REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. No. 1967 in I.A. No. 1785

IN

Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985

M.C. Mehta …  Petitioner(s)

    versus

Union of India and Ors. …  Respondents

with

I.A. No. 1785, I.A. No. 2152 in I.A. No. 1785, I.A. Nos. 1962 & 2143 in  I.A. No. 1785, I.A. No. 2186 in I.A. No. 1785, I.A. No. 2168 in I.A. No.  1785 and I.A. No. 2385 in I.A. No. 1785.

with

I.A. No. 1465 and I.A. Nos. 2426-2427

IN  

Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad ... Petitioner(s)

     versus

Union of India and Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.H. KAPADIA, J.  

Has the situation (optimization of land and ecological degradation in  

an area admeasuring approximately 448 sq. kms.  in the Aravalli Hill Range  

falling  in  the  Districts  of  Faridabad  and  Gurgaon  including  Mewat)  

predicted in para 89 of the Judgment in M.C. Mehta1 case come about so as  

to warrant total stoppage of mining activity as stated in para 96(6) of the said  

judgment; and if so, what should be the duration of such ban/stoppage?

2. In this connection, at the very outset, we quote paras 89 and 96(6) of  

the said judgment, which read as follows:

“89.  It  may  be  reiterated  that  if,  despite  stringent  conditions, the degradation of environment continues and  reaches  a  stage  of  no-return,  this  Court  may  have  to  consider, at a later date, the closure of mining activity in  areas where there is such a risk.”

“96(6)  The Aravalli hill range has to be protected at any  cost.  In  case  despite  stringent  conditions,  there  is  an  adverse irreversible effect on the ecology in the Aravalli  hill  range  area,  at  a  later  date,  the  total  stoppage  of  mining activity in the area may have to be considered.  For similar reasons such step may have to be considered  in respect of mining in Faridabad district as well.”

3. History of the relevant Orders passed by this Court:

(i) On 6.5.2002 the following Order was passed:

“IA No. 1785

1 (2004) 12 SCC 118

2

2. Issue notice.  Mr Bharat  Singh accepts.  Reply  be  filed within four weeks. Rejoinder be filed within four  weeks thereafter. In the meantime, within 48 hours from  today  the  Chief  Secretary,  Government  of  Haryana  is  directed  to  stop  all  mining  activities and  pumping  of  groundwater in and  from an area up to 5 km from the  Delhi-Haryana border in the Haryana side of  the ridge  and also in the Aravalli hills.”            (emphasis supplied)

(ii) On 29/30.10.2002 the following Order was passed:

“ILLEGAL MINING IN ARAVALLIS

…We,  prohibit and ban all mining activity in the  entire Aravalli hills. This ban is not limited only to the  hills encircling Kote and Alampur villages but extends to  the  entire  hill  range  of  Aravalli  from  Dholpur  to  Rajasthan.  The  Chief  Secretary,  State  of  Haryana  and  Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan are directed to ensure  that no mining activity in the Aravalli hills is carried out,  especially, in that part which has been regarded as forest  area  or  protected  under  the  Environment  (Protection)  Act.”                                                 (emphasis supplied)

(iii) On 31.10.2002 the following Order was passed:

“IA No.  1785 in IA No.  22 and in WP No.  4677 of   1985, all IAs and WPs on board

It is represented that applications have been filed  with regard to environment impact assessment,  and for  approval  of  plans  with  regard  to  the  mining  activity  which was proposed by the applicants/leaseholders. The  said applications have to be dealt  with in terms of the  notification  dated    27-1-1994  of  the  Ministry  of  Environment and Forests. The said notification relates to  environment impact assessment of development projects.  It  appears  that  environment  clearance  has  not  been  obtained  and  the  learned  counsel  submit  that  the  applicants/leaseholders cannot be faulted for this.

3

It  is  quite  obvious  that  on  the  principle  of  sustainable  development,  no  mining  activity  can  be  carried out without remedial measures taking place. For  this  purpose,  it  is  necessary  that  environment  impact  assessment is done and the applications dealt with before  any mining activity can be permitted.

Counsel will give on the next date of hearing list of  applications  which  were  filed,  so  that  the  Ministry  of  Environment can be put to notice and be required to deal  with those applications and to dispose of them within a  period to be specified by this Court.

Liberty to file additional affidavits given.

The State of Haryana will also explain on the next  date  of  hearing  as  to  whether  royalty  payable  to  the  villages has been given or not.

To come up on 25.11.2002.”

(iv) On 16.12.2002 the following Order was passed:

“IAs 828, 833, 834-835, 837-838, 839, 840, 846 & 847  

One of the aforesaid applications has been filed by  the  State  of  Rajasthan  seeking  modification or  clarification  to  the  effect  that  the  order  dated  29/30th  October 2002  would be applicable only to illegal mines  in  the  Aravalli  hills.  IA  840  has  been  filed  by  M/s.  Gurgaon Sohna Mineral and Anr. seeking similar relief.  Applications  have also been filed by State  of  Haryana  and other parties.

We  have  heard  learned  counsel.  On  29th/30th  October,  2002  this  Court  prohibited  and  banned  the  mining activities in the entire Aravalli hills. This ban, it  was directed,  is not limited only to the hills encircling  Kote and Alampur villages but extends to the entire hill  range of Aravalli from Haryana to Rajasthan. The Chief  Secretary, State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan were  directed to ensure that no mining activity in the Aravalli  

4

hills is carried out, especially in that part which has been  regarded  as  Forest  Area  or  protected  under  the  Environment (Protection) Act.

On  consideration  of  the  report  of  Central  Empowered  Committee  dated  December  14,  2002,  we  issue the following further directions:

(1)  Mining  may  be  permitted  in  Forest  Areas  where  specific  prior  approval  under  Section  2  of  the  Forest  (Conservation)  Act,  1980 has been accorded by  the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of  India.  However,  in  view  of  this  Court's  order  dated  14.2.2000 passed  in  I.A.No.  548 no mining  activity  is  permitted within areas which are notified as Sanctuary,  National  Park  under  Sections  18,  35  of  the  Wild  Life  (Protection) Act, 1972 or any Sanctuary, National Part or  Game Reserve  declared  under  any  other  Act  or  Rules  made  thereunder  even  if  prior  approval  have  been  obtained from the MOEF under the F.C. Act in such an  area.

(2) Under Notification dated 29th November, 1999  issued under Section 23 of the Environment (Protection)  Act for certain Districts including Gurgaon District in the  State  of  Haryana,  the  Ministry  has  delegated power  to  grant  approval  for  mining  purposes  to  the  State.  The  mining  activities  are  being  regulated  under  the  Notification dated 7th May, 1992 issued by the Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forest  (Annexure  A-1  in  IA  No.  833). We direct that, for the time being, no mining shall  be permitted within the areas of Gurgaon District in the  State  of  Haryana  where  mining  is  regulated  under  the  Notification dated 7.5.1992 issued under Section 3 of the  Environment  (Protection)  Act,  pursuant  to  permission  granted after 29 November, 1999.

Meanwhile,  the  Central  Empowered  Committee  which is examining the matter will give its suggestions  within  a  period  of  six  weeks.  On the  receipt  of  those  

5

suggestions,  the  prayers  made  by  the  applicants  for  modification of the order dated 29/30.10.2002 insofar as  the Gurgaon District is concerned will be considered.

(3)  No  mining  activity  would  be  permitted  in  respect of areas where there is a dispute of applicability  of  F.C.  Act,  till  such  time  the  dispute  is  resolved  or  approval  under  the  FC Act  is  accorded,  in  addition to  order already passed in Writ Petition No. 4677/1985.

For the present, no mining will be permitted in the  areas for which notification under Sections 4 and 5 of the  Punjab Land Preservation Act 1900 have been issued for  regulating the breaking up of the land etc. and such lands  are or were recorded as "Forest" in Government records  even if the notification period has expired, unless there is  approval under the FC Act.

Learned  Attorney  General  and  Solicitor  General  will assist the Court on the aforesaid aspects on the next  date of hearing.

In  respect  of  suggestion  7  and  8,  the  Union  of  India will respond on the next date of hearing.

The order dated 29/30th October, prohibiting and  banning  the  mining  activity  in  Aravalli  hills  from  Haryana to Rajasthan is modified insofar as the State of  Rajasthan is concerned to the following effect:

Wherever requisite approval/sanctions in the said  State have been obtained under FC Act and EP Act, and  the mining is not prohibited under the applicable Acts or  notifications or orders of the Court, mining can continue  and to such mining the order aforesaid will not apply.

This  order  will  be  applicable  to  non-forest  land  covered for the period prior to the date of modification of  the  order  dated  29th  November  1999  in  the  State  of  Haryana.

6

This  variation  will  not  apply  to  the  area  in  the  Alampur District in the State of Haryana.

List  the  matter  on  7th  February,  2003  at  2  O'Clock.”                                            (emphasis supplied)

I. Reasons behind Order dated 29/30.10.2002 imposing total ban:

4. The  question  to  be  answered  at  the  outset  is  why  did  this  Court  

impose a complete ban on mining in the Aravalli range falling in the State of  

Haryana  which  broadly  falls  in  District  Gurgaon  and  District  Faridabad  

including Mewat? The statistical data placed before this Court indicated that,  

in October, 2002,  twenty six mines were inspected which indicated wide  

scale  non-compliance  of  statutory  Rules  and  Regulations  applicable  to  

mines. Broadly stated, most of these mines failed to obtain environmental  

clearances. Most of these mines failed to submit environmental management  

plan. In some cases, the status of mining indicated below groundwater table.  

Mining pits were turned into huge groundwater lakes. No efforts were made  

to create plantation. Broadly, these were silica sand mines. In some cases,  

even groundwater stood extracted. Deep mining pits with large water bodies  

were  detected.  Huge amounts  of  overburden  were  also  seen  in  the  area.  

These are some of the defects which were highlighted by EPCA in various  

Reports as far back as October, 2002. These non-compliances have also been  

7

highlighted  with  the  names of  the  mines  meticulously  in  para  18  of  the  

judgment in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra). It is important to note that by  

Notification dated 7.5.1992 issued by MoEF under Section 3(2)(v) of the  

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (“EP Act” for short), as amended, all  

new  mining  operations  including  renewal  leases  stood  banned.  The  

Notification  further  laid  down the  procedure  for  taking  prior  permission  

before undertaking mining activity. At this stage it  may be noted that by  

Notification dated 27.1.1994 as amended on 4.5.1994 issued by MoEF under  

Section 3(2)  of  the EP Act,  1986 read with Rule 6, Environment Impact  

Assessment (“EIA”) before commencement of any mining operation became  

mandatory. Therefore, by Order dated 29/30.10.2002, when this Court found  

large scale  mining without  Approved Plans,  it  decided to ban all  mining  

activities in the Aravalli Range.

II. Fall out of the Order dated 29/30.10.2002:   

5. After  Order  dated  29/30.10.2002,  I.As.  were  moved  saying  that  

applications have been filed for EIA and for approval of plans and it is at  

this stage that this Court ordered that no mining activity could be carried out  

without  remedial  measures being  taken  and  for  that  purpose,  it  was  

necessary  that  EIA had  to  be  done  before  any  mining  activity  could  be  

permitted. (see 2004 (12) SCC 118 at p.185).

8

6. At this stage, one event needs to be highlighted. The powers vested in  

the  Central  Government  in  terms  of  Notification  dated  7.5.1992  were  

delegated to State Government concerned, namely, Rajasthan and Haryana,  

vide Notification dated 29.11.1999. But the delegation in favour of the State  

stood withdrawn when it was found that most of the mines in the State were  

operating in violation of Approved Plans. In most cases, mining operations  

were carried out  unscientifically  with the sole  aim of maximizing profits  

which  resulted  in  indiscriminate  scattering  of  the  overburden,  wasteful  

manner of mining with complete disregard to mineral conservation aspect,  

rendering  reclamation of mined area impossible. This Court further found  

that mining leases were granted by the State in areas where plantations were  

undertaken  with  the  financial  assistance  provided  by  international  donor  

agencies. That, mining was permitted in a manner which was destroying the  

groundwater  table  as  also  causing  irreparable  damage  to  the  critical  

groundwater reserves. That,   there was no effective mechanism to ensure  

compliance  of  various  conditions  stipulated  while  giving  approvals  and,  

lastly, no deterrent action was taken against mines for serious violations and  

non-compliance of conditions were found.

9

III. Consequences of Continuous Violation of the Rules:

7. As stated above, Notification dated 7.5.1992 was passed with a view  

to strictly implement the measures to protect the ecology of the Aravallis  

range. It was followed more in its breach. The Aravallis, the most distinctive  

and ancient mountain chain of Peninsular India, mark the site of one of the  

oldest  geological  formations in the world.  Due to its  geological  location,  

desertification is stopped and it prevents expansion of the desert into Delhi.  

On account of extensive mining on a disproportionate scale without taking  

remedial measures has resulted irreversible changes in the environment at  

Aravalli. It is in the aforestated background that any mining activity came to  

be banned under Order dated 29/30.10.2002. Even as far back as 2002, the  

environmental problems in the Aravalli range in Gurgaon district came to be  

identified.  Remedial  measures  including  pollution  control  guidelines  and  

action  plan  for  various  stakeholders  came  to  be  suggested  by  CMPDI.  

Though guidelines  for  mining operations  came to be issued by the  State  

Government,  the  compliance  was  not  there.  Moreover,  there  was  no  

mechanism to upgrade the mining technologies to minimize the impact due  

to  mining  in  the  eco-sensitive  zones.  CMPDI  also  noticed  that  in  the  

Aravalli Hills a large number of activities, operations of stone crushers and  

deforestation had caused environmental degradation even in 2002 which is  

10

clear from para 63 of the above judgment in M.C. Mehta case (supra) and  

the tragedy is that despite all warnings, the mines continued their operations  

without Environment Management Plan. That, right from 18.3.2004, when  

this Court pronounced the judgment in M.C. Mehta case (supra), till date,  

number  of  Reports  came  to  be  submitted  as  the  Court  tried  to  balance  

mining activity on one hand with protection of environment on the other  

hand. In fact, in para 57 of the said judgment, this Court stated that so long  

as  it  is  possible  to  undertake  mining  operations  on  the  sustainable  

development principle, the Court should not impose complete ban on mining  

as it generates revenue for the State. However, vide para 89, a warning was  

given that if despite imposition of stringent conditions, the degradation of  

environment continuous and reaches a stage of no-return,  then this Court  

may have to consider at  a  later  date the closure  of mining activity.  This  

prediction has come true. The consequence is that the State now has decided  

to close the mining activity. Para 89 is also important from another angle.  

The judgment in M.C. Mehta case (supra) has left it to this Court to consider  

at a later date the closure of mining activity. Even in para 96(6), this Court  

observed  that  mining  activity  can  be  permitted  only  on  the  basis  of  

sustainable development and on compliance with stringent conditions as the  

Aravalli  Hill  Range  has  to  be  protected  at  any  cost  and  in  case  despite  

11

stringent  conditions,  mining results  in an irreversible  consequence on the  

ecology in the said area then  at a later date the total stoppage of mining  

activity may have to be considered. In other words, in the judgment of this  

Court in M.C. Mehta case (supra) decided on 18.3.2004, a window was left  

open  for  this  Court  to  impose  complete  ban  on  mining  operations  if  

emergent situation arises. The decision to ban/suspend mining in the above  

area has been taken by State of Haryana (see Minutes of the Meeting dated  

7.1.2009  annexed  as  Exhibit  R/4  to  the  Second  Report  dated  15.1.2009  

of CEC). In the said meeting held on 7.1.2009, a consensus has been reached  

between CEC and the State of Haryana to declare the entire Aravalli Hill  

Range falling in the Districts of Faridabad and Gurgaon including Mewat as  

a “Prohibited Zone” so far as mining of major mineral is concerned. The  

decision of State of Haryana is also supported by MoEF, as submitted by  

Shri Parag Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General.

IV. Breach of Relevant Rules and Consequences thereof:

(a) Mining Projects:

8. Nature  has  endowed  India  with  a  wide  variety  of  temperate  and  

tropical forests. The Earth has not only provided ridges, fauna, flora to India  

but  immense  mineral  treasures  with  great  potential  for  economic  

exploitation. At the same time, our economy is facing problems on account  

12

of  rising  population,  indiscriminate  industrialization,  unsustainable  

exploitation of natural resources etc. Mining sector is regulated by a large  

number  of  environment  and  forest  statutes.  The  Water   (Prevention  and  

Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)  

Act,  1981  and  Environment  (Protection)  Act,  1986  were  enacted  to  

implement  the  decisions  taken  in  United  Nations  Conference  on  Human  

Environment in 1972 at Stockholm. These environment and forests statutes  

interact with mining regulations under Mines and Minerals (Development  

and  Regulation)  Act,  1957;  Mineral  Concession  Rules,  1960;  Mineral  

Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. On account of depletion of the  

forest  cover,  we  have  the  Forest  (Conservation)  Act,  1980,  which  was  

enacted  to  regulate  the  diversion  of  forest  area  for  non-forest  purposes.  

Similarly, under the EP Act, 1986 we have several notifications, including  

Environment  Impact  Assessment  Notification  1994.  At  the  same  time,  

mining comes under the purview of large number of mining statutes which  

are required to be implemented inter alia by State Forest Departments, State  

Pollution Control  Boards,  Forest  Advisory Committee(s),  MoEF etc.  The  

grant  of  mining leases (major and minor minerals  both,  including quarry  

leases, quarry permits, short term permits etc.) inside forest areas coming  

under the purview of Section 2(ii)  of Forest  (Conservation) Act,  1980. It  

13

applies  to  mining leases.  It  is  important  to  note  that  in  order  to  operate  

mining inside the forest area,  the lessee is required to possess clearances  

under Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (“1957  

Act”);  under  Section  2(ii)  of  Forest  (Conservation)  Act,  1980;  and  to  

Environment Clearance under EIA Notification which applies to mining of  

major  minerals  and to the areas  exceeding 5 hectares.  In case of  mining  

projects,  a  Site  Clearance  is  also  required  which  is  issued  either  by  the  

Central Government or the State Government depending upon the area of  

land let  out on lease.  Further,  Section 2(ii)  of Forest  (Conservation) Act,  

1980 prohibits grant or renewal of mining lease without prior approval of  

Central Government.  

(b) Mining Plan:

9. Mining plan  is  prepared  with  the  object  of  providing a  systematic  

working  of  mine  after  considering  every  aspect  of  the  background  

information, plant, machinery, method of working, object of mining, mining  

operations and reclamation of mined out areas. It is a mandatory document  

comprising information about leasehold area showing nature and extent of  

mineral  body,  prospecting  data,  details  of  geology  including  mineral  

reserves, method of mining, manual mining, mechanised mining, nature and  

extent of water bodies, forest areas, density of the trees, protective areas,  

14

environment impact assessment of mining activity on forest, land surface,  

details of ecological restoration of area, land reclamation, use of pollution  

control devices and plans for excavation from year to year for 5 years and  

such matters and measures as may be directed by the Central Government or  

the State Government (see Handbook of Environment & Forest Legislations,  

Guidelines  and  Procedures  in  India  by  Ravindra  N.  Saxena  and  Sangita  

Saxena at p. 1529). The concept of mining plan applies to cases of mining of  

major minerals.

(c) Environmental Management Plan:

10. Rule 22(5) of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 provides for various  

components of a mining plan. Every mining plan has to indicate limits of  

reserves, density of trees, assessment of impact of mining activity on forests,  

land surface and scheme for restoration of the area by afforestation, land  

reclamation  and  such  other  measures  as  may  be  directed  by  the  Central  

Government from time to time.  The mining plan includes Environmental  

Management Plan which must indicate the area degraded due to quarrying,  

dumping etc., a statement on Environment Impact Assessment giving details  

of the impact of mining on environment over a period of next 5 years, details  

regarding  abandoned  quarries/pits,  measures  to  control  erosion  of  

watercourses,  treatment  and  disposal  of  water  from  the  mines  and  

15

reclamation of  mined out  areas  (see Handbook of  Environment  & Forest  

Legislations, Guidelines and Procedures in India by Ravindra N. Saxena and  

Sangita Saxena at pp. 1544-46).

(d) Breaches:

11. As stated above, as far back as 18.3.2004 this Court noticed that in  

large number of cases no requisite clearances for mining operations were  

obtained. No environmental management plan was prepared. In some cases,  

mining operations were carried out below groundwater table. Groundwater  

was  even extracted  without  obtaining clearances  [see  M.C.  Mehta’s  case  

(supra)] The paradox is that there is no dearth of enactments, the problem  

lies in non-compliance and as a result  mining on extensive scale without  

Approved Plans and without taking remedial measures has led to land and  

ecological  degradation.  At  this  stage,  one  point  needs  to  be  highlighted.  

Over the years, the focus was on individual mining leases. Over the years,  

this  Court  tried  to  balance  mining  operations  vis-a-vis  environmental  

protection. Even after noticing non-compliance of above Rules as far back as  

2004, this Court, after sounding a warning to the existing mines to comply  

with the Rules, did not suggest a complete ban on mining operations so long  

as  it  was  possible  to  undertake  such  operations  on  the  principles  of  

sustainable  development.  However,  the  position  did  not  improve.  The  

16

position worsened. In the circumstances, the Court has now decided not to  

focus  only  on  individual  sites  but  to  take  a  macro  view  of  the  matter,  

particularly while deciding the question of suspending mining operations.  

The Court is required to take a holistic view. It is important to note that most  

of the Applicants who are seeking to mine today in the virgin areas have  

mined out areas in the past without taking remedial measures. They have  

abandoned the sites after mining without rehabilitation of the degraded lands  

and the  consequence is  devastation.  As stated  above,  in  2004 this  Court  

detected  many  cases  where  operations  were  done  without  proper  

environment management plan, mining plan etc.  In this Order we are not  

examining faults of individual user agencies. Suffice it to state that when  

these mines operated without proper clearances in the past they have left  

pits/quarries without reclamation and without compliance of the provisions  

of the mining plan. Today, it is too late in the day to say that leases granted  

subsequently complies with various clearances because these lessees which  

operated mines earlier have left the pits/quarries open to the sky without  

taking remedial measures including reclamation. In this Order what we are  

emphasising is  extensive mining and not individual  un-authorised mining  

because even in the case of former no steps to re-habilitate was ever taken.  

The  result  is  that  mining  operations  have  been  carried  out  on  a  

17

disproportionate scale in the Aravalli Hill mainly in Gurgaon and Faridabad  

including Mewat in the State of Haryana. The satellite images indicate the  

devastation  caused  to  the  area  by  the  extensive  mining  operations.  

Extraordinary  situation  demands  extraordinary  remedies.  In  the  

circumstances,  we  are  of  the  view  that  mining  operations  should  be  

immediately suspended in the above Area.  

V. Net Effect  of  Orders passed by this Court earlier  on 6.5.2002  2  ,    29/30.10.2002  3  ;  16.12.2002  4  ,  13.4.2006  5   and  Judgment  dated    18.3.2004  6   in M.C. Mehta’s case  :

12. One of the points argued on behalf of the lessees before us was that on  

6.5.2002 this Court directed State of Haryana to stop all mining operations  

in  and  around  an  area  up  to  5  km.  from  Delhi-Haryana  border  on  the  

Haryana side of the ridge and in Aravalli hills. That, after considering the  

second Monitoring Report of CEC dated 28.10.2002 a complete ban was  

imposed on mining in the  Aravalli  hills  vide Order  dated 29/30.10.2002,  

which stood modified and clarified on 16.12.2002. According to the lessees  

after  the  Order  dated  16.12.2002  there  was  no  prohibition  on  mining.  

According to the lessees despite wide scale degradation being noticed by  

this Court in M.C. Mehta case (supra) this Court did not impose complete  

2 2004 (12) SCC 188 3 In I.A. No. 827 etc. in W.P.(C) No. 202/95 4 2003 (1) SCALE 4 5 2006 (11) SCC 582 at para 5 6 2004 (12) SCC 118

18

ban on mining operations but, on the contrary, this Court issued guidelines  

vide para 96 of the said judgment. It was argued that in the circumstances  

this Court cannot go behind Judgment and Order dated 18.3.2004 in M.C.  

Mehta case (supra).

13. We find no merit  in this argument.  To decide this point,  we quote  

hereinbelow  para  8  of  the  Order  dated  13.4.2006  reported  in  

2006 (11) SCC 582:

“We  have  examined  the  orders  dated  6.5.2002,  29/30.10.2002,  16.12.2002,  the  judgment  dated  18.3.2004 in M.C. Mehta and affidavits placed on record.  It seems clear that the order dated 6.5.2002 was confined  to the limit of 5 km and did not prohibit mining in the  entire Aravalli hills in the State of Haryana. The mining  in the entire Aravalli hills was prohibited and banned by  the order dated 29/30.10.2002. This order was, however,  modified and clarified on 16.12.2002.”

14. We also quote para 96 of the judgment in M.C. Mehta case (supra)  

which reads as follows:

“a) no  mining  can  be  carried  out  where  the  mine  owners  have reached the water table. (In fact this Court recorded  in para 84 the undertaking given by mine lessees not to  mine  in  the  area  where  water  table  had  been  reached  during mining).

(b) no mining can be carried on in areas which are subject  matter  of notifications under Section 4 and/or 5 of the  Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. However, even in  these  areas  mining  can  take  place  after  seeking  permission under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)  Act. (see para 89);

19

(c) No mining can be carried on in areas where plantations  have  been  undertaken  under  the  Aravalli  project  (EU  funded project); and

(d) Environmental  clearance  is  mandatory  under  the  Environment Notification dated 27.1.1994.”

15. It is true that, complete ban was imposed on mining Aravalli hills vide  

Order  dated  29/30.10.2002,  which  came  to  be  modified  by  Order  dated  

16.12.2002 and it is equally true that, vide judgment in M.C. Mehta case  

(supra), this Court observed that it was not suggesting a complete ban on  

mining operations so long as it is possible to undertake mining operations on  

the sustainable development principle (see para 57). At the same time, in  

paras 89 and 96(6) of the judgment dated 18.3.2004 this Court specifically  

suggested that if degradation of environment continues and reaches the stage  

of no return, this Court may consider closure of mining activities. In other  

words, a gateway was provided for this Court to impose the ban in future if  

degradation of environment becomes irreversible.

VI. Contentions and Answers thereto:

16. In  I.A.  No.  1967/06,  it  has  been  submitted  by  Shri  Anil  Diwan,  

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the lessee (M/s Sethi Brothers)  

that  the  order  dated 6.5.2002 was passed in I.A.  No. 1785/01 moved by  

20

Delhi Ridge Management Board complaining of falling water level in the  

sanctuary near Delhi-Haryana border. On account of the falling water levels,  

the  said  order  dated  6.5.2002  came  to  be  passed,  consequently,  mining  

activities within 5 km in the Districts of Faridabad and Gurgaon including  

Mewat came to a halt. Later on, the concerned lessees moved an application  

for modification of the above order on which application this Court directed  

EPCA  to  inspect  the  mines  within  5  km  and  to  give  its  report.  EPCA  

conducted  2  inspections  and  gave  its  report,  which  are  set  out  in  the  

judgment in M.C. Mehta case (supra) dated 18.3.2004. The CEC also gave  

three  reports  which  are  set  out  in  the  said  judgment.  According  to  the  

learned counsel, after referring to the Reports, vide para 96, this Court gave  

directions,  which  made  environmental  clearance  mandatory  under  

environment  Notification  dated  27.1.1994.  This  Court  also  appointed  

Monitoring Committee to inspect individual mines. According to the learned  

counsel, in the above judgment in M.C. Mehta case (supra), this Court had  

noticed  violation  by  leaseholders  and  after  extensive  analysis  of  the  

provisions of 1957 Act observed that the Court needs to balance the twin  

objectives  of  mining  based  on  the  principle  of  sustainable  development.  

According to the learned counsel, even under various reports submitted by  

CEC, the Committee did not recommend a ban on mining within 5 km. but it  

21

recommended  a  ban  up  to  2  km  from  Badkhal  Lake.  However,  EPCA  

recommended a ban of 5 km from Delhi-Haryana border, which according to  

the learned counsel, came to be rejected by this Court by issuing directions,  

as mentioned hereinabove. It is further pointed out that apropo the directions  

contained  in  the  judgment  in  M.C.  Mehta  case  (supra)  the  Monitoring  

Committee inspected the mines. There was difference of opinion between  

the  members.  The  official  members  of  that  Committee,  however,  

recommended resumption of mining activities according to the guidelines  

laid down in the above judgment in M.C. Mehta case (supra). In short, it was  

submitted  on  behalf  of  the  lessees  that  at  no  point  of  time  this  Court  

suggested or recommended or imposed ban of mining operations even after  

noticing non-compliance of the Rules. Therefore, according to the learned  

counsel, in the present case, banning should be resorted to only if there are  

no other options left. Further, according to the learned counsel, a ban can be  

placed only if material is brought on record to indicate so called devastation  

to the ecology as pleaded by the learned amicus curiae. According to the  

learned counsel, in the present case, there is no such material justifying a  

complete ban on mining operations. It is also urged by the learned counsel  

that in pursuance of the directions contained in para 96 of the judgment,  

MoEF considered applications submitted by Sethi Brothers for EIA and after  

22

extensive deliberations,  MoEF granted environmental clearance to its two  

projects on the ground that the leases had not reached the water table, that  

the leases were not subject matter of Notifications under Section 4 and 5 of  

the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 and that no mining has been carried  

out in areas where plantation has been undertaken.

17. We do not find merit in these arguments. As stated hereinabove, after  

taking a macro view based on the satellite images,  we have come to the  

conclusion that this matter needs to be looked at holistically. This exercise  

which we have undertaken is not project-specific. Moreover, Sethi Brothers  

might have obtained clearances for two projects as of date but in the past  

they have  carried out mining operations,  which according to the learned  

amicus  curiae,  has  been  done  without  complying  with  the  aspect  of  

Rehabilitation. In this connection, it is important to note that in para 18 of  

the judgment in M.C. Mehta case (supra), this Court detected Sethi Brothers  

operating in a different sites in the Area without requisite clearances and  

without  environmental  management  plan.  Number  of  sites  have  been  

excavated in the past without clearances, which is indicated in para 18 of the  

said judgment. It is on account of absence of remedial measures qua those  

sites  that  today  environment  and  ecology  which  are  national  assets  and  

which  are  governed  by  inter-generational  equities  stand  devastated  and  

23

which leaves no option to the Court but to ban the mining operations till  

remedial  measures are taken and duly certified by the various competent  

authorities which are in-charge of granting clearances. As stated above, even  

in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra) it has been categorically observed that if  

despite stringent conditions, the degradation of environment continues and  

reaches a stage of no return then the Court may consider closure of mining  

activity  in the area.  Over the years,  this  Court has given latitude to user  

agencies  with the hope that  they would comply with stringent  conditions  

including taking of remedial measures but that hope stands belied. Hence,  

we  find  no  merit  in  the  above  contentions  advanced  on  behalf  of  Sethi  

Brothers. We make it clear that by this Order the ban will not be confined  

only to 5 km. but it would cover the entire Aravalli Hill range within the  

State of Haryana in which mining operations are being carried out. (i.e. area  

admeasuring approximately 448 sq. kms. falling in the Districts of Faridabad  

and Gurgaon including Mewat.)

18. On the  legal  parameters,  Shri  Diwan and  Shri  Venugopal,  learned  

senior counsel and Shri S.K. Dubey, learned counsel, submitted that where  

law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be  

done  in  that  manner  and  other  methods  are  strictly  forbidden.  In  this  

connection, it was urged that when Section 4A postulates formation of an  

24

opinion  by  the  Central  Government,  after  consultation  of  the  State  

Government,  in  the  matter  of  cancellation  of  mining  leases  in  cases  of  

environmental  degradation,  the power needs to be exercised by the State  

Government  upon  receipt  of  request  from  the  Central  Government.  

According to the learned counsel,  therefore,  this  Court  cannot  cancel  the  

mining leases if there is alleged environmental degradation as submitted by  

the  learned  amicus  curiae.  It  was  further  submitted  that  measures  under  

Section 3(2)(v) of EP Act, 1986 to restrict areas in which industries shall or  

shall not be carried out can only be undertaken by the Central Government  

where it deems expedient to protect and improve the quality of environment.  

In fact, according to the learned counsel, when Aravalli’s Notification was  

issued  on  7.5.1992  it  was  issued  under  Section  3(2)(v)  by  the  Central  

Government. At that time, the Central Government thought it fit not to place  

a complete ban but to permit the industries in the mining sector to carry on  

its  business/operations  subject  to  restrictions  enumerated  in  the  said  

Notification. It  was lastly submitted that the recommendations of CEC to  

impose complete ban on mining, particularly in cases where environmental  

clearances are obtained would amount to an exercise of power outside the  

1957 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. That, this Court cannot exercise  

powers under Article 142 of the Constitution when specific provisions are  

25

made under various Forest and Environmental laws dealing with the manner  

and procedure for cancellation/termination of mining leases.

19. We find no merit in the above arguments. As stated above, in the past  

when  mining  leases  were  granted,  requisite  clearances  for  carrying  out  

mining  operations  were  not  obtained  which  have  resulted  in  land  and  

environmental  degradation.  Despite  such  breaches,  approvals  had  been  

granted for subsequent  slots because in the past  the Authorities  have not  

taken  into  account  the  macro  effect  of  such  wide  scale  land  and  

environmental  degradation  caused  by  absence  of  remedial  measures  

(including rehabilitation plan). Time has now come, therefore, to suspend  

mining  in  the  above  Area  till  statutory  provisions  for  restoration  and  

reclamation are duly complied with, particularly in cases where pits/quarries  

have  been  left  abandoned.  Environment  and  ecology  are  national  assets.  

They are subject to inter-generational equity. Time has now come to suspend  

all mining in the above Area on Sustainable Development Principle which is  

part of Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India. In fact,  

these  Articles  have  been  extensively  discussed  in  the  judgment  in  M.C.  

Mehta’s case (supra) which keeps the option of imposing a ban in future  

open. Mining within the Principle of Sustainable Development comes within

26

the  concept  of  “balancing”  whereas  mining  beyond  the  Principle  of  

Sustainable  Development  comes within  the  concept  of  “banning”.  It  is  a  

matter  of  degree.  Balancing  of  the  mining  activity  with  environment  

protection and banning such activity are two sides of the same principle of  

sustainable development. They are parts of Precautionary Principle.

20. At this stage, we may also note that under Section 13(2)(qq) of 1957  

Act, Rules have been framed for rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation  

destroyed by reason of any prospecting or mining operations. Under Section  

18 of the 1957 Act, Rules have been framed for conservation and systematic  

development of minerals in India and for the protection of environment by  

preventing  or  controlling  pollution  caused  by  prospecting  or  mining  

operations  which also form part  of  Mineral  Concession Rules,  1960 and  

Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988. Under Rule 27(1)(s)(i)  

of Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 every lessee is required to take measures  

for planting of trees not less than twice the number destroyed by mining  

operations. Under Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, vide  

27

Rule 34, mandatory provisions for reclamation and rehabilitation of lands  

are  made  for  every  holder  of  prospecting  licence  or  mining  lease  to be  

undertaken and that work has to be completed by the lessee/licensee before  

abandoning  the  mine  or  prospect.  Similarly,  under  Rule  37  of  Mineral  

Conservation  and  Development  Rules,  1988  the  lessee/licensee  has  to  

calibrate the air pollution within permissible limits specified under EP Act,  

1986 as well as Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Under  

the said Rules 1988, the most important Guideline is Guideline No. 25.26.3,  

25.26.4,  25.26.5  and  25.26.6.  This  Guideline  deals  with  reclamation,  

planning  and  implementation,  restoration  strategy,  principles  of  

rehabilitation, rehabilitation of mined out sites and methods of reclamations.  

(see  Handbook  of  Environment  &  Forest  Legislations,  Guidelines  and  

Procedures  in  India  by  Ravindra  N.  Saxena  and  Sangita  Saxena  at  

pp. 1555-1562). It may be noted that there are two steps to be taken in the  

method  of  reclamation,  namely,  technical  reclamation  and  biological  

reclamation. The most important aspect of the above guideline is making of  

a Rehabilitation Plan.  

28

Conclusion:

21. None  of  the  above  provisions  have  been  complied  with.  In  the  

circumstance, by the present order, we hereby suspend all mining operations  

in the Aravalli Hill Range falling in the State of Haryana within the area of  

approximately  448  sq.  kms.  in  the  Districts  of  Faridabad  and  Gurgaon  

including Mewat till Reclamation Plan duly certified by State of Haryana,  

MoEF  and  CEC  is  prepared  in  accordance  with  the  above  statutory  

provisions contained in various enactments enumerated above as well as in  

terms of the Rules framed thereunder and the Guidelines. The said Plan shall  

state  what  steps  are  needed  to  be  taken  to  rehabilitate  (including  

reclamation) followed by Status Reports on steps taken by the Authorities  

pursuant to the said Plan.  

22. The question still remains as to whether we should grant permission to  

the State of Haryana to excavate minor minerals from a localized area of 600  

hectares  out  of  448  sq.  kms.  (approx.)  for  purposes  of  excavating  

construction  material  which  is  needed  for  construction  of  houses,  sports  

complexes and other buildings. In this connection, we may state that on this  

part the hearing will take place after the summer vacation. Accordingly, I.A.  

No. 1967 in I.A. No. 1785, I.A. No.  2186 in I.A. No. 1785  in Writ Petition  

(C) No. 4677/85 and I.A. No. 1465 in Writ  Petition (C) No. 202/95 and  

29

other  I.As.,  which  have  opposed  imposition  of  ban  on  mining  of  major  

minerals  stand  disposed  of.  The  I.As.  which  deal  with  mining  of  minor  

minerals are adjourned beyond summer vacation.

…………………………………CJI                                                                   (K. G. Balakrishnan)

…………………………………..J.                                        (Dr. Arijit Pasayat)

 …………………………………..J.

                                 (S. H. Kapadia) New Delhi; May 8, 2009

30