie availability pattern of the LD-grade limestone from various deposits is in given  in Table III.                             TABLE III              (ooo tonnes)     Location            1989-90        1994-95   1999-2000 _________________________________________________________________________     Gotan               400            800       800     Jaisalmer’r         200            800       1, 000     Lambidhar           240            450       450     Barkot              _              -         1.000     Solan               -              500       1,000     Meghalya            -              200       500     Katni/Satna         2,000          2,500     3,000 ______________________________________________________________________     Total               3 , 840        5,250     7,750     Requirement         3,130          5,240     7.750     Surplus, Deficit    (-)290         -         -   __________________________________________________________________ (Subject to broad gauge link with Jaisalmer)     3.5 Data furnished by the six mine owners whose quarries are operating shows that a total of 1,73.768 tonnes has been supplied  to the steel plants from  Dehradun-Mussoorie  area during  1986 which is approximately 25% of  their  limestone production.   In this context, the State Government of  U.P. have brought the following facts to our notice:     "It  has to be pointed out that the  Dehradun  Mussoorie limestone  belt  also  meets the requirement  of  our  sugar industry,  and  paper.  The following  Table  indicates  the approximate  short and long term requirements of  industries that are dependent upon limestone from this belt|               H                                                   PG NO 722                                        (In tonnes)                         Short term               Long term     Sugar Industry      1,50, 000                2,00,000     Chemicals &r Paper  3,00,000                 4,00,000     Industry     There are over 90 sugar factories in the State which are traditionally  dependent on limestone from Dehradun for  use in  the process of manufacture. Sugar industry in our  State is a key agriculture based industry on which the economy  of farmers  of  nearly  40 out of  57  districts  depends.  The limestone  needs of this industry are, therefore,  important for  its survival. The chemical and paper  industry  further set up in Western and Northern U.P. with large  investments, is   also  dependent  upon  Dehradun  limestone  for   their existence.  Mini cement plants located in Western U.P.   and in  the  Doon Valley (M/s Venus  Cements)  utilise  offgrade limestone  generated  from  the mines  consequent  to  their operations.  This,  in  effect, helps with  the  control  of pollution  that  would  have occurred from  mine  wastes  if

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 32  

dumped  or  allowed  to roll into  depressions,  Valleys  or stream  beds;  it also helps with conservation  and  maximum utilisation of the resource mined. ’’     Adverting to the question as to whether mining  activity in  this  area  should be permitted  to  a  limited  extent, keeping  the  principles of ecology in view,  the  affidavit stated:     "The Union Government has all along taken the stand that the  Doon Valley is a fragile eco-system and is  endowed  by nature with perennial water streams, lush green forests  and scenic  beauty.  All  these  factors  have  contributed   to Mussoorie  being  called  the queen  of  hill  stations  and Dehradun  becoming an important place of tourist  attraction as  well  as  centre  of  education.  The  unscientific  and uncontrolled limestone quarrying operations spread over  the entire  40  km.  belt  on  the  Mussoorie  slopes   however, endangered the delicate ecological balance resulting in ugly scars,  excessive debris flow,  drying up of  water  streams and perennial streams and rivulets and deforestation.     Taking  note of the disastrous ecological  consequences,                                                   PG NO 723 the  technical  group constituted by the  State  and   Union Governments  since 1979 have  consistently recommended  only controlled  mining  in  this  area.  The  Technical   Expert Committee constituted by the Honourable Supreme Court  under the  Chairmanship  of  Shri D.N. Bhargav  examined  all  the operating  quarries and came to the conclusion that  all  of them,  to  a  larger of smaller extent,  have  violated  the statutory  provisions relating to mines. Conditions in  some of  the mines were considered to be so bad that 20 of  these were  closed immediately in 1983. The Committee,  under  the Chairmanship of Shri D. Bandy-opadhyaya examined the  Mining and  Environmental Management Plans prepared by parties  and came  to the unanimous conclusions that none of there  plans are    satisfactory.    Therefore,    the     Bandyopadhyaya Committee  strongly  recommended  that  none  of  the  mines reviewed by it should be allowed to operate. It is  relevant to  reiterate  here  that closure of these  mines  has  been recommended by the Bandyopadhyaya Committee not just on  the ground  that  they  are located within  the  Mussoorie  city limits  but  after due consideration  of  the  environmentaI implications,   status   of  preparedness  of   mining   and Environmental Management Plans and capability of the  lessee to  under-take  mining operations on a scientific  basis  so that   the   damage  to  life  and  property,   apart   from environmental  degradation.  is avoided. None of  the  mines already  closed  is,  therefore, fit to  be  considered  for operation.     It is the view of Government that to prevent any further degradation  of the ecology and environment in the area  and to  allow for rejuvenation. it is essential  that  limestone mining  operations, if they are to continue, should be on  a limited scale and completely regulated to  ensure that  they are  done in an entirely scientific manner  consistent  with the  imperatives  of  preservation and  restoration  of  the ecology  and environment in this area. In order to meet  the essential  requirements  of  steel  industry,  it  would  be necessary  to maintain supply of low silica  limestone  from the  Dehradun Mussoorie area. The State Government  of  U.P. also  has  brought to our notice that  certain  other  vital industrial  and  agricultural operations  are  dependent  on limestone  supplies  from  this  area.  In  view  of   these considerations,  it  is  felt that  limestone  mining  on  a limited scale may have to continue under strict regulation."                                                   PG NO 724

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 32  

   This  affidavit of Dr. Maudgal was not accepted by  this Court as it did not fulfil the requirement of the directions given  in the Court’s order dated 19th October, 1987.   Then came  another affidavit dated 24th February, 1988,  by  Shri T.N.  Seshan, Secretary in the Ministry of  Environment  and Forests.   This affidavit indicated that 90 per cent of  the low  silica  high  grade  limestone  was  supplied  by   the Rajasthan mines to the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and  10 per cent of supplies came from the Dehradun quarries.   Tata Iron  and Steel Company at Jamshedpur, however,  received  a sizeable  supply from the Dehradun quarries.   According  to this affidavit, in 1986, the total production of high  grade limestone  in  the  Dehradun-Mussoorie area  was  6.02  lakh tonnes.   The  affidavit  indicated  availability  of   such limestone in several other parts of the country.  In  regard to import of limestone and foreign exchange components, this affidavit indicated that as low silica high grade  limestone is  available from indigenous sources, import thereof  could be  dispensed with.  In paragraph 5 of this  affidavit,  the question  as  to whether keeping in view the  principles  of ecology,  mining  activity in  the  Dehradun-Mussoorie  area could  be permitted to a limited extent, perhaps as  pleaded in  the  earlier  affidavit,  has  been  dealt  with.   This affidavit stated|     "5.2  Now that high grade low silica limestone  is  also available in the extensive deposits covering large areas  in the  State of Rajasthan which can meet the  requirements  of the steel industry which also includes Defence requirements, there  is justification for disconstinuance of the  existing mining  operation  in the Dehradun-Mussoorie  area  and,  in fact, complete closure of the said mines in this area."     It is fact that while in the first affidavit, controlled and  limited mining was suggested, in the  second  affidavit filed  after a gap of about three months total  stoppage  of mining  activity  in this area has been  stressed.   Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh and UPSMDC offered serious criticism against this changed stance and we were called upon to reject the second affidavit also.  We do not find any justification in this plea for rejection of the affidavit.   This Court in its order of 19th October,  1987, had  in  clear  terms indicated what  aspects  were  exactly required  to  be answered by the affidavit of the  Union  of India.   Since  the first affidavit did  not  answer   those points it was rejected and a further affidavit was  directed to  be  filed.  There can be no two opinions that  both  the affidavits  pleaded  for banning of mining;  but  the  first affidavit  suggested controlled and limited mining  in  view                                                   PG NO 725 of the demands while the second affidavit, on  consideration of the fact that alternate sources were available for supply of  the limestone of the  desired quality, asked  for  total stoppage of mining operations. As we have already  indicated in   another  part  of  this  judgment.  awareness  of   the environmental  problem  has been  gradually  increasing  and though  in  the  first affidavit, the  Union  of  India  had expressed its view that limited and controlled mining  could be permitted, on a reconsideration of the matter and  taking into   account  the  relevant  aspects  for   reaching   its conclusion,  the Union of India has come to adopt  the  view that  there  should be no mining in this area. We  can  well gather  why  the UPSMDC would feel aggrieved by  the  second affidavit  but  so  far as the State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  is concerned,  we do not see any justification in its  critical stand  against  the second affidavit on the  plea  that  the stand  accepted in the first affidavit has been given  a  go

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 32  

by. Maintenance of the environment and ecological balance is the obligation of the State and the Central Governments  and unless  there was any real objection to the opinion  of  the Union  of India as to continuing or closing down  of  mining activity, it should have been taken in the proper light  and the  little modified stand adopted in the second   affidavit should have been welcomed.     In  another part of our judgment we have found that  the entire  area  is  more or less  forest.  Many  portions  are reserved   while  others  constitute  forest  land.  It   is indisputable  that  mining  operations  are  detrimental  to forest growth. In fact the Union Government  in the Ministry of  Environment and Forest have on 31st May, 1988,  informed the  Secretaries  of  all  the  State  Governments  in   the Department of Forest that even mining area below the forests would affect the forests.     The variation of the stand in the second affidavit  that mining  activity should be totally stopped is  certainly  an improvement on the stand taken in the first affidavit but we do  not  think  there  is any  inconsistency  in  the  stand inasmuch  as  the justification in support of  the  plea  of total closure has been indicated.     Even  before any of these two affidavits was filed  this Court  in  its order of 19th of October, 1987,  had  clearly indicated  that  mining  activity in  this  area  should  he totally stopped. The view expressed in the second  affidavit is in accord with what this Court has stated. On  assessment of  the  factual  position, we do not  think  there  is  any substance  in the argument advanced on behalf of  the  Uttar Pradesh  Government,  UPSMDC or any other mine  owner  which would  Justify our rejecting the second affidavit. We  would                                                   PG NO 726 like  to  add that this is not  a case of  a  somersault  as contended  on  behalf  of the  State  Government  of  ’Uttar Pradesh  nor  has  it been occasioned  by  any  illegitimate consideration.     The  point  which  still remains to  be  dealt  with  is whether   mining   activity  should   be   totally   stopped immediately.     It  is  the accepted-position by all  parties  that  low silica  content   limestone is necessary  for  manufacturing class  steel. The earlier LD process is being  abandoned  by new  factories  and  even some are  switching  over  to  new methods  but for quite some time there would be  demand  for low cilica content limestone for manufacture of steel by the LD process. The alternate source which has been indicated in these  two affidavits of the Union of India is  not  readily available  to the fullest extent. The  Gotan-Jaisalmer  belt has to be worked out in full swing and that would take  some time.  The main difficulty for the Jaisalmer  production  to reach  the consumers is the location of the mining area.  It has  no  broad-gauge  rail  connection  and  admittedly  the location is in the interior. The consumer would  immediately face  transport difficulty until there is conversion of  the railway track to broad-gauge and surface transport  facility improves.  Even if these facilities are made available,  the distant  location  is bound to reflect itself  in  the  cost factor.     The question of foreign exchange component does not seem to  be  very  material as the required type  of  mineral  is indigenously available and import may not be necessary  when the production in Rajasthan area increases. The fact that in the  recent  past the Tata Iron and Steel Company  has  made some  import has indeed no real bearing on the  question  as that import has been necessitated on account of the  closure

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 32  

of  the  mines  in this area  and  non-availability  of  the material from the alternate indigenous source.     We  have  already recorded a finding elsewhere  in  this judgment that most of these mines are either within reserved forests or in forest lands, as covered by the U.P. Amendment of  the Forest Act. To these areas the  Forest  Conservation Act  applies and to allow mining in these areas  even  under strictest  control as a permanent feature would not only  be violative of the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act but would be detrimental to restoration of the forest growth  in a  natural way in this area. Once the importance of  forests is  realised and as a matter of national policy and  in  the interests  of  the  community, preservation  of  forests  is accepted as the goal, nothing which would detract from  that                                                   PG NO 727 end should be permitted. In such circumstances we  reiterate our  conclusion that mining in this area has to  be  totally stopped.     There  was  some controversy as to whether some  of  the mines were located in the reserved forests. We have not made any  attempt  to resolve that controversy here  as,  in  our opinion,  whether the mines are within the reserved  forests or, in other forest area, the provisions of the Conservation Act apply.     We  do  not agree with the submission  advanced  by  Mr. Nariman for the intervener, Mr. Sibbal for the Uttar Pradesh Government, Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad for the UPSMDC, Dr. Singhvi for some of the mine owners and similar contentions advanced by other counsel of different mine lessees that there  would be a total stalemate in the manufacture of drugs and  sugar, as  also steel, in case mining activity is stopped;  yet  we would  accept this position that these would be hard-hit  if mining  activity  in this area is stopped all of  a  sudden. With  the  pressing demand in the market  and  discovery  of useful  limestone  deposits in other parts  of  the  country apart  from what has been indicated in the second  affidavit of the Union of India the trade would adjust itself as every economic  activity does. We are, however, of the  view  that the  position should be monitored and the  switch-over  from the present position to a total ban should be spread over  a period and not be sudden.     We  have  already  taken  note  of  the  fact  that  for different  reasons  several mines are closed down  and  only six,  as  indicated in another part of  this  judgment.  are working.  Now that we have found that some  mining  activity for  some  more  time in this area may  be  permitted  under strict regulation, we have now to decide which of the  mines may be permitted to work and for what period as also subject to what conditions.     Majority  of the mining leases was granted in 1962.  The lease  period being 20 years. the original period  of  lease has  expired  in all such cases where the  leases  commenced from  1962. But following are the mines where  the  original grant is still valid and their date of expiry is  separately indicated :                                                   PG NO 728     S.No.     Name of the lessee  Lease No.      Valid up-to     1.        U .P. S.M .D . C.   94             10.3. 1996     2.        Sh. R.K. Oberai     72             10.4. 1994     3.        Punjab Lime &       96             12.12.1989               Lime-stone Co. __________________________________________________________________________ _     Apart from these three, there are four other mines which are also operating under decrees/orders of Courts as per the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 32  

details below : __________________________________________________________________________ ____     S. No.    Name of the lessee  Lease No.      Lease expired     1.        Punjab Lime &       l4(ii)         2. 12. 82               Stone Co.     2.        Ch. Ved Pal Singh   16             2. l2.82     3.        Seth Ram Avtar      17             2. 12. 82     4.        Sh. C. C;. Gujaral  76             15. 12. 82     In  all  these cases, the leases have  expired  and  the lessor  Government refused to renew them. The  lessees  have obtained orders from the Court and are working continuously. In  view of what we have held, the orders or decrees  become inoperative  and are deemed to have been set aside  by  this judgment.  Mining in these four leases must stop within  one month from today.     Apart from the three working mines specified above where the  Original Lease period is yet to expire, there  are  six other  A  category  mines with valid leases  which  are  not working now as per the particulars below : __________________________________________________________________________ __ S.No.         Name of the lessee  Lease No.      Valid up-to __________________________________________________________________________ __ 1.            New Era Minerals    4              25.2.1990 2.            U. P. Minerals      8              10.4.1994 3.            Rajgiri Minerals    9              24.11.1992 4.            Anand Brothers     67              15.2.1992 5.            Uttrakhand Minerals98              12. 12 1989 6.            Vijayashree Minerals99             20.3. 1990 __________________________________________________________________________ _                                                   PG NO 729     These mines are not operating at present for one  reason or the other. On the 12th of May, 1985, the mines within the municipal  limits of Mussoorie were directed to  close  down until  they were cleared by the Bandyopadhyay Committee  and that  Committee did not clear any. So far as the first  five mines  are concerned, they are either within  the  municipal limits  or  within  the  forest area. We  do  not  think  it appropriate  to  allow  them to operate  until  their  lease periods   lapse  particularly  when  we  have  reached   the conclusion  that mining operation in this area should  close down.  An exception has to be made in the case of  the  mine being  lease No. 99 where the lease period has to expire  in 1990. The lease is of 15 acres of land and another 100 acres are  from  some private source. Mr. Jain appearing  for  the lessee  had  undertaken before us that over the  100  acres, there  would  be no mining operation and  the  lessee  would immediately restore vegetation over the area and full forest growth  will  be available in regard to the 100  acres.  The mine  is  neither  within  forest  nor  municipal  area  and minerals  from  this area would be removed not  through  the city  limits. He has also assured us that immediately  after the  lease period is over, which would be about a  year  and half  from now, the 15 acres would also be subject  to  real forestation  by  the  lessee.  He  has  agreed  to  file   a undertaking in this Court which we direct him to, do  within four weeks hence. On the undertaking being filed this  mine, as  a special case, shall be permitted to operate until  the expiry  of  the lease. The Committee  appointed  under  this order  shall supervise the reafforestatian programme  under- taken by the lessee of lease No. 99 and in case it is of the view that the undertaking is not being properly worked  out.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 32  

on the report of the Committee to that effect, permission to work the lessee  may be varied.     Mr.  jain  appearng for another lessee  and  Mr.  Pramod Dayal  appearing for the lessee in respect of lease  No.  67 had tried to make out specific cases. During the hearing  of these  cases we had felt impressed by what had  been  placed before  us but since we have now taken a decision  to  close down  mining  activity  in the area we do  not  think  fresh mining  operations  where mining has already  been  stopped- whatever be the ground-should on principle be permitted.  To make  out  a  special case for a few  lesses  from   amongst similarly placed mine owners of small differences for  being permitted  to work out stopped mines, in our opinion,  would not be appropriate at this stage. On the other hand to treat them all as a class and subject them to a common order would be  just and proper. We reiterate that the exception in  the case  of lease No 99 is for testing the genuineness  of  the representation  of  the lessee and in consideration  of  the smallness of the area.                                                   PG NO 730     We would like to notice at this place the contention  of Dr. Singvi that A Category mine owners should not suffer  on account of this Court’s order and similar treatment to all A category  mine owners should be given. There can be  no  two opinions  about the Court extending equal treatment  to  all equally  placed  parties  before it.  It  is,  however,  not correct  that the A category mines which are  operating  and those  that are closed down are similarly situate. In  fact, when  the  Court made the earlier order asking  for  closing down,  the distinction was noticed and on that basis  orders involving different treatments had been made. It may be that we  have not found the distinction to be a tenable one at  a later stage. But in the peculiar situation emerging in  this case  we  do not accept the submission of Dr.  Singhvi  that those  A category mines which had stopped working should  be permitted to run. There are certain situations where in  the interest  of general benefit to the community, interests  of individual  citizens  may be over-looked. We  are  satisfied that  this situation attracts that principle to operate  and even if some of the mine owners are worse affected than some others,  permission  to  reopen the  mines  located  in  the forests and within municipal limits cannot be granted with a view  to compensating them for being placed at par with  the less affected group.     It is perhaps necessary to indicate why these three  on- going  mines whose original lease period has not lapsed  are being  permitted to continue mining. We have  already  taken note  of  the  position  that  UPSMDC  is  a  public  sector undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh and there has been a  huge  investment by the State in this  establishment.  It gives  sizeable  output. Though certain  defects  have  been pointed  out in its activities by the Working Group, we  are of  the  opinion that if  appropriately  controlled,  mining activities    can    be   regulated    and    simultaneously reafforestation  can be activised. So far as R.K. Oberai  is concerned,  the  Working  Group has  found  least  objection against  it.  The lease of Punjab Lime &  Limestone  Company shall  have life of a little more than one year.  All  these three  mines  are  running their initial  lease  period.  No additional  exercises are necessary to make them  operative. If any of these mines is closed down there would be  problem of unemployment. In regard to the mines closed for more than three years, we do not think the labour is sitting idle  and the  mine owner is paying them. They must have got  employed elsewhere of they have lost their service and have taken  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 32  

alternate  engagement. In our opinion,  therefore,  allowing these  three  on-going mines to operate  for  their  initial period  of lease is the most appropriate direction that  can be given during the switch over from the present position to one  of  complete  closing down  of  mining  operation.  We, therefore  permit  these  three  mines  to  continue  mining                                                   PG NO 731 operation subject to compliance with all legal  requirements and  the  additional  conditions which  we  shall  hereafter indicate.     The  next  aspect to be considered is as to  under  what conditions mining operation by these three lessees should be permitted.  The  objections  raised  by  the  Working  Group against  the  UPSMDC are germane and  legitimate.  We  shall require  this lessee to meet all these objections  within  a period  of four months from now. If by the end of  December, 1988, the lessee fails to comply with this direction to  the satisfaction  of  the Monitoring Committee  which  is  being setup   by  this  Judgment,  the  Monitoring  Committee   is empowered to direct closing down of the mine subject to  any other direction of this Court. So far as the other two mines are concerned, whatever objections have been  raised by  the Working Committee shall also be removed within the same time limit  and  on  failure of compliance,  they  too  shall  be visited with the same consequences.     There   is  no  dispute  that  continuance   of   mining operations affects environment and ecology adversely and  at the  same  time  creates  a  prejudicial  situation  against conservation  of forests. It is, therefore,  necessary  that each  of  these  working mines shall have to  work  with  an undertaking given to the  Monitoring Committee that all care and  attention shall be bestowed to preserve ecological  and environmental  balance while carrying on mining  operations. 25%   of  the gross profits of these three  mines  shall  be credited to the Fund Incharge of the Monitoring Committee in such  manner as the Committee  may direct and the  Committee shall ensure maintenance of ecology and environment as  also reafforestation  in  the area of mining by  expending  money from  the  fund.  In the event  of  expenses  exceeding  the contribution   by  these  three  respective   lessees,   the Committee shall report to this Court for directions. On  the expiry  of  their  respective  leases,  they  shall  not  be entitled to carry mining operation and by operation of  this judgment  shall have to wind up. No application for  renewal shall be entertained from them. These three lessees as  also any  other lessee shall not be entitled to any  compensation for closing down of the mines under orders of this Court.     In the Order of 12th March, 1985, a three-Judge Bench of this  Court had indicated that the mine owners who had  been displaced  should be rehabilitated. There is no material  on record  if any alternate provision has been made  either  by the  State of Uttar Pradesh or the Union of India.  On-going leases  have  been  terminated under orders  of  this  Court                                                   PG NO 732 without    provision    for    compensation.    Indisputably displacement  has  been suffered by these  lessees  and  the sudden  displacement must have up-set their  activities  and brought  about substantial inconvenience to them. The  Court has no other option but to close down the mining activity in the  broad interests of the community. This,  however,  does not  mean  that  the displaced mine  owners  should  not  be provided  with alternative occupation. Pious observation  or even a direction in that regard may not be adequate, what is necessary  is a time frame functioning if rehabilitation  is to  be  made effective. It is therefore,  necessary  that  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 32  

Committee should be set up to over-see the rehabilitation of the displaced mine owners. The Uttar Pradesh Government,  as apprehended by many of these mine owners, by itself may  not be able to meet the requirements of the situation. It may be that  all  the displaced mine owners may not  find  suitable placement  within  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh.  It   is, therefore,  necessary to associate of some other  States  in the  programme.  Unless a High Powered Committee is  set  up wherein Union of India is also represented, the Committee to be  constituted may not be effective and  there may be  lack of coordination. There is material that lime stone  quarries are  available in Rajasthan and Gujarat. It  is,  therefore, necessary  that representatives of these  State  Governments are also on the Committee. We accordingly direct a Committee to be set up with representatives of the Union of India, the State  Governments of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and  Gujarat. While  effecting rehabilitation by giving  alternate  mining sites,  ecology and environment will have to be  considered. It  is,  therefore, necessary that that such  Committee  the Ministry  of Environment should also be  represented.  Apart from  them there should at least be two experts.  We  direct constitution   of  a  Rehabilitation  Committee   with   the following members:     1. Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of  lndia- Chairman.     2.  Secretary,  Department of  Environment  and  Forest. Government of India-Member.     3.  Secretaries, Department of Mining of the  States  of Uttar  Pradesh.  Rajasthan  and  Gujarat-Members.  Mr.  Anil Aparwal  of  Centre  for  Science  and  Environment,   G-92, Kalkaji,  New  Delhi, and Mr. Subrata Sinha,  Senior  Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, 27, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta, are nominated as the expert members of this  Committee. The Committee shall have an officer of  the grade  of Under Secretary to the Government of India as  its Secretary  and  the minimum skelton staff for  carrying  its                                                   PG NO 733 activities.  For convenience, the office may be located  for the  time being in the  Ministry of Steel and Mines  at  New Delhi. The Ministry of Environment and Forest is directed to deposit  a  sum of Rs.3 Lacs in the Registry of  this  Court within  four  weeks  from today to  be  transferred  to  the Committee  for  the  purpose of  the  Committee  subject  to appropriate   accounts  to  be  rendered  to  the   Ministry concerned.  The   Committee is directed to make  an  initial report  on the problem and the manner it proposes to  tackle it  within  eight  weeks from today. On the  basis  of  such report, further directions shall be made. The laws in  force shall  have to be kept in view and the  above-named  members are  directed  to extend full cooperation with  zeal  and  a sense   of   under-standing   of  the   problems   so   that rehabilitation  can be done as a part of  the  environmental programme.     The Court is of the view that a Monitoring Committee  is necessary for reafforestation of the areas as also for over- seeing  the running of the three mines. The State- of  Uttar Pradesh  has already undertaken a reafforestation  programme in the area. The record, however, does not indicate much  of improvement yet. We have taken note of the position that the Uttar  Pradesh  Government has a Master Plan  for  the  Doon Valley  spread  over  a quarter of  century  beginning  with 1986.  Since the Court has stepped in to close  down  mining operation  in this area except to a very limited extent,  we are of the view that a High Powered Committee should be  set up to look after reafforestation, mining, activities and all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 32  

other  aspects necessary to bring about natural normalcy  in the  Doon  Valley. Mr. K.P. Geetakrishnan, a Member  of  the Indian  Administrative Service, now Secretary, Forest,  Wild Life  and  Environment  in the Central  Government,  in  our opinion,  should  be  made the Chairman  of  the  Monitoring Committee.  Mr.  D. Bandy-opadhyay, a member of  the  Indian Administrative   Service.  now   Secretary,  Department   of Revenue  in  the  Central  Government.  who,  had  headed  a Committee  set up by this Court is aware of the problems  of this  area. We are of the opinion that he should be  made  a Member  of the Monitoring Committee. The Head of the  Indian Defence  Academy, the Head of the Indian  Forest  lnstitute, the  Head  ot  the establishment of  ONGC  (all  located  at Dehradun),  the  secretary, Forest Department of  the  Uttar Pradesh  and  the  Chairmen of the  Mussoorie  and  Dehradun municipalities,   and  two  public   spirited   citizens-one belonging  to Mussoorie and another to Dehradun area are  to be  the  members  of this Committee.  The  two  non-official members  shall be co-opted by the Committee.  The  Committee shall have its office at Dehradun in the accommodation to be provided either by the ONGC or the Forest Staff College. The                                                   PG NO 734 Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to deposit a sum  of Rs.5  Lacs for creating the initial fund of  the  Monitoring Committee. The amount should be deposited in the Registry of this  Court within four weeks from now. It shall be open  to the Monitoring Committee to appoint a skelton staff with the suitable  officers  to run the establishment.  We  hope  and expect  that  the concerned Governments  will  permit  their officers  to undertake the respective assignments in  public interest  and  we expect the officers also to  extend  their whole-hearted support to work out the trust reposed in them. The  Monitoring  Committee  shall have  powers  to  over-see reafforestation  in the area by the State of  Uttar  Pradesh and  undertake an appropriate scheme of reafforestation.  It shall  ensure  that mining activity by  the  three  on-going mines  is  carried  out  in accordance  with  law  and  with appropriate safeguards from environment and ecology point of view.  It shall also ensure that the scree is  removed  from the  natural  streams and the flow of water  is  maintained. After  the Committee makes its initial report  within  eight weeks  from  now  to  the  Registry  further  directions  as necessary shall be given.     It  is not our intention to continue control over  these matters.  Once this Court is satisfied that  the  Committees are  operating on the right lines we shall consider  whether it is any longer necessary for the Court to supervise  their activity.     Before  we  part  with the case, we  must  indicate  our appreciation  of  services rendered by the  petitioners  and their   counsel   to   the  cause,   the   cooperation   and understanding  extended by the mine owners,  their  counsel, the  Members  of the several Committees constituted  by  the Court but for which these proceedings could not have come to terminate  in  the present manner. The records of  the  case have  become  unusually  bulky and  but  for  the  continued assistance of Mr. Pramod Dayal, a member of the bar of  this Court,  it would indeed have been difficult for us  as  also parties and their advocates to handle the matter with  ease. Mr. Parmod Dayal deserves our commendation for the labour he has put in. He was appearing for some of the lessees but the assisted  the Court very willingly as and when called  upon. We  are  of the view that he should be paid a total  sum  of Rs.5,000  (Rupees  Five  Thousand  only)  for  the  services rendered.  We direct the Union of India to deposit the  said

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 32  

amount with the Registry of this Court within two weeks from now. This amount when deposited shall be paid to Mr.  Parmod Dayal.                                                   PG NO 735     The  writ petitions are disposed of. There would  be  no order  for  A costs. We direct that the reports of  the  two Committees,  as  and when received, shall be  placed  before this Court for directions. R.S.S.                                       Petitions disposed of.