http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 50  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil)  4677 of 1985

PETITIONER: M.C. Mehta

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/03/2004

BENCH: Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1785/01

IN

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.22 AND

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.4677 OF 1985

[With IA Nos.1806, 1815, 1817-1818, 1819, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825,  1794 and 1795 in IA No.1785 in WP (C) No.4677/85, WP (C)  NO.410/2002, IA No.1832, 1835-1836, 1838 and 1839-1840 in IA  No.1785 in IA No.22 in WP (C) No.4677/85, WP (C) No.661/2002,  WP (C) No.428/2002, WP (C) No.624/2002 and Contempt Petition  (C) No.568/2002 in WP (C) No.428/2002]

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

       The main question to be examined in these matters is whether the  mining activity in area upto 5 kilometers from the Delhi-Haryana border on  the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli hills causes  environment  degradation and what directions are required to be issued.   The background in which the question has come up for consideration may  first be noticed. The Haryana Pollution Control Board (HPCB) was directed by orders  of this Court dated 20th November, 1995 to inspect and ascertain the  impact of mining operation on the Badkal Lake and Surajkund -  ecologically sensitive area falling within the State of Haryana.  In the report  that was submitted, it was stated that explosives are being used for rock  blasting for the purpose of mining;  unscientific mining operation was  resulting in lying of overburden materials (topsoil and murum remain)  haphazardly; and deep mining for extracting silica sand lumps is causing  ecological disaster as these mines lie unreclaimed and abandoned.  It was,  inter alia, recommended that the Environmental Management Plan (EMP)  should be prepared by mine lease holders for their mines and actual  mining operation made operative after obtaining approval from the State  Departments of Environment or HPCB; the EMP should be implemented  following a time bound action plan; land reclamation and afforestation  programmes shall also be included in the EMP and must be implemented  strictly by the implementing authorities.  The report recommended  stoppage of mining activities within a radius of 5 kms. from Badkal Lake  and Surajkund (tourist place).  The Haryana Government, on the basis of  the recommendations made in the report, stopped mining operations within

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 50  

the radius of 5 kms of Badkal Lake and Surajkund.   The mine operators raised objections to the recommendations of  stoppage of mining operations.  According to them, pollution, if any, that  was generated by the mining activities cannot go beyond a distance of 1  km. and the stoppage was wholly unjustified. NEERI Report and earlier directions         By order dated April 12, 1996, the Court sought the expert opinion of  National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) on the  point whether the mining operations in the said area are to be stopped in  the interest of environmental protection, pollution control and tourism  development and, if so, whether the limit should be 5 kms. or less.  NEERI  in its inspection report dated 20th April, 1996, inter alia, recommended that: "6.1 Mining. (1) Detailed exploratory operations  need to be undertaken to facilitate the estimation  of reserves in the region, and for scientific  management of mining operations. (2)     The mine lease-owners need to undertake  the mining operations in series, i.e. mining  activities must be completed to full potential in a  block before moving to the next.  This will help in  reclamation of land in the block in which mining  operations have been completed. (3 to (9) ... (10)    The Environmental Management Plans  (EMP) being formulated by the mine-owners  should include land rejuvenation and afforestation  programmes, and other measures necessary to  protect the quality of the environment and human  health.  The mining operations should commence  only after the approval of EMPs by a designated  authority.  A time-bound action plan needs to be  initiated for the implementation of the measures  delineated in the Environmental Management  Plans. (11) & (12) ... (13)    The question of lifting the ban on mining  operations needs to be considered in conjunction  with the implementation of stringent pollution  control, land reclamation, green belt, and other  Environmental Management measures so as to  facilitate the availability of construction materials  and employment opportunities for the workers  along with the protection of environment and  public health. (14)    It is considered necessary to prepare a  Regional Environmental Management Plan for  urgent implementation to enable eco-friendly  regional development in the area."

       On consideration of the reports, this Court came to the conclusion  that the mining activities in the vicinity of tourist resorts are bound to cast  serious impact on the local ecology.  The mining brings extensive  alteration in the natural land profile of the area.  Mined pits and unattended  dumps of overburdened left behind during the mining operations are the  irreversible consequences of the mining operations and  rock blasting,  movement of heavy vehicles, movements and operations of mining  equipment and machinery cause considerable pollution in the shape of  noise and vibration.  The ambient air in the mining area gets highly  polluted by the dust generated by the blasting operations, vehicular  movement, loading/unloading/transportation and the exhaust gases from  equipment and machinery used in the mining operations.  It was directed  that in order to preserve environment and control pollution within the  vicinity of two tourist resorts, it is necessary to stop mining activity within 2  kms. radius of the tourist resorts of Badkal Lake and Surajkund.  The Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 50  

further directed the Director, HPCB to enforce all the recommendations of  NEERI contained in para 6.1 of its report so far as the mining operations in  the State of Haryana are concerned.  Further, it was directed that failing to  comply with the recommendations may result in the closure of the mining  operations and that the mining leases within the area from 2 kms. to 5  kms. radius shall not be renewed without obtaining prior no objection  certificate from the HPCB as also from the Central Pollution Control Board  (CPCB).  Unless both the Boards grant no objection certificate, the mining  leases in the said area shall not be renewed.  (M.C. Mehta v. Union of  India & Ors. [(1996) 8 SCC 462]).

Present Issues         The aspects to be examined include the compliance of the  conditions imposed by the Pollution Boards while granting no objection  certificate for mining and also compliance of various statutory provisions  and notifications as also obtaining of the requisite clearances and  permissions from the concerned authorities before starting the mining  operations.   In matters under consideration, the areas of mining fall within the  districts of Faridabad and Gurgaon in the Haryana State.   I.A. No.1785/01 has been filed by the Delhi Ridge Management  Board praying that the Government of Haryana be directed to stop all  mining activities and pumping of ground water in and from area upto 5 kms  from Delhi-Haryana border in the Haryana side of the Ridge, inter alia,  stating that in the larger interest of maintaining the ecological balance of  the environment and protecting the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary and the  ridge located in Delhi and adjoining Haryana, it is necessary to stop  mining.  In the application, it has been averred that the Asola Bhatti Wildlife  Sanctuary is located on the southern ridge which is one of the oldest  mountain ranges of the world and represents the biogeographical outer  layer of the Aravalli mountain range which is one of the most protected  areas in the country.  The sanctuary is significant as it is instrumental in  protecting the green lung of National Capital of Delhi and acts as a carbon  sink for the industrial and vehicular emissions of the country’s capital which  is witnessing rapid growth in its pollution level each year.  The ridge, it is  averred, is a potential shelter belt against advancing desertification and  has been notified a wildlife sanctuary and reserve forest by the  Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi.  Regarding the mining  activities, it is averred that for extraction of Badarpur (Silica sand), there is  large scale mining activity on the Haryana side just adjacent to the wildlife  sanctuary of the ridge which activities threaten the sanctuaries habitat and  also pumping of large quantity of ground water from mining pits.  It was  also stated that the ground water level was being depleted as a result of  the mining activity.  Further, the query dust that comes out of mining pits is  a serious health hazard for human population living nearby and also the  wild animals inhabiting the sanctuary pointing out that the mining and  extraction of ground water had been banned in National Capital Territory of  Delhi and the ridge being protected as per the order of this Court, it is  necessary, that the ridge on the Haryana side is also protected - that being  the extension of the range and, therefore, mining, withdrawal of ground  water and destruction of flora, etc. should also be restricted outside Delhi  or at least upto 5 kms. from Delhi-Haryana border towards Haryana.   On 6th May, 2002, this Court directed the Chief Secretary,  Government of Haryana to stop, within 48 hours, all mining activities and  pumping of ground water in and from an area upto 5kms. from Delhi- Haryana border in the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli  Hills.  The question to be considered is whether the order shall be made  absolute or vacated or modified.             Our examination of the issues is confined to the effect on ecology of  the mining activity carried on within an area of 5 Kms. of Delhi-Haryana  Border on Haryana side in areas falling within the district of Faridabad and  Gurgaon and in Aravalli Hills within Gurgaon District.  The question is  whether the mining activity deserves to be absolutely banned or permitted  on compliance of stringent conditions and by monitoring it to prevent the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 50  

environmental pollution. EPCA Visits In terms of the order passed by this Court on 22nd July, 2002,  Environmental Pollution Central Authority (EPCA) was directed to give a  report with regard to environment in the area preferably after a personal  visit to the area in question without any advance notice.  It may be noted  that EPCA was constituted by the Government of India under notification  dated 29th January, 1998 issued in exercise of power under Section 3(1) &  (3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short, ’the EP Act’) Mr.  Bhure Lal was appointed its Chairman.  The EPCA was constituted with a  view to protect and improve the quality of environment and preventing,  controlling and abetting environmental pollution.  EPCA has also the power  to deal with environment issues pertaining to National Capital Region  which may be referred to it by the Central Government.  The EPCA has  jurisdiction over the National Capital Region as defined in clause (f) of  Section 2 of the National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985.  The  Districts of Gurgaon and Faridabad are part of the National Capital Region,  under Section 2(f) read with the Schedule of the said Act.   The Chairman of the CPCB is a convenor member of EPCA.  EPCA  made a surprise visit to the area to see the mining sites.  The mining sites  visited are located in the villages of Anangpur, Pali, Mohabatabad and  Mangar, which fall within the notified area of 5 km radius from the Delhi  border in the Faridabad district.  EPCA also visited mining sites that are  located outside the notified zone in Kot area, EPCA also held consultation  with the officials of the Central Groundwater Board and obtained their  opinion on this matter. On August 7, 2002, members of the EPCA visited  the mining sites located within five km radius from Delhi border.  The  objectives of the visit, as per EPCA, were as follows : 1.      Assessment of the level of compliance with  the conditions laid down in the regulatory  procedures like the No Objection Certificate  (NOC) granted by authorities to the mine  owners; 2.      Evidence of land and habitat degradation in  and around the mining sites; 3.      Evidence of misuse and shortage of ground  water in the area; 4.      Assessment of the implication of such  activities for the local ecology and drinking  water sources in the area.

During the visit, prima facie, EPCA found evidence of clear violation  of some of the key conditions of order of this court dated May 10, 1996. EPCA Ist Report and Recommendations The EPCA gave its report dated 9th August, 2002.  It would be useful  to reproduce the said report in extenso as under: "Anangpur area and its vicinity : EPCA inspected  the mining sites owned by Mohan Ram and  Company as well as at least 5 other mining sites  in this area, which EPCA is not clear who owns. At the time of visit there was no mining taking  place.  So EPCA members assessed level of  compliance with some of the key conditions laid  down in the NOCs.  There was clear evidence of  violation of the following conditions.   i.      The excavated pits should be filled with fly  ash or municipal solid waste in the bottom  layers.  The top soil should be used as a top  layer while filling the pit.  Land reclamation  and tree plantation should be done in a  planned manner over the reclaimed mine  pits. ii.     The applicant shall not discharge any  effluent or groundwater outside their lease  premises and shall take appropriate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 50  

measures for rainwater harvesting and  reuse of water so as not to affect adversely  the ground water table of the area.  No  mining operation shall be carried out in the  water table area. iii.    The green belt proposed in the environment  management plan around the proposed  mining lease area and along the road side  shall be developed. The most serious violation noticed by the EPCA  was the continuation of mining even after reaching  the ground water level which has been disallowed  by the regulatory agencies.  Photographs taken by  EPCA, which show deep mining pits have turned  into large lakes of ground water.  In this mining  lease area EPCA members saw extensive and  deep water bodies.  The water was blue,  indicating that this was groundwater and not  surface water runoff collected in the pits. Even more serious violation noticed was  configuration of water pipes laid out to draw water  out of the pits to throw them over hills and let the  water flow out.  This is a grave misuse of precious  ground water in an area where ground water is the  only source of water for the local population - both  urban and rural. EPCA members talked to local villagers who  complained that water table in the area has gone  down over a period of time and that the village is  facing water shortage.  While earlier ground water  could be tracked at the depth of 30-35 ft. now  deep bore wells have been dug to get drinking  water, in addition, noise and dust pollution from  the mining sites are a problem. Goodwill mine in Pali village : EPCA found similar  violation of conditions and evidence of mining  sites reaching the level of ground water in deep  pits and pipes fitted to drain out water here as  well. During the long drive to various mining sites,  EPCA could not see any credible sign of green  belt along the roads.  Moreover, one important  condition of NOCs is that "a safe distance should  be maintained from the road to overburden dumps  and the mine pits in accordance with the  directions/notifications of the department of  environment, Haryana and bureau of mines."  But  EPCA noticed mining sites very close to the roads  and also very close to the ecologically sensitive  area of Asola sanctuary near the Goodwill mines. Stone crushing sites in Pali : EPCA has inspected  the stone crushing sites in the area.  All sites had  a lot of material and trucks being loaded.  It is  difficult to establish if these are the left over  material from the past or were products from  banned sites or from sites from outside the notified  area.  EPCA was informed that after the Hon’ble  Supreme Court directive of May 2002, the stone  crushers were not being operated, except  between the hours of 5 am to 9 am.  EPCA was,  therefore, unable to verify the working conditions  of these crushers.  But it did not find any evidence  of afforestation as stipulated by the NEERI  directive or any evidence of dust minimizing  equipment.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 50  

Mining around Mangar village : Again the same  situation was found around Anangpur.  The  villagers interviewed here were caught between  the devastation of the mines, desperate shortage  of drinking water and the only livelihood option  that these manual stone quarries provided. Legal mining in Kot area : As mining is banned  along the 5 km radius from the Delhi border,  EPCA also visited some mines that are outside  the notified area to ascertain the state of the  environment.  In this  area, surface mining is being  done and not deep mining.  Therefore, as yet, the  groundwater reserves are not being touched in  this region.  The entire area was like a giant dust  field.  We saw no evidence of any afforestation or  even dust minimising efforts being undertaken in  the areas that are being mined.  We did see one  tanker of water, which was sprinkling the roads,  unable to stop the dust from swirling.  EPCA could  not see any protection for the workers from dust.   As this area will clearly emerge as a major mining  in the future, it is important that the mining area is  properly demarcated and environment  management plan implemented to enable  scientific mining to minimize degradation of the  environment. Faridabad-Gurgaon road : EPCA saw mining  alongside the road.  Though the mines were  closed because of the Hon’ble court directive,  EPCA saw vast pits and mining activity in this  area.  This is the road for the proposed bypass  from Delhi. 3.      The present laws and regulations in the  area We have assessed the current applicable laws  and regulations in the area, which govern land use  and mining so as to understand what efforts have  been made by different agencies to ensure  compliance. ?       In may 1992, parts of the Aravalli range  were declared ecologically sensitive under  the Environment (Protection) Act.  Under  this notification, certain activities - including  all new mining operations, including  renewals of mining leases - are restricted  and permission has to be sought from the  Ministry of Environment and Forests.  This  notification is valid for reserved forests in  the districts of Gurgaon in Haryana and  Alwar in Rajasthan. ?       In August 1992, the Forest Department of  Haryana had issued a notification under the  Punjab Land Preservation Act 1900,  banning the clearing and breaking up the  land not under cultivation, quarrying of  stone... in the Badkal area without prior  permission of the forest department.  This  ban was for 30 years.  Earlier it had already  issued a similar notification for the Pali area  for 25 years. ?       In 1996, the Hon’ble Supreme Court banned  all mining activity within 2 kms of the Badkal  and Surajkund tourist resorts. ?       In the same order, it ordered that mining  leases within the area from 2 km to 5 km

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 50  

radius shall not be renewed without  obtaining no-objection certificates from the  Haryana Pollution Control Board as also the  Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).  It  stipulated that "unless both the boards grant  no objection certificate, the mining leases in  the said area shall not be renewed". ?       Mining in the 2-5 kms was allowed under  condition that there would be strict  adherence to the environment management  plan laid down by the NEERI.  It has to be  noted here that the CPCB had in its report  to the Hon’ble Court in 1996 stated that the  "deep mining for silica is causing an  ecological disaster".  CPCB has  recommended that mining activity "should  be stopped within a radius of 5 kms from  Badkal and Surajkund.  The subsequent  report of NEERI dated 20.4.1996,  recommended green belt at 1 km radius all  around the boundaries of the two lakes.  On  this basis, the Hon’ble Court directed that  radius be extended to 2 kms for a green belt  and to cushion the impacts of air and noise  pollution. ?       The Hon’ble Court in its order asked the  agencies to ensure enforcement of the  recommendations of NEERI.  It directed that  "failure to comply with the recommendations  may result in the closure of the mining  operations." 4.      Compliance and enforcement : absent and  missing To discuss the future strategy for this area, it  would be important to assess the track-record of  the different agencies in ensuring that the previous  orders and directives are enforced and complied  with. 1.      No mining within 2 kms of Badkal and  Surajkund : Probably enforced.  But difficult  to assess as the area is hilly. 2.      Mining within 2-5 kms should get permission  from Haryana Pollution Control Board and  CPCB.  The CPCB has issued 2 NOCs,  dated December 20, 2001 and May 6, 2002.   No further record has been found of NOCs  given for mining in this area.  EPCA has not  been able to find the NOCs granted by the  Haryana Pollution Control Board. Compliance with the environmental management  plans recommended by NEERI as directed by the  Hon’ble Supreme Court. S. No. Directive Enforced or not 1. 200 mts wide green belt  along Surajkund and  Badkal Shrubs and wild growth.   No real evidence of good  afforestation. 2. 100 mts wide green belt

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 50  

outside mining lease  boundary Definitely not done. EPCA  did not see afforestation,  except for some recent  plantation of dying and  dead trees in one or two  places. The sign boards  were more prominent  than the trees they were  supposed to show. 3. 100 mts open  peripheral area around  stone crusher zone with  green belt Not done 4. Green belt on either  side of the road  between Surajkund and  Badkal. We saw large scale  construction on this road  - from schools to  management colleges  and housing colonies. 5. Mining should  commence only after  the environmental  management plan  (EMP) is approved by a  designated authority There is no evidence of  an environmental  management plan being  adhered to in this region. Adherence to the conditions of the No-objection  Certificate granted by CPCB for mining S. No. Directive Enforced or not 1. Mining to be done with  approved mining plan No evidence 2. Excavated pit to be  filled by fly ash or  municipal solid waste in  the bottom layers.   Overburden should be  used in the middle  layer.  Top soil on top  layer and afforestation. EPCA saw no evidence  that this recommendation  had even been attempted  to be followed.  All  abandoned mines were  left open and degraded.   The entire region was  pockmarked with deep

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 50  

holes and overburdens. 3. No discharge of effluent  or groundwater outside  lease premises.  Must  take measures for rain  water harvesting and  reuse of water so as  not to affect the  groundwater table in  the areas.  No mining  operations shall be  carried out in the water  table area. Not done.  Gross  violation.  See section on  water for details. 4. Ambient air quality  standards to be  complied with. No evidence.  Mine was  closed. 5. Noise level at the  boundary shall conform  with noise standards No evidence.  Mine was  closed. 6. Green belt around  lease area and  roadside Not done. 7. Clearance of  groundwater board for  the usage of the  groundwater will be  obtained, for the  conservation of  groundwater and to  ascertain that there will  be no impacts on the  groundwater table of  the area. No evidence.   Groundwater board has  not given any clearance  that we could ascertain. From the above, it is clear that little or nothing has  been done to seriously comply with the directives  of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as to  enforce the regulations and conditions laid down  by the authorities for environmental management  of the mining areas. 5.      Impact on groundwater reserves It has been argued by the Government of Haryana  in its IA no.1785 of 2001 that the expert committee  constituted by it under the Chairmanship of the  principal conservator of forests has submitted that  there is a water divide between the two  boundaries of the two states which prevents the  flow of water from Delhi side to Haryana side.  It  has, therefore, argued that the mining on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 50  

Haryana side is not affecting the water balance in  the Delhi side of the ridge. It has further said that only in four pits the  groundwater was pumped regularly and in two pits  occasionally.  Therefore, it has argued that little or  no impact on groundwater reserves is possible. 5.1     Groundwater Board EPCA requested the Central Ground Water Board  (CGWB) for its opinion.  The Board has based its  recommendations on the data available with it as  well as a field survey.   The key issues are : 1.      On the issue of the ridge providing a water  divide between the two states, the CGWB  has maintained that while the surface water  divide follows the Delhi-Haryana border,  except in the catchment of Bhuria Nala, ‘the  surface water divide may not be the  groundwater divide in the strict sense due to  secondary porosity and also flat topped  nature of the hills.’  It also states that the  Aravalli hills are highly fractured, jointed and  weathered making the major recharge zone  for the surrounding areas. 2.      On the impact on the groundwater reserves  due to mining, the Board has found that its  observation wells have shown an increase  in groundwater levels in Anangpur, Mangar,  after the mining has been stopped in May.   Therefore, in spite of monsoon failure and  continued abstraction of water, the  observation wells have noted increased  water levels within just 2 months of the  mining being closed. The groundwater levels in a tube well  monitored in Mewla Maharajpur during mid  July and first week of August showed a rise of  0.18 metres, A higher rise - 0.71 to 0.78 metres  was observed in the two tube wells near the  Mangar mines and Pali mines in the two  months since the mines were closed.  This  clearly points to the impact of mining on  groundwater reserves. This fact was also confirmed in the interviews  done by EPCA at site. 3.      CGWB also notes that contrary to what has  been claimed, the mined water is not being  pumped into abandoned pits to recharge the  groundwater.  Instead the groundwater  pumped is discharged into the surrounding  nalas, leading to "wastage" of groundwater.   For instance, in the case of Anangpur  mines, the water was pumped into the  Bhuria Nala and in the case of Pali, the  groundwater was discharged into a nala to  the Badkal lake and from Manger mine  towards Dhauj lake causing "enormous  losses to groundwater resources of the  area".  The mined water is also full of silt,  which reduces recharge as well. 4.      Furthermore, CGWB notes that the large  surface lakes in the mines are leading to  huge losses of groundwater through  evaporation. 5.      The Central Ground Water Authority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 50  

(CGWA) has notified these areas - South  district of NCT Delhi, Faridabad,  Ballabhgarh Municipal Corporation area,  Gurgaon town as water stressed areas and  has put regulatory measures on ground  water development in these areas. Given all this, CGWB concludes that the  "dewartering of mines in the Aravalli hills has  affected groundwater regimes of the mine area as  well as buffer zone resulting in the depletion of  ground water resources." 5.2     Compliance with groundwater related  regulations The NOC given by the Central Pollution Control  Board, includes an explicit condition regarding  ground water :         That the mine owner will ensure that there is  no discharge of effluent of ground water  outside lease premises.  They must take  measures for rain water harvesting and  reuse of water so as not to affect the  groundwater table in the areas.  Most  importantly, it stipulates that no mining  operations shall be carried out in the water  table area. This condition has been grossly violated.  Even  the Haryana government’s affidavit in court  accepts that pumping of ground water is taking  place, though it attempts to soften the issue by  arguing that it is only being done in a few cases. Under this condition, mining is not allowed in the  water table area.  EPCA saw deep and extensive  pits of mines with vast water bodies.  EPCA also  saw evidence of pumps and pipes being used to  drain out the ground water so that mining could  continue.  Therefore, the miners are mining for  silica, but also in the process, mining and  destroying the ground water reserves of the areas. In times of such water stress and desperation, this  water mining is nothing less than a gross act of  wastage of a key resource.  This time the stress  has been further aggravated by the failure of  monsoon.  Notices have been issued in the  nearby housing colonies stating that fall in  groundwater table due to lack of rains is  responsible for water shortage in the area this  season.  This only indicates how important it is to  conserve ground water in the region for long term  sustainability of drinking water sources.  Ground  water is the only source of drinking water here."

       On the basis of study and visit as well as the report of the Central  Ground Water Board, EPCA made the following recommendations : "1.     The ban on the mining activities and  pumping of ground water in and from an  area upto 5 kms. from the Delhi-Haryana  border in the Haryana side of the ridge and  also in the Aravalli Hill must be maintained. 2.      Not only must further degradation be halted  but, all efforts must be made to ensure that  the local economy is rejuvenated, with the  use of plantations and local water  harvesting based opportunities.  It is indeed  sad to note the plight of people living in  these hills who are caught between losing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 50  

their water dependent livelihood and  between losing their only desperate  livelihood to break stones in the quarries.  It  is essential that the Government of Haryana  seriously implements programmes to  enhance the land based livelihood of people  ? agriculture, animal care and forestry.   Local people must not be thrown into  making false choices, which may secure  their present but will destroy their future.   Already, all the villages visited by EPCA  complained of dire and desperate shortages  of drinking water.  Women talked about long  queues before taps to collect water.   Clearly, water resources of the region are  critical inputs to development and cannot be  wasted and destroyed like this.  The state  government must come up with strategies to  involve local communities in the future  development of this region.         We have been given to understand that  under the mining lease, 10 per cent of the  royalty is to be given to local villagers.  We  have also understood that the turnover is of  the mining operations in this area is  substantial ? between Rs.50 lakhs to Rs. 1  crore a day were the gross estimates  provided to us.  However, we do not have  any estimate of the money that has been  given to villagers from this revenue.  But  there was little evidence in these poor and  destitute villages that any effort had been  made to share the proceeds with them. 3.      The Central Ground Water Board must be  consulted urgently about what should be  done with the huge standing water in the  area.  This is a valuable national resource  and the Board should be asked if the water  is best conserved by covering it to stop  evaporation or should it be used for  recharge and storage with further water  harvesting efforts. 4.      The Ministry of Environment and Forests  (MOEF) should be asked to extend the  notification under the Environment  (Protection) Act to the Faridabad part of the  Aravalli and ridge as well.  Currently, the  notification is only for Gurgaon district.  This  notification declaring it an ecologically  sensitive area will help to regulate the  activities in this region. 5.      It is not clear to us if adequate planning for  water is being done in the large scale  construction activities being undertaken in  this area.  This aspect is outside the  purview of this report but needs to be  examined carefully. 6.      It must also be noted that Gurgaon- Faridabad road is being proposed as the  major bypass for the city of Delhi.  The  Hon’ble Court will note its directives on the  air pollution case in this regard.  It has been  said to the court in that matter that the  Government of Haryana is intending to  widen the road and bids have even been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 50  

issued to this effect.  Therefore, it is all the  more important that the mining activity along  the road must not be allowed.  The 5 kms.  ban from the border of Delhi will take care of  this requirement. 7.      EPCA would also recommend that the  mining area outside the 5 kms. area must  be demarcated and regulated.  In this  context, EPCA would like to draw the  attention of the court to the violations and  gross disregard for regulations found in the  present mines.  It is not out of place to  mention that these mines are owned by very  powerful and highly placed individuals in the  establishment.  In a related case the High  Court of Punjab and Haryana has directed  on 20.4.2001 a CBI enquiry on the basis of  a public interest litigation filed by a  journalist.  In its order the Hon’ble Court  maintained that its examination has found  evidence that illegal mining operations are  going on in the area.  The Hon’ble Court  also noted the bias of the State Government  to shield the offenders and has said that  because there is prima facie evidence of the  involvement of a ‘person who holds the high  position of the cabinet minister in the state’,  the enquiry should be done by CBI.  This  enquiry is still ongoing.         During the examination of the case, EPCA  was told of other persons involved in the  mining activity who are highly influential and  part of the ruling political parties in the state  and Centre.         In this respect, EPCA would recommend   that tighter and constant monitoring of the  area must be done by a Central  Government agency.  To increase  accountability, EPCA would also  recommend that the environment  management plan (EMP) for the mining  area as well as the conditions of the NOC  should be made a public document.  All  other subsequent monitoring reports of this  region must be available publicly, preferably  on the website of the monitoring agency."

       With the report, a note given by the Chairmen, Central Ground  Water Board on impact of pumping of ground water from mines and  ground water regime in mining area and its buffer zone in Aravalli hills of  NCT Delhi, Faridabad and Gurgaon Districts of Haryana was also  annexed.  The said note reads as under : Based on available data with Central Ground  Water Board and a quick survey in and around  mining area in Aravalli hills, following observations  are made - "1.     The area under consideration forms part of  Aravalli range from where mining of silica- sand and other construction material was  being carried out.  The mining of silica sand  was mainly carried out below water table by  dewatering the mines whereas mining for  other construction material is carried out  above water table.  The major mining areas  are Anangpur, Pali, Manger and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 50  

Mohabbatabad. 2.      The surface water divide in the area  approximately follows Delhi-Haryana  boarder except the catchment of Bhuria  Nala flowing in Haryana State, which  extends in Asola area of Delhi State also.   The formations in the Aravalli hills are highly  fractured, jointed and weathered making it  the major recharge zone for the surrounding  areas.  The surface water divide may not be  ground water divide in strict sense due to  secondary porosity and also flat-topped  nature of the hills. 3.      The pumping of ground water during mining  of Silica sand affects ground water regime  of surrounding area.  During the field visit, it  was reported by local people that during the  dewatering of mines there was decline in  ground water levels and reduction in  discharge in surrounding wells whereas  after stoppage of pumping the rise in water  levels and increase in discharge has been  reported.  In few observation wells on down  stream side of mines rise in ground water  levels has been observed in Anangpur,  Manger and villages after stoppage of  abstraction of ground water from deep  mines.  The ground water levels in a tube  well monitored in Mewla Maharajpur during  mid July 2002 and first week of August 2002  were 24.39 and 24.57 m. below ground  level respectively, showing a rise of 0.18 m.  Ground water levels in tube well located at  temple near Manger mine in second week  of July 2002 and first week of August, 2002  were 51.70 and 49.99. m. below ground  level respectively showing a rise of 0.71 m.   Similarly, ground water level in a tube well  at Indernagar in Delhi area near Pali mine in  third week of June 2002 and first week of  August 2002 were 59.68 and 58.90 m.  below ground level respectively showing a  rise of 0.78 m.  The stoppage of dewatering  of mines has resulted in rise of ground  water levels in surrounding areas. 4.      It has been observed that drainage pattern  of the area has been modified due to  haphazard mining and dumping of waste  material which has bearing on natural path  of ground water flow in the area. 5.      It is claimed that abandoned pits act as  recharge pits and in some cases the  pumped ground water is put in these pits so  there may not be substantial modification in  the conditions of ground water regime.  All  the ground water pumped out from  Anangpur mine has not been put into  abandoned adjoining pits resulting in  wastage of ground water by discharge into  Bhuria Nala.  Observation have indicated  that Bhuria Nala which was ephemeral  stream became a perennial stream during  mining operations and now flow has  stopped after closure of mining activity.   Similarly, pumped out ground water from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 50  

Pali mine was being discharged in a  easterly  flowing  nala  to  Badkal  Lane and            from Manger mine in a south westerly  flowing nala towards Dhauj lake causing  enormous losses to ground water resources  of the area.  Further, the pumped out water  cannot be recharged effectively due to its  high silt content.  In silica sand mines the  water table has been intersected and in  presently exposed to the atmosphere  causing huge losses to ground water  through evaporation. 6.      Studies conducted by Central Ground Water  Board have revealed that water levels in  Faridabad new town which falls in buffer  zone of mine area have declined by 1.44  m/year.  The decline of ground water level  in the towns has been attributed to over  development of ground water for domestic  and industrial uses which is totally  dependent on ground water.  The pumping  out of ground water for mining of silica sand  in recharge zone might have aggravated the  declining trend of ground water levels which  otherwise would have contributed to the  buffer zone. 7.      Central Ground Water Authority has notified  South district of NCT Delhi and Faridabad  and Ballabhgarh Municipal   Corporation area and Gurgaon town and  adjoining industrial area in August 2000,  October 1998 and December 2000  respectively mainly on consideration of over  development of ground water resources  resulting in substantial decline in ground  water levels.  Regulatory measures on  ground water development have been  imposed in these areas. 8.      Therefore, it is observed that dewatering of  mines in Aravalli hills has affected ground  water regime of the mine area as well as  buffer zone resulting in depletion of ground  water resources."         When the aforesaid report came up for consideration, some of the  mine owners submitted that their mines had not been inspected by Bhure  Lal Committee.  Particulars of the mines that were stated to have not been  inspected were filed on 23rd September, 2002.  Bhure Lal Committee was  requested to carry out the inspection of the said areas/mines.  The  Committee was also permitted to associate such other organizations or  persons as it may deem fit and proper for the purpose of inspection. EPCA 2nd Report and Recommendations         In terms of the aforesaid order, 26 mines were inspected and report  dated 21st October, 2002 was submitted.  The observations made as a  request of inspection in regard to each mine are as follows : "The numbers indicated in parenthesis are serial  number of mines given in the list of mines  furnished by Kailash Vasudev, senior advocate to  the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was forwarded to  EPCA. 1.      (no.9) Name of Mine/Area : New Anangpur Silica Sand  Mines M/s S.P. Sethi, Location : Village New Anangpur, Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity : 186.52 hec.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 50  

Mineral Extracted : Silica Sand Mines Status of Mining : Above groundwater level Whether groundwater is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances : No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. This mine is located very close to the Delhi border  (in close proximity to the Asola sanctuary).  EPCA  members were shown two pits, which were not  being worked currently.  There was no  groundwater exploitation seen in these pits.  Only  brown stagnant rain water was seen.  But what  was very clear was that this mining lease was  adjoining the boundary of Delhi.  Only recent  plantation of sapling was noticed along the path. 2.      (13) Name of Mine/Area: Anangpur Silica Sand Mines  M/s. Mohan Ram and Co. Location : Village Anangpur, Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity : 175.00 Hec. Mineral Extracted: Silica Sand Mines. Status of Mining : Below groundwater level Whether ground water is extracted : Yes Status of environmental clearances : NOC granted  by state pollution control board for renewal of  lease in 1999.  No environmental management  plan. This mine has large pits where sand and silica  was being extracted.  This was a working mine  and had large amount of water in the two pits.   EPCA members also saw a pipe, which was  currently unused, meant for pumping out the water  from the pits.  The pits were at least 100-150 feet  deep and the groundwater had been clearly  exploited for some time.  Large amount of  overburden were also seen in the area. 3.      (12) Name of Mine/Area: Anangpur Silica sand mines,  M/s. S.P. Sethi, Anangpur. Location: Village Anangpur Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 489.34 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, China clay,  ordinary sand, stone road material (RM) and  masonry stone (MS) Status of Mining : Below groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : Yes. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. The mining pit here has tuned into a huge  groundwater lake, Groundwater is fully exposed.   Extensive oberburden could be seen near the pits.   It was very evident that no major efforts were  made to create plantation in the area.  Some new  and young saplings could be seen along side the  paths leading to the pits.  Clearly these were  planted very recently. 4.      (8) Name of Mine/Area: Anangpur Silica sand mines,  M/s. Rajdhani Minerals Corporation. Location: Village Anangpur Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 188.47 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, China clay,  ordinary sand, stone RM and MS

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 50  

Status: seen one closed pit.  Did not see any  water. Status of environmental clearances: NOC granted  by State Pollution Control Board. 5.      (7) Name of Mine/Area: Mewla maharajpur Silica  sand mines, M/s K.C. Ahuja & Co.  Location: Village Mewla Maharajpur Distt..  Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 162.905 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, China clay,  ordinary sand, stone road material (RM) and  masonry stone (MS) Status : surface mining from the rocks Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. One pit seen, Mostly stone being quarried.  Some  water seen.  No evidence of tree plantation seen  in the area.  But mine pits are ajoining road. 6.      (19) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Ramkrishna Purni Devi.. Location: Village Badkal Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 369.4 hec. (Of this 121 hec. Falls within 2 km of Badkal  Tourist Complex where mining has been banned)  Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, ordinary sand,  road metal, masonry stone and minor mineral Status: mining above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. EPCA members saw one pit located next to the  border of Delhi.  The mining area is hard rock and  the pit was being worked for stone.  The mining  site was at the boundary of Delhi and the Asola  sanctuary was seen at a close distance.  This  mine is also adjoining the road. 7.      (2) Name of Mine/Area: Mohan Ram & Co. Proprietor  Kartar Singh. Location: Village Pali Distt. Faridabad. Mineral extracted : Ordinary stone, road metal,  masonry stone  Under litigation in High Court of Delhi. 8.      (11) Name of Mine/Area: Pali Silica Sand Mines, M/s  Goodwill Mineral Corporation. Location: Village Pali, Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 50.5 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, China clay, sand  Status of Mining : Below water table. Whether ground water is extracted : Yes. Status of environmental clearances: NOC granted  by State Pollution Control Board in 1999 for  renewal of lease.  Asked to comply with conditions  laid down by CPCB as well.  No environmental  management plan as yet. A deep pit with extensive water body.  Pipes  pumps and generators could be seen at the site.   Water is extracted from the pit.  Very little  plantation could be seen at the site.  The pit is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 50  

contiguous to other mines in the area and the  extent of groundwater being exploited is massive  and the expanse is vast.  Some trees have been  planted along the roadside.  This mine is adjoining  the main Delhi bypass of Faridabad-Gurgaon,  which is being tendered for a four-lane highway. 9.      (17) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Sheeshpal Singh Location: Village Pali, Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 127.95 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica, China clay, sand,  quartzite Status: Below groundwater table. Whether ground water is extracted : Yes. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Large lake of ground water could be seen at the  site.  The lake apparently covers a few contiguous  mining pits.  No efforts to create plantation in the  area except a few young saplings which seemed  to have been planted very recently.  Huge  overburden could be seen near the pits.  This  mine is adjoining the main Delhi bypass of  Faridabad-Gurgaon, which is being tendered for a  four lane highway. 10.     (20) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Ram Chandar Location: Village Gothra, Mohatabad, Distt.  Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 296  hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, ordinary sand,  road metal and masonry stone. Status: Below groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : Yes. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Deep mining pits with large water bodies could be  seen.  The mine is also contiguous to the other  mines so the amount of water that is being  exploited is massive and uncontrolled.  Huge  amounts of overburden were also seen in the  area.  In this mine some efforts have been made  to create plantations and the trees, unlike those  seen in other areas, were more mature.  This mine  is adjoining the main bypass of Faridabad- Gurgaon, which is being tendered for a four-lane  highway. 11.     (22) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Maruti Minerals. Location: Plot No.1 Village Manger, Distt.  Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 63.225 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, China clay,  ordinary sand, road metal and masonry stone. Status: above groundwater. Whether ground water is extracted :No . Status of environmental clearances: clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Observed surface stone mining.  No water seen.   New lease and so the mines have not reached  ground water levels as yet.  But mine ear Delhi  bypass of Faridabad-Gurgaon road.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 50  

12A.    (1) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Seven Mines and  Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Location: Plot No.6, Village Manger, Distt.  Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 59.3875 hec. Mineral Extracted : Ordinary sand, road metal and  masonry stone. Status:  Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: Clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Observed surface stone mining.  No water seen.   New lease and so the mines have not reached  groundwater levels as yet.  But mine near Delhi  bypass of Faridabad-Gurgaon Road. 12B. Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Seven Mines & Minerals  Pvt. Ltd. Location: Plot No.8, Village Manger, Distt.  Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 63.75 hec. Mineral Extracted : Ordinary sand, road metal and  masonry stone. Status: Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: Clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Observed surface stone mining.  No water seen.   New lease and so the mines have not reached  groundwater levels as yet.  But mine near Delhi  bypass of Faridabad-Gurgaon road. 13.     (25) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Ashok Minerals industry Location: Plot No.7, Village Manger, Distt.  Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity:67.00  hec. Status: Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Observed surface stone mining.  No water seen.   New lease and so the mines have not reached  groundwater levels as yet.  But mine is on the  Delhi bypass of Faridabad-Gurgaon road. 14.     (23) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Jaikrishan Impex Pvt.  Ltd. Location: Plot No.2 & 3, Village Manger, Distt.  Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 44.785 hec and 56.4375 hec. Mineral Extracted : Stone mining Status: Below groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : Yes. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Was shown one pit with small water collection.   But at a distance seen another pit with large  amount of groundwater collected.  This mine is  being worked and clearly water must have been  pumped from the mine.  Deep pits seen.  But mine

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 50  

is near Delhi bypass of Faridabad-Gurgaon road. 15.     (10) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Faridabad Gurgaon  Minerals. Location: Plot No.5 Village Manger, Distt.  Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity:33.0375 hec. Mineral Extracted : Ordinary sand, road metal and  masonry stone Status: Below groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : Yes. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Exposed groundwater could be seen.  This mine  was also been worked. Deep pits seen in this  mine.

16.     (24) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Patram Mines and  Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Location: Plot No.11, Village Manger, Distt.  Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 126.75 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica sand and stone Status: Above groundwater table. Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Stone quarry.  No water seen.  Some efforts have  been made to create plantation. 17.     (18) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Sheeshpal Singh Location: Village Pali, Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 44.48 hec. Mineral Extracted : Solica/Ord. Sand & stone, road  metal and masonry stone Status: Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Recent lease.  Mining activity had recently started.   New pit seen and as yet only stone was being  quarried. 18.     (4) Name of Mine/Area: Pali Silica Sand Mines, M/s.  S.P. Sethi.  Location: Village Pali, Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 82.20 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica/Ord. Sand, china clay  stone (road metal and masonry) Status: Below groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : Yes. Status of environmental clearances: NOC given by  State Pollution Control Board in 1999 for renewal  of lease.  No environmental management plan. Pit with little water seen.  Being worked.  Large  amount of overburden was seen close to mine.  1  hec of plantation created near mine. 19.     (3) Name of Mine/Area: Pali Silica Sand Mines, M/s.  P.K. Sethi

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 50  

Location: Pali, Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 162 hec. Mineral Extracted : Sand china clay, stone (road  and masonry) Status: Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Pit with no water seen.  Being worked. Large  amount of overburden was seen close to mine. 20.     (5) Name of Mine/Area: Pali Silica Sand Mines, M/s.  Lucky Minerals  Location: Village Pali, Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 261.36 hec. Mineral Extracted : Sand, china clay stone (road  metal and masonry) Status: Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Pit with no water seen.  Being worked. Large  amount of overburden was seen close to mine.  Nominal plantation seen.  But area with lessee is  very large over - 261 ha - and no idea if other  mines in the area have reached water levels. 21.     (6) Name of Mine/Area: Mohabatabad Silica sand  mines, M/s. P.K. Sethi Location: Village Mohtabad, Distt. Faridabad. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 399.59 hec. Mineral Extracted : Sand, china clay, stone (road  metal and masonry) Status: Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Shown pit where stone is being quarried.  But area  with lessee is very large over - almost 400 hec. -  and no idea if other mines in the area have  reached water level as yet. 22.     (14) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Tejvir Singh and Co. Location: Village Bandhwari, Distt. Gurgaon. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 91.20 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica Sand, Ord. Sand, china  clay, quartz & stone mine. Status:  Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: Clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Stone quarry.  Very recent lease granted and  clearance has only been done in April 2002.   Large seemingly abandoned, pits seen on road.   Labourer colony near on road near mine and a  number of trucks seen on this road carrying  material.  No plantation seen. 23.     (15) Name of Mine/Area: Mr. Ashok Gupta Location: Village Balola, Distt. Gurgaon. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 50  

mining activity: 19.15 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica Sand and china clay. Status:  Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: Clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Stone quarry Recent lease and clearance of  January 2002.  No plantation seen.  The mine is  on the main Delhi bypass - Gurgaon-Faridabad  road, which is being developed as a four-lane  bypass. 24.     (16) Name of Mine/Area: Mr. Ashok Gupta Location: Plot No.3, Village Behrampur, Distt.  Gurgaon. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 94.05 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica sand quartzites. Status:  Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Stone quarry.  Recent lease.  No plantation seen.   But near village.  As this mine is near the five km  radius, other mines with crushers and blasting  seen at close distance. (11B - 22) Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Maruti Minerals Location: Village Haidpur, Distt. Gurgaon. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 18.125 hec. Mineral Extracted : Stone Status:  Above groundwater table Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Stone quarry.  No plantation seen.  Near  habitation of Gurgaon town. 25.     (21) Name of Mine/Area: Mr. Karan Singh Location: Village Nathpur, Distt. Gurgaon. Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under  mining activity: 5.996 hec. Mineral Extracted : Silica Sand . Status:  Above groundwater level (surface mining) Whether ground water is extracted : No. Status of environmental clearances: No Clearance  given.  No environmental management plan. Stone quarry.  No plantation seen.  Mine on main  Delhi-Gurgaon road at the border of Delhi.  Mine  lease recently awarded at the edge of the DLF  residential colony.  Allegations that illegal mining  is being done at the Delhi side of this mine.  Next  to the protected area of Delhi forest.

       In respect of the ground water regime the report states that : "The key issue to examine is the impact of mining  on the ground water regime in the region.  It is  evident from the inspection done by EPCA that  ground water reserves are being exploited and  destroyed, it must be stressed that it is not a  matter of individual mines reaching ground water  levels or not, the issue to examine is the water  regime of the entire area."  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 50  

The report further states that "during its inspection to the mines,  Kartar Singh Badana, Minister of Cooperatives in the State and also a  mine owner told EPCA members that the impact of ground water  abstraction is minimal.  He maintained that the miners were harvesting the  water and not allowing it to flow to the Yamuna, where it would be lost to  the State.  A perusal of the reports of the ground water regime shows that  this contention cannot be upheld." It is also stated in the report that "the geology and geomorphology of  the area comprises oldest exposed lithology with upland units.  The rock  type is mainly quartzite and these rise 150-200 metres above ground level  in the quartzite’s the ground water aquifers occur in the weathered zones  and interspaces within interconnected joints and fractures.  According to  the CGWB, the unconfined aquifer is about 50 metres thick.  But between  the 50-110 metre below ground level (bgi) a thick clay layer ranging in  thickness from 25-60 metres separates the top unconfined aquifer from  the confined aquifer. The mines inspected by EPCA were below 150 feet (45 metres) and  on checking it was found that most mines were further operating at 20-100  feet (6-30 metres) below water levels.  This means that the mines are  abstracting water from the confined aquifer.  As annual rainfall mostly  replenishes the unconfined or top aquifer levels, the mining activity is  destroying a non-renewable resource.  EPCA saw deep and extensive pits  of mines with vast waterbodies ? stretching at times to a kilometer and  more.  EPCA also saw evidence of pumps and pipes being used to drain  out the ground water so that mining could continue.  Therefore, the miners  are mining for silica, but also in the process mining and destroying the  ground water reserves of the areas. The NOC given by the Central Pollution Control Board includes an  explicit condition regarding ground water : "That the mine owner will ensure that there is no  discharge of effluent or ground water outside  lease premises.  They must take measures for  rain water harvesting and reuse of water so as not  to affect the ground water table in the areas.  Most  importantly, it stipulates that there should be no  mining operations shall be carried out in the water  table area."

The report of the Central Ground Water Board states very  categorically that the ground water table is already at a critical stage in  Faridabad.  It states, ‘The stage of ground water development of  Faridabad block is 89.02 percent in dark category and no further  abstraction of ground water should be carried out to avoid any adverse  environment impact on ground water regimes.  Thus no additional tube  wells are advisable to be constructed for community water supply scheme  even though they may not affect the storage in Badkhal lake.’  The report  further states that ‘The domestic water supply to Faridabad town has to be  catered and there are no surface water source which can be tapped.’ EPCA further observes that most of the mining is happening inside  the municipal area of Faridabad.  In fact, Department of Mines and  Geology states in the letter dated October 12, 2002, ‘it is submitted that  the mineral rights of the mines vests with the State Government....The  surface rights of villages Badkhal, Pali, Gothra, Mohabtabad, Anangpur,  Mewla Maharajpur are with municipal corporation, Faridabad, and  Manager revenue estate are with gram panchayat.’ Sensitivity of this region is further accentuated by its close proximity  to the reserved forests of Asola sanctuary located at the border of Delhi  and Haryana and other ecologically sensitive areas like Surajkund and  Badkhal lake. Even in Gurgaon, the CGWB report indicates that the ground water  scenario is grim.  According to CGWB, the ‘ground water development of  Guirgaon block is 124 per cent, indicating that the entire block in which  Gurgaon town is situated is over exploited.’  The ground water levels are  also falling dangerously according to the report of CGWB which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 50  

recommends strict regulatory measures for ground water use.         The EPCA, while reaffirming the recommendations that had been  made in its earlier report dated 9th August, 2002, made the following  recommendations : "The overall assessment of the environmental  impact of the mining activities in the area  especially its implication for ground water level in  the region reaffirms EPCA’s assessment  presented in its earlier report.  EPCA upholds its  earlier recommendations made vide the report  submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court on  August 9, 2002. EPCA is concerned that if mining is allowed to  continue in this area, it will have serious  implications for the groundwater reserve which is  the only source of drinking water in the area.   EPCA has also noticed uncontrolled construction  activities that will expand urban habitation  considerably in future.  Unless immediate  measures are taken to conserve and augment  water resources in the area acute survival crisis is  expected.  Interviews with local villagers in the  vicinity of mines confirm that water shortage is  already a serious problem in the region. The extent of degradation in and around mines is  the evidence of failure to enforce basic rules for  ecological safeguards.  Recent attempts at  planting trees are cosmetic.  Exposed ground  water lakes observed in mining sites only  reconfirms the worst fears.  If mining could not be  stopped in so many pits even after reaching  groundwater level there is no guarantee that even  some of those mines still at the surface level will  abide by the stipulated norms when they reach the  water table."   Submissions for Confirming or varying Order dated 6th May, 2002 Having regard to the ground realities as reflected in the aforesaid  reports, should the order passed on 6th May, 2002 be varied is the  question?  The continuance of the order has been strenuously objected to  by the mining lease holders and also by the Government of Haryana.   Various applications have been filed seeking vacation of the order and in  support thereof, submissions have been made mainly by Mr. Shanti  Bhushan, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Mr. Kapil Sibbal, Mr. K.B. Rohtagi and Mr.  Dhruv Mehta representing the lease holders and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,  learned Additional Solicitor General representing the Government of  Haryana.  We have also heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran and Mr.Altaf  Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor Generals for the Ministry of  Environment and Forest, Government of India, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan and  Mr. Kaushik (in support of IA No.1825/2002 filed by the villagers).  Mr.  Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus and Mr. M.C. Mehta, Advocate/petitioner-in- person and Mr. Kailash Vasudeva for Government of Delhi have made  submissions in support of closure of mining activity and for making the  order dated 6th May, 2002 absolute by prohibiting all mining activities and  pumping of ground water in and from an area upto 5 kms. from Delhi- Haryana Border in the Haryana side of the Ridge and also in the Aravalli  Hills.   Notifications Regarding Mining on Aravalli Hills         The notification dated 7th May, 1992 issued by the Ministry of  Environment and Forest, Government of India under Section 3(2)(v) of the  EP Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules made under the said Act has  considerable bearing on the aspect of mining in Aravalli Hills.  The  notification, inter alia, bans all new mining operations including renewals of  mining leases and sets out the procedure for taking prior permission  before undertaking such an activity.  The notification, in so far as material

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 50  

for the present purposes, reads : "S.O.319(E) - Whereas a Notification under  Section 3(1) and Section 3(2) (v) of the  Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986)  inviting objections against restricting certain  activities in specified area of Aravalli Range which  are causing Environmental Degradation in the  Region was published in the Gazette of India Part  II-Section 3 sub-section (ii) vide S.O. 25 (E) dated  9th January 1992;         And whereas all objections received have  been duly considered by the Central Government;         Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers  conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub- section (2), of Section 3 of the Environment  (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), read with rule  5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 the  Central Government hereby prohibits the carrying  on the following process and operations, except  with its prior permission, in the areas specified in  the Table appended to this Notification : (i)     ...... (ii)    (a)     All new mining operations including  renewals of mining leases         (b)     Existing mining leases in  sanctuaries/national Park and areas  covered under Project Tiger and/or         (c)     Mining is being done without  permission of the competent authority (iii)   Cutting of trees; (iv)    Construction of any clusters of dwelling  units, farmhouses, sheds, community  centers, information centers and any other  activity connected with such construction  (including roads a part of any infrastructure  relating thereto); (v)     ...... 2.      Any person who desires to undertake any of  the above mentioned processes or operations in  the said areas, shall submit an application to the  Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests,  New Delhi, in the attached application form  (annexure) specifying, inter alia, details of the area  and proposed process or operation.  He shall also  furnish an Environment Impact Statement and an  Environmental Management Plan along with the  application and such other information as may be  required by the Central Government for  considering the application. (3)     The Central Government in the Ministry of  Environment and Forests shall, having regard to  the guidelines issued by it from time to time for  giving effect to the provisions of the said Act, grant  permission within a period of three months from  the date of receipt of the application or where  further information has been asked for from the  applicant, within a period of three months from the  date of the receipt of such information, or refuse  permission within the said time on the basis of the  impact of the proposed process or operation on  the environment in the said area. 4.      For seeking permission under this  Notification, an application in the prescribed form  (see Annexure), duly filled in, may be submitted to  the Secretary, ministry of Environment and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 50  

Forests, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodi  Road, New Delhi. XXX                     XXXX                            XXXX 3.(b)(ii) Erodability classification of the proposed  land. 5.(a)   Water balance at site surface and ground  water availability and demand. XXX                     XXXX                            XXXX 12.(a)  Environmental Impact Assessment Report: (b)     Environmental Management Plan : prepared  as per Guidelines of MEF issued from time  to time. (c)     Detailed Feasibility Report. (d)     Proposal for diversion of forest land under  Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 including  benefit cost analysis. 13.     Recommendations of the State Pollution  Control Board and/or the State Department of  Environment and Forests."        

       The aforesaid notification, restricting mining activities in Aravalli  range is relevant for mining operation in Gurgaon district wherein part of  Aravalli hills range exist.           The powers vested in the Central Government in terms of the  aforesaid notification dated 7th May, 1992 were delegated to the State  Governments concerned, namely, Rajasthan and Haryana by issue of  notification dated November 29, 1999 by the Central Government, Ministry  of Environment and Forest.  The said notification reads thus : MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 29th November, 1999 S.O.1189(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred  by section 23 of the Environment (Protection) Act,  1986 (29 of 1986), (hereinafter referred to as the  said Act), read with sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of the  Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central  Government hereby delegates the powers  conferred on it to take measures for protecting and  improving the quality of the environment and  preventing, controlling and abating environmental  pollution, to be exercised also by the State  Governments as notified in the Notification of the  Government of India in the Ministry of  Environment and Forests S.O. NO.319(E) dated  7th May, 1992 subject to certain conditions which  are as follows : (i)     the State Governments concerned, namely,  Haryana and Rajasthan shall constitute an  Expert Committee for each state as per the  composition given in the Schedule-I  annexed to this Notification; (ii)    each State Government shall also constitute  a Monitoring Committee, under the  chairmanship of the District Collector  concerned (Gurgaon in Haryana and Alwar  in Rajasthan) as given in the Schedule-II  annexed to this Notification which shall inter  alia monitor the compliance of the  conditions stipulated while according  environmental clearance by such State  Governments and report to such State  Government about the violations, if any, and  the action taken thereon; (iii)   The District Collectors of Gurgaon in  Haryana and Alwar in Rajasthan shall be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 50  

authorised by the respective State  Governments to take necessary action  under section 5 of the said Act in respect of  cases where the project proponents fail to  implement the conditions. 2.      The State Government concerned shall  initiate steps to prepare a Master Plan for the  development of the area covered by the  Notification S.O. 319(E) dated 7th May, 1992  integrating environmental concerns and keeping in  view the future land use of the area.  This Master  Plan shall be prepared by the concerned state  agency, approved by the competent authority and  finally published within two years from the date of  issue of this Notification, in accordance with the  procedure laid down in the Town and Country  Planning Act or any other similar Act of the  respective State Government.  The State  Government concerned shall implement the  Master Plan forthwith after its final publication. 3.      Any person desirous of undertaking any of  the activities mentioned in the Notification  No.319(E) dated 7th May, 1992 shall submit an  application to the Secretary, Department of  Environment of the Government of  Haryana/Rajasthan, as the case may be.  The  applicant shall also furnish environment impact  statement and an environment management plan  and such other information as may be prescribed  by such State Governments.  The application after  due scrutiny shall be placed before the Expert  Committee for its recommendations.  Based on  the recommendations of the Expert Committee,  the Department of Environment in the State  Government concerned shall take a final decision  and convey the same to the applicant within three  months from the date of receipt of application or  when further information has been asked for from  the applicant within three months from the date of  receipt of such information. 4.      The Ministry of Environment and Forests  retains appellate power against rejection of any  proposal and the National Environmental  Appellate Authority constituted under the National  Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (22 of  1997) shall continue as an Appellate Authority  against approval."

       Schedule I and II of the notification sets out the composition of the  Expert Committee and of the Monitoring Committee.  Some controversy  and confusion in respect of constitution of committees insofar as it relates  to appointment of an expert from non-government organization, was  brought to our notice but the delegation in favour of State Governments  having been withdrawn now, it is not necessary to examine this aspect.  The Central Government, in terms of notification dated 28th February,  2003, has withdrawn the delegation in favour of State Governments.   Notification of 27th January, 1994 Regarding Environment Impact  Assessment (EIA)

       Another notification which is of considerable importance on aspect of  mining is dated 27th January, 1994, as amended on 4th May, 1994.  The  notification has been issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest,  Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1)  and clause (5) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the EP Act read with  clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the EP Rules stipulating that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 50  

expansion or modernization of any activity (if the pollution load is to exceed  the  existing one) or a new project listed in Schedule I of the notification  shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded  environmental clearance by the Central Government in accordance with  the procedure specified in the notification.   The issue in these matters is about the interpretation of the  notification, its applicability also to mining leases granted earlier to the  issue of the notification i.e. at the time of the renewal of such mining lease.   The notification dated 27th January, 1994, to the extent material for the  present purpose, reads as under : "S.O.60(E) Whereas a notification under clause  (a) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment  (Protection) Rules, 1986 inviting objections from  the public within sixty days from the date of  publication of the said notification, against the  intention of the Central Government to impose  restrictions and prohibitions on the expansion and  modernization of any activity or new projects being  undertaken in any part of India unless  environmental clearance has been accorded by  the Central Government or the State Government  in accordance with the procedure specified in that  notification was published as S.O. No.80(E) dated  28th January, 1993:         And whereas all objections received have  been duly considered;         Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers  conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub- section (2) of section 3 of the Environment  (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with  clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the  Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central  Government hereby directs that on and from the  date of publication of this notification in the Official  Gazette expansion or modernization of any activity  (if pollution load is to exceed the existing one) or a  new project listed in Schedule I of this notification  shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless  it has been accorded environmental clearance by  the Central Government in accordance with the  procedure hereinafter specified in this notification. 2.      Requirements and procedure for seeking  environmental clearance of projects: 1.(a)   Any person who desires to undertake any  new project or the expansion or  modernization of any existing industry or  project listed in Schedule I shall submit an  application to the Secretary, Ministry of  Environment and Forests, New Delhi.         The application shall be made in the  proforma specified in Schedule II of this  notification and shall be accompanied by a  project report which shall, inter alia, include  an Environmental Impact Assessment  Report/Environment Management Plan  prepared in accordance with the guidelines  issued by the Central Government in the  Ministry of Environment and Forests from  time to time. (b)     Cases rejected due to submission of  insufficient or inadequate data and plans  may be reviewed as and when submitted  with complete data and plans.  Submission  of incomplete data or plans for the second  time would itself be a sufficient reason for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 50  

the Impact Assessment Agency to reject the  case summarily. II.     In case of the following site specific  projects: (a)     mining; (b) to (d)      ... (e)     prospecting and exploration of major  minerals in areas above 500 ha.,         The project authorities will intimate the  location of the project site to the Central  Government in the Ministry of Environment  and Forests while initiating any investigation  and surveys.  The Central Government in  the Ministry of Environment and Forests will  convey a decision regarding suitability or  otherwise of the proposed site within a  maximum period of thirty days.  The said  site clearance shall be granted for a  sanctioned capacity and shall be valid for a  period of five years for commencing the  construction, operation or mining. III.(a) The reports submitted with the application  shall be evaluated and assessed by the  Impact Assessment Agency, and if deemed  necessary it may consult a Committee of  Experts, having a composition as specified  in Schedule-III of this Notification.  The  Impact Assessment Agency (IAA) would be  the Union Ministry of Environment and  Forests.  The Committee of Experts  mentioned above shall be constituted by the  IAA or such other body under the Central  Government authorised by the IAA in this  regard. (b)     The said Committee of Experts shall have  full right of entry and inspection of the site  or, as the case may be, factory premises at  any time prior to, during or after the  commencement of the operations relating to  the project. (c)     The Impact Assessment Agency shall  prepare a set of recommendations based on  technical assessment of documents and  data, furnished by the project authorities,  supplemented by data collected during visits  to sites or factories, if undertaken, and  interaction with affected population and  environmental groups, if necessary.   Summary of the reports, the  recommendation and the conditions, subject  to which environmental clearance is given,  shall be made available subject to the public  interest to the concerned parties or  environmental groups on request.   Comments of the public may be solicited, if  so decided by Impact Assessment Agency,  within thirty days of receipt of proposal, in  public hearings arranged for the purpose  after giving thirty days notice of such  hearings in at least two newspapers. Public shall be provided access, subject to  the public interest, to the summary of the  reports/Environmental Management Plans  at the Headquarters of the Impact  Assessment Agency.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 50  

The assessment shall be completed within a  period of ninety days from receipt of the  requisite documents and data from the  project authorities and completion of public  hearing where required, and decision  conveyed within thirty days thereafter. The clearance granted shall be valid for a  period of five years for commencement of  the construction or operation. No construction work preliminary or  otherwise, relating to the setting up of the  project may be undertaken till the  environmental and/or site clearance is  obtained. IV.     In order to enable the Impact Assessment  Agency to monitor effectively the  implementation of the recommendations  and conditions subject to which the  environmental clearance has been given the  project authorities concerned shall submit a  half-yearly report to the Impact Assessment  Agency.  Subject to the public interest, the  Impact Assessment Agency, shall make  compliance reports publicly available. V.      If no comments from the Impact  Assessment Agency are received within the  time limit, the project would be deemed to  have been approved as proposed by project  authorities. 3.      Nothing contained in this Notification shall  apply to : (a)     any item falling under entry nos.3, 18 and  20 of the Schedule I to be located or  proposed to be located in the areas covered  by the Notifications S.O. No.102(E) dated  1st February, 1989; S.O. 114(E) dated 20th  February, 1991, S.O. No.416(E) dated 20th  June, 1991 and S.O. No.319(E) dated 7th  May, 1992. (b)     any item falling under entry Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5,  7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25 and  27 of Schedule-I if the investment is less  than Rs.50 crores. (c)     any item reserved for Small Scale Industrial  sector with investments less than Rs.1  crore. 4.      Concealing factual data or submission of  false, misleading data/reports, decisions or  recommendations would lead to the project being  rejected.  Approval, if granted earlier on the basis  of false data would also be to be revoked.   Misleading and wrong information will cover the  following : --      False information; --      False data. --      Engineered reports. --      Concealing of factual data. --      False recommendations of decisions.

SCHEDULE-I (See paras 1 and 2)         LIST OF PROJECTS REQUIRING  ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FROM THE  CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. 1.      Nuclear Power and related projects such as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 50  

Heavy Water Plants, nuclear fuel complex,  rare earths. 2  to 19        ... 20.     Mining projects (major minerals) with leases  more than 5 hectares. 21 to 29        ... XXX                     XXXX                            XXXX SCHEDULE III (See sub-para III(a) of Para 2) COMPOSITION OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEES  FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 1.      The Committee will consist of experts in the  following disciplines : (i)     Eco-System Management (ii)    Air/Water Pollution Control (iii)   Water Resource Management (iv)    Flora/Fauna Conservation and Management (v)     Land Use Planning (vi)    Social Sciences/Rehabilitation (vii)   Project Appraisal (viii)  Ecology (ix)    Environmental Health (x)     Subject Area Specialists. (xi)    Representatives of NGOs/Persons  Concerned With Environmental Issues. 2.      The Chairman will be an outstanding and  experienced ecologist or environmentalist or  technical professional with wide managerial  experience. 3.      The representative of IAA will act as  Member-Secretary 4.      Chairman and members will serve in their  individual capacities except those specifically  nominated as representatives. 5.      The membership of a Committee shall not  exceed 15.

EXPLANATORY NOTE REGARDING THE  IMPACT ASSESSMENT NOTIFICATION DATED  27TH JANUARY, 1994 1 to 3. ... 4.                      Public Hearing         Public hearings could be called for in case  of projects involving large displacement or having  severe environmental ramifications.   5 to 7. ... 8.      Exemption for projects already initiated          For projects listed in Schedule-I to the  notification in respect of which the required land  has been acquired and all relevant clearances of  the State Government including NOC from the  respective State Pollution Control Boards have  been obtained before 27th January, 1994, a project  proponent will not be required to seek  environmental clearance from the IAA.  However,  those units who have not as yet commenced  production will inform the IAA."

       Reference may also be made to a notification issued by the Haryana  Government on November 28, 2001 with a view to enforce the  recommendations of NEERI contained in para 6.1 of its report so far as  mining operations in the State of Haryana are concerned.  In terms of the  notification, the Designated Authority and the Monitoring Committee were  directed to impose the conditions mentioned in the notification while  according environmental clearance.  This notification, it seems, was issued

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 50  

in the purported attempt to comply with the directions of this Court as  contained in the order dated 10th May, 1996 as reported in M.C. Mehta’s  case (supra). We may also refer to the circular dated May 14, 2002 issued by the  Ministry of Environment and Forest noticing that in the past several units  had come up in violation of the notification dated 27th January, 1994 and a  view had been taken earlier that such units are permitted to apply for  environment clearance by 31st March, 1999.  For period of five years, there  was no circular or notification granting any time to apply for EIA under  notification dated 27th January, 1994.  The period to apply for environment  clearance was extended upto 30th June, 2001 which deadline was  extended upto 31st March, 2003, stating that it was to give opportunity to  defaulting units to avail of the last and final opportunity to obtain ex post  facto environment clearance.  The notification dated 27th January, 1994 is  applicable also to construction activity.  It seems that this circular was  issued to give opportunity to those who had undertaken constructions after  issue of notification without compliance of stipulations therein.  We are,  however, not concerned in these matters with the construction which may  have come up in breach of the notification.  It does not appear that MOEF  intended to legalise the commencement or continuance of mining activity  without compliance of stipulations of the notification.  In any case, a  statutory notification cannot be notified by issue of circular.  Further, if  MOEF intended to apply this circular also to mining activity commenced  and continued in violation of this notification, it would also show total non- sensitivity of MOEF to the principles of sustainable development and the  object behind the issue of notification.  The circular has no applicability to  the mining activity. Central Empowered Committee (CEC) - Its Suggestions         The notification dated 27th January, 1994 is mandatory.  The  compliance of the notification before commencement of any mining  operation is essential and cannot be dispensed with.  The MOEF has not  so far conducted Environment Impact Assessment in respect of any of the  mining lease under the notification dated 27th January, 1994.   Before the order dated 6th May, 2002 was passed, the lease holders  had not made any application before the Ministry for grant of EIA.  The  applications were filed during the pendency of these matters under the  order of this Court.  The EIA applications of the lease holders are lying with  CEC.  CEC was constituted in terms of notification dated 17th September,  2002, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and  Forest in exercise of power conferred by Section 3(3) of the EP Act for the  purposes of monitoring and ensuring compliance of the order of this Court  covering the subject matter of forest and wildlife and related issues arising  out of the said order and one of the functions of the Committee in terms of  the notification is to monitor the implementation of the orders of this Court  and place reports of non-compliance before the Court including in respect  of encroachment and removals, working plans, compensatory  afforestation, plantations and other conservation issues. In the order dated 31st October, 2002, this Court has observed that  no mining activity can be carried out without remedial measures taking  place and for this purpose, it is necessary that environment impact  assessment is done and the applications dealt with before any mining  activity can be permitted.  It was also observed that the application of lease  holders for environmental clearance can be disposed of them of within a  period to be specified by this Court.  In terms of order dated 25th  November, 2002, the Central Empowered Committee was asked to file its  suggestions in regard to the time for considering the applications for grant  of EIA.  The CEC had received large number of voluminous Environment  Impact Assessment plans only in the last few days which are being  examined further stating that the process of examination and formulation of  suggestions is likely to take some more time.  On 24th  January, 2003, the  CEC was granted time to file its report upto 8th February, 2003.  CEC has  filed three reports, the last having been filed on 7th February, 2003.          In an interim report dated 22nd June, 2003 CEC stated that the  complete information had not been supplied to it by the State of Haryana.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 50  

The report states that as per the information provided by the Haryana  State, in Faridabad district there are 21 sanctioned major mineral mines  with the varying size from 44.48 hectare to 516.518 hectare.  In Gurgaon  districts  54 mining leases have been sanctioned varying in size from 5.96  hectare to 802.322 hectare.  All the mines of major minerals were  operating in Faridabad district without obtaining statutory environmental  clearance under the EP Act.  It also noticed that in respect of the Aravalli  Hills range being an acknowledged as eco friendly area under the Aravalli  notification, clearances were being granted on the basis of examination of  an expert group without any public hearing or participation of NGOs or the  affected people.  As already noticed, the delegation in favour of the State  has been now withdrawn.  The report further observes that most of the  mines are operating in violation of approved plans.  Instead of doing  section wise mining (bench mining) the mining operations are carried on  unscientifically with the sole aim to make maximum profits which has  resulted in number of fatal accidents involving labourers, hazards to the  adjoining  population, indiscriminate scattering of the over burden, wasteful  manner of mining with complete disregard to mineral conservation aspect,  rendering reclamation of mined area impossible.  Further it points out that  several mining leases have been granted in areas where plantations were  undertaken with the financial assistance provided by international donor  agencies.  Mining activities are permitted in a manner which is destroying  the ground water table and also the deep aquifers thereby causing  irreparable damage to the critical ground water reserves.  There is no  effective mechanism to ensure compliance of various conditions stipulated  while granting statutory approvals.  No deterrent action was taken against  mines even in those cases where during monitoring serious violations and  non compliance of conditions were found.  The CEC has made the  following suggestions : "I)     For major mineral mines above 5 hectare in  Faridabad district, mining activity may be  allowed to be undertaken only after the  required environmental clearances are  accorded by the Ministry of Environment  and Forest (MOEF);  ii)     the powers delegated to the State  Government by notification dated 27.1.1997  to grant environmental clearances in  respect of areas of Gurgaon district falling  within Aravalli notification dated 7.5.1992  requires to be reconsidered as the  presumptions on the basis of which powers  were delegated to the State Government  have been found to be incorrect; iii)    mining activity may be allowed in respect of  areas notified under Section 4 and 5 of the  PLP Act, which for the purpose of FC Act  are ‘forest’ even as per the State  Government records, only after obtaining  prior approval under the said Act from the  MOEF; iv)     all mining leases granted in respect of areas  where plantations have been raised under  the financial assistance received from any  international donor agencies may be  cancelled forthwith.  The concerned  authorities may be prohibited from allowing  any mining operations, allowing renewals or  grants of fresh leases in such areas; v)      mining activity may be allowed only as per  the approved Mining Plans.  Mines which  are found to be operating at variance with  the approved Mining Plans may be made  liable for cancellation of lease and payment  of exemplary compensation;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 50  

vi)     in view of rampant and indiscriminate  mining, which was being done, a high level  monitoring committee may be constituted  comprising representatives of the State  Government, MOEF, Indian Bureau of  Mines, Director General of Mine Safety and  reputed NGOs.  This Committee may be  empowered to monitor the implementation  of the conditions imposed while approving  Mining Plans, grants of environmental  clearances and other approvals/clearances.   Whenever any violation is detected, the  Committee should have the powers to direct  closure of the defaulting mines and also to  impose fines commensurate with the  seriousness of the violation; vii)    in addition to the above (vi), the Officials of  the State Government, Indian Bureau of  Mines, MOEF, Director General of Mine  Safety may independently monitor, at least  once in three months, to ensure compliance  of all statutory conditions; viii)   the State Government may identify and  notify officials, who would ensure  enforcement of the directions given by the  Monitoring Committee and or the above  mentioned officials; ix)     no mining activity may be allowed without  obtaining ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the  Central Groundwater Board to ensure that  the water table and the underground  aquifers are not adversely affected; x)      before allowing resumption of mining activity  in any approved mining lease, the status of  compliance of the conditions of the  approved Mining Plans, approved  Environmental Management Plans,  environmental clearances and other  statutory conditions/clearances may be  ascertained.  Suitable and adequate  compensation/penalty for non-compliance of  stipulations may be recovered, otherwise  such stipulations would remain only on  paper; xi)     in respect of forest area, including areas  notified under Section 4 and 5, net present  value of the land leased out for mining may  be recovered as per the Hon’ble Supreme  Court order dated 30.10.2002 in I.A. No.566  in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202/95 (forest  matter); xii)    a suitable system of securing adequate  bank guarantee, bank deposit or other  personal guarantee from the mine owner  may be worked out to ensure compliance of  all statutory and other conditions; xiii)   after considering the annual approved rate  of mining and mineral deposits in the area,  optimum size of the mines may be  determined in respect of approved mines to  ensure optimum utilization of the mineral  resources; xiv)    presently, the over burden is not stacked as  per approved Minining Plan, which makes it  practically impossible to carry out any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 50  

reclamation work.  The over burden  dumping may be allowed only at identified  sites within the mining lease area as per  approved Mining Plans; xv)     for the purpose of afforestation, the funds  may be recovered from the mine owners  and deposited with the forest department for  undertaking afforestation in a planned  manner; xvi)    the identification of the consultants for  preparation of the EIA’s should be done by  the regulating agency instead of by the mine  owners to ensure good and credible reports.   It is important that payment to the  consultants should also be routed through  the regulating agency and not directly by the  mine owners."

       The report of CEC dated 7th February, 2003 mentions that the State  Government, despite letters, had not made available to the Committee the  following information : i)      mine wise details of stipulated conditions,  which have been fulfilled and those which  have not been fulfilled ii)     details of five major mineral mines in  Faridabad and Gurgaon Districts which  have fulfilled all the conditions stated in the  approved mining plans, environmental and  other clearances; iii)    details of the mines where mining activity  has been undertaken without obtaining  requisite environmental clearance.

       In the absence of the information as aforesaid the CEC gave its  suggestions on the basis of information available to it which are as under: i)      the ban on mining activity may continue up  to 2 km from Surajkund and Badkal Lakes,  as per the Hon’ble Court’s order dated  10.5.1996; (ii)    each of the existing mines may be  physically inspected by Inspection Team(s)  comprising officials of the State  Government, Indian Bureau of Mines,  Director General of Mines Safety and the  Ministry of Environment and Forest to report  the specific conditions which have not been  fulfilled/violated especially in respect of : a.      sectionwise (benchwise) mining to be  done as per approved mining plan; b.      storage of top soil as per approved  mining plan; c.      dumping of over-burden in identified  area as per the approval mining plan; d.      plantations as per Environmental  Management Plan; e.      observance of mines safety Rules and  Regulations; f.      damage to the plantations raised under  externally aided projects (foreign  funding); g.      damage if any to the water  table/underground acquifers; and h.      compliance of environmental clearance  stipulations; The Inspection Team(s) may submit the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 50  

reports to the State Government and the  Ministry of Environment & Forest (MOEF)  with copies to the Central Empowered  Committee (CEC) for their comments and  for carrying out verification, if found  necessary. (iii)   suitable penalties for non- compliance/violation of various conditions,  as found by the above Inspection Team(s)  or by the CEC may be imposed.  Norms for  quantifying the penalties for violation of  various conditions may be formulated by the  State Government with the concurrence of  the CEC.  No mine may be allowed to  resume mining activity without first paying  the penalty imposed on it. (iv)    mining activity may completely be prohibited  in area where plantations have been  undertaken with the foreign  assistance/funding (externally aided  projects).  Mining leases already  granted/approved in all such areas may be  cancelled; (v)     yearwise requirement of funds for  implementation of various conditions under  which mining has been approved may be  computed for each mine.  To ensure  compliance of these conditions, adequate  safeguards by way of bank guarantee,  mortgage of immovable assets, pledge of  movable assets, personnel guarantee of the  lessee or others (supported by adequate  assets) may be put in place; (vi)    MOEF may examine the Environment  Impact Assessment Report/Environment  Management Plan of individual major  mineral mines and proposals for approval  under the FC Act, if the mining lease is in  ’forest’ as per the Hon’ble Supreme Courts  order dated 12.12.1996 in Writ Petition (C)  No.206/95, and take decision(s) thereon,  including regarding measures for protecting  the water table and underground acquifers,  in a time bound manner; and (vii)   regular inspection of the mines may be  undertaken by the identified officials of the  State Government, Indian Bureau of Mines  and Director General of Mines Safety.   Mines which are found to have violated the  conditions may be made liable to pay stiff  penalties including closure of the mines."

Some mining leases were granted prior to notification dated 27th  January, 1994 and some after the issue of that notification.  Even in  respect of the leases granted prior to 27th January, 1994, the renewal of  most of the leases has come up after issue of notification.  Some of the  leases are for extraction of major mineral, some for extraction of minor  mineral and some for extraction of both major and minor mineral.  In  respect of none of the leases, before commencement of mining activity,  EIA was obtained from the MOEF.  In respect of mining in Aravalli Hills in  Gurgaon, the relevant notifications dated 7th May, 1992, 29th November,  1999 and 28th January, 2003 have been noticed earlier.  Under the  notification dated 7th May, 1992, no permission was granted by the MOEF  though some applications were pending before it when power was  delegated to the State Government.  Permissions were granted by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 37 of 50  

State Government after the powers were delegated to it.  The delegation in  favour of the State has since been withdrawn.   Legal Parameters The natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the  utilization results in irreversible damage to environments.  There has been  accelerated degradation of environment primarily on account of lack of  effective enforcement of environmental laws and non-compliance of the  statutory norms.  This Court has repeatedly said that the right to live is a  fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the  right to of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life.   (See Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar [AIR 1991 SC 420]. Further, by 42nd Constitutional Amendment, Article 48-A was  inserted in the Constitution in Part IV stipulating that the State shall  endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the  forest and wildlife of the country.  Article 51A, inter alia, provides that it  shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural  environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have  compassion for living creatures.  Article 47 which provides that it shall be  the duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living  and to improve public health is also relevant in this connection.  The most  vital necessities, namely, air, water and soil, having regard to right of life  under Article 21 cannot be permitted to be misused and polluted so as to  reduce the quality of life of others.  Having regard to the right of the  community at large it is permissible to encourage the participation of  Amicus Curiae, the appointment of experts and the appointments of  monitory committees.  The approach of the Court has to be liberal towards  ensuring social justice and protection of human rights.  In M.C. Mehta v.  Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 463], this Court held that life, public health  and ecology has priority over unemployment and loss of revenue.  The  definition of ’sustainable development’ which Brundtland gave more than 3  decades back still holds good.  The phrase covers the development that  meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the  future generation to meet their own needs.  In Narmada Bachao Andolan  v. Union of India & Ors. [(2000) 10 SCC 664], this Court observed that  sustainable development means the type or extent of development that  can take place and which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or  without mitigation.  In these matters, the required standard now is that the  risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in  public interest, according to a "reasonable person’s " test.  [See Chairman  Barton : The Status of the Precautionary Principle in Australia : (Vol. 22)  (1998) (Harv. Envtt. Law Review, p. 509 at p.549-A) as in AP Pollution  Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayuder (Retd) & Ors. [(1999) 2 SCC  718].         The mining operation is hazardous in nature.  It impairs ecology and  people’s right of natural resources.  The entire process of setting up and  functioning of mining operation require utmost good faith and honesty on  the part of the intending entrepreneur. For carrying on any mining activity  close to township which has tendency to degrade environment and are  likely to effect air, water and soil and impair the quality of life of inhabitants  of the area, there would be greater responsibility on the part of the  entrepreneur.  The fullest disclosures including the potential for increased  burdens on the environment consequent upon possible increase in the  quantum and degree of pollution, has to be made at the outset so that  public and all those concerned including authorities may decide whether  the permission can at all be granted for carrying on mining activity.  The  regulatory authorities have to act with utmost care in ensuring compliance  of safeguards, norms and standards to be observed by such  entrepreneurs.  When questioned, the regulatory authorities have to show  that the said authorities acted in the manner enjoined upon them.  Where  the regulatory authorities, either connive or act negligently by not taking  prompt action to prevent, avoid or control the damage to environment,  natural resources and peoples’ life, health and property, the principles of  accountability for restoration and compensation have to be applied.           The development and the protection of environments are not  enemies.  If without degrading the environment or minimising adverse

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 38 of 50  

effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry  on development activity applying the principles of sustainable  development, in that eventuality, the development has to go on because  one cannot lose sight of the need for development of industries, irrigation  resources and power projects etc. including the need to improve  employment opportunities and the generation of revenue.  A balance has  to be struck.  We may note that to stall fast the depletion of forest, series of  orders have been passed by this Court in T.N. Godavarman’s case   regulating the felling of trees in all the forests in the country.  Principle 15  of Rio Conference of 1992 relating to the applicability of precautionary  principle which stipulates that where there are threats of serious or  irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a  reason for proposing effective measures to prevent environmental  degradation is also required to be kept in view.  In such matters, many a  times, the option to be adopted is not very easy or in a straight jacket.  If  an activity is allowed to go ahead, there may be irreparable damage to the  environment and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to  economic interest.  In case of doubt, however, protection of environment  would have precedence over the economic interest.  Precautionary  principle requires anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm.  The  harm can be prevented even on a reasonable suspicion.  It is not always  necessary that there should be direct evidence of harm to the environment.         Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, we have to consider the  main question: should the mining activity in areas in question be banned  altogether or permitted and, if so, conditions to be provided therefor?  The  reports and suggestions of NEERI, EPCA and CEC have already been  extensively noted.  The effect of mining activity in area upto 5 km. from  Delhi-Haryana border on Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli  Hills is to be seen in light of these reports and another report dealt later.  One of the aspect stated in these reports is about carrying on of mining  activity in close proximity to the residential area and/or main roads carrying  traffic.   Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and Rules  thereunder

       The grant of mining lease is governed by the Mines and Minerals  (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short, ’the MMRD Act)  which  was enacted to provide for the development and regulation of mines and  minerals under the control of the Union.  Section 13 is the rule making  power of the Central Government.  The Central Government is empowered  to make rules to provide for the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and  other vegetation, such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reason of  any mining operation shall be made in the same area or in any other area  selected by the Central Government (whether by way of reimbursement of  the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the mining  lease.  Section 18, inter alia, casts a duty upon the Central Government to  take all such steps as may be necessary for the conservation and  systematic development of minerals in India and for the protection of  environment by preventing or controlling any pollution which may be  caused by mining operations and for such purposes, the Central  Government may, by notification in the official gazette, make such rules as  it thinks fit.   The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 have been framed by the  Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 13 of  the MMRD Act.  Chapter IV of these Rules relate to grant of mining leases  in respect of land in which the minerals vest in the Government.  Rule  22(4), inter alia, provides that on receipt of the communication from the  State Government of the precise areas to be granted for mining purpose,  the applicant shall submit a mining plan, within the period stipulated in the  Rules, to the Central Government for its approval.  The applicant, on  approval of the mining plan by the Central Government, shall submit the  same to the State Government to grant mining lease over that area.  Rule  4A, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub- rule(4), the State Government shall be competent to approve mining plan  of open cost mines (mines other than underground mines) in respect of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 39 of 50  

now metallic or industrial minerals, named therein, one of it being Silica  sand.  The mining plan, as provided in sub-rule (5) of Rule 22, shall, inter  alia, incorporate the mineral reserves of the area and the plan of area  showing, inter alia, water courses, limit of reserves and other forest areas  and density of trees, if any, assessment of impact of mining activity on  forest, land surface and environment including air and water pollution;  details of the scheme of restoration of the area by afforestation, land  reclamation, use of pollution control devices and such other measures as  may be directed by the Central Government or the State Government from  time to time.  A tentative scheme of mining and annual programme and  plan for excavation from year to year for five years is also required to be  incorporated in the mining plan.  Rule 22(5) was inserted in the Rules by  notification dated 27th September, 1994 to which certain amendments were  made in terms of notification dated 17th January, 2000 also inserting by  same notification Rule 22(4A).  Sub-rule(4) to Rule 22 ad been earlier  inserted by notification dated 27th September, 1994.         The grant of permission for mining and approving mining plan and  the scheme by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India by itself does  not mean that mining operation can commence.  It cannot be accepted that  by approving Mining Plan and Scheme by Ministry of Mines, Central  Government is deemed to have approved mining and it can commence  forthwith on such approval.  Section 13 of the MMRD Act and the Rules  made in exercise of powers under the said section, deal, inter alia, with the  aspect of grant of mining of lease and not commencement of mining  operations.  Rules made under Section 18, however, deal with  commencement of mining operations and steps required to be taken for  protection of environment by proventing or controlling any pollution which  may be caused by mining operation.  A mining lease holder is also  required to comply with other statutory provisions such as Environment  (protection) Act, 1986, Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981,  The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Forest  (Conservation) Act, 1980.  Mere approval of the mining plan by  Government of India, Ministry of Mines would not absolve the lease holder  from complying with the other provisions.          Rules 31 to 41 contained in Chapter V of the Mineral Conservation  and Development Rules, 1988 framed under Section 18 of the MMRD Act  deal with the measures required to be taken by the lessee for the  protection of environment from any adverse effect of mining or irreversible  consequences thereof.  These Rules, inter alia, provide that every holder  of a mining lease shall take all possible precautions for the protection of  environment and control of pollution while conducting mining operations in  the area; shall, wherever top soil exists and is to be excavated for mining  operations, remove it separately and utilize for restoration or rehabilitation  of the land which is no longer required for mining operations.  The holder is  also required to take steps so that the overburden, waste rock, rejects and  fines generated during prospecting and mining operations or tailings, slims  and fines produced during sizing salting and benefication or metallurgical  operations shall be stored in separate dumps which shall be properly  secured to prevent escape of material therefrom in harmful quantities  which may cause degradation of environment.  Wherever possible, the  waste rock, overburden etc. shall be back-filled into the mines excavation  with a view to restoring the land for its original use as far as possible and  wherever it is not feasible during mining operation, the waste dumps shall  be suitably tarraced and stabilized through vegetation or otherwise.  It is  also required that the phased restoration, reclamation and rehabilitation of  lands affected by mining operation shall be undertaken which work shall be  completed before the conclusion of mining operations and the  abandonment of mine.  Air pollution due to fines, dust and smoke or  gaseous emissions during mining operations and related activities shall be  controlled and kept within ’permissible limits’ specified under various  environmental laws of the country including the Air (Prevention and Control  of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 by the  holder of mining lease.  Further, noise arising out of such operations shall  be abated or controlled by the lessee at the source so as to keep it within  the permissible limit.  The mining operations shall be carried out in such a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 40 of 50  

manner so as to cause least damage to the flora of the area and nearby  areas.  Every holder of mining lease shall take immediate measures for  planting in the same area or any other area as selected by the authorized  officer and not less than twice the number of trees destroyed by reason of  any mining operation and look after them during the subsistence of the  licence/lease and restore, to the extent possible, other flora destroyed by  mining operations.     The aforesaid  measures are not required to remain only on paper  but strictly complied for the protection of environment and control of  pollution as a result and consequence of mining operations.   National Forest Policy         In respect of mining in the forest area, we may also refer to the  National Forest Policy, 1988 issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest,  Government of India which, inter alia, notices that over the years, forests in  the country have suffered serious depletion.  One of the reason of it is  inadequacy of protection measure and diversion of forest land to non- forest uses.  Without ensuring compensatory afforestation and essential  environmental safeguards; and the tendency to look upon forests as  revenue earning resource.  The basic objectives of the policy, inter alia,  are maintenance of environment stability through preservation and, where  necessary, restoration of the ecological balance that has been adversely  disturbed by serious depletion of the forests of the country and checking  the soil erosion and water conservation and increasing substantially the  forest/tree cover through massive afforestation and social forestry  programmes.  It provides that the National goal should be to have a  minimum of 1/3rd  of the total land area of the country under forest or tree  cover.  In the hills and in mountains regions, the aim should be to maintain  2/3rd of the area under such cover in order to prevent erosion and land  degradation and to ensure the stability of the fragile eco-system.  It also  provides that a massive need based and time bound programme of  afforestation and tree planting, with particular emphasis on fuel wood and  fodder development, on all degraded and denuded lands in the country,  whether forest or non-forest land, is a national imperative.   Mining in Forest Area The question of permitting mining in the area where large scale of  afforestation with foreign funding has taken place is required to be  examined keeping in view the National Forest Policy which also provides  that forest land or land with tree cover should not be treated merely as a  resource readily available to be utilized for various projects and  programmes but as a national asset which requires to be properly  sasfeguarded for providing sustained benefits to the entire community.   Diversion of forest land for any non-forest purpose should be subject to the  most careful examinations by specialists from the standpoint of social and  environmental costs and benefits.  The mining and industrial development  should be consistent with the needs for conservation of trees in forest.  It  provides that no mining should be granted to any party, private or public,  without a proper mine management plan appraised from the environmental  angle and enforced by adequate machinery.   Our attention was drawn by learned counsel appearing for lease- holders to the part of national policy which provides that beneficiaries who  are allowed mining and quarrying in forest land and in land covered by  trees should be required to repair and re-vegetate the area in accordance  with established forestry practices to submit that the policy itself  contemplates mining operations in the forest area.  For present, we are not  suggesting a complete ban of mining operations on forest land so long as it  is possible to undertake the said operation on the sustainable development  principles and after obtaining due approvals under various statutory  provisions including Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.  At  the same time, we are unable to appreciate the commencement and  continuation of mining over areas on which crores of the foreign funds  have been spent for afforestation and plantation.  Further, it is also not  possible to accept the contention urged on behalf of the lease holders that  only that part of such leased land where allegedly damage has been  caused to plantation as a result of mining operations, be excluded from  mining and not the entire area of the lease.  For example, if the mining

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 41 of 50  

area is 5 hectare and damages as a result of mining is to plantation in an  area of 1 hectare, it is not practicable or reasonable to exclude only that 1  hectare and permit the mining operation on the rest of the mining area.   Reference can also be usefully made to the part of the State of Forest  Report, 1999 issued by Forest Survey of India in relation to Haryana.    It,  inter alia, provides that large scale plantations were carried out under  Aravalli project since 1992.  The document claims increase of the forest  cover in the State as a result of plantation under the Aravalli project.  It,  inter alia, mentions that forest cover increase in Gurgaon and Faridabad is  mainly due to plantation raised under the Aravalli project which was started  in early 1990s.  In these matters, neither the State nor the leaseholders  can be permitted to turn round and now take a stand that the areas  covered under the Aravalli project is not forest.  The National Forestry  Action Programme of December 2000 issued by the Ministry of  Environment and Forest, Government giving project profile also makes  detailed reference to the institution building and integrated national  resource development in the Aravalli region, Haryana under the project  implementing agency of Forest Department, Government of Haryana.  The  project profile, inter alia, states that the Central to such a policy is  rehabilitation of common lands to meet the needs of the rural poor and to  reduce soil and water erosion and the proposed programme was  envisaged to bring the benefit of integrated development of the Aravalli  eco-system to the whole community, particularly, to the poorer sections.   The project, it is stated, has been implemented in Aravalli hills situated in  the five districts of Haryana including Gurgaon.  One of the expected  outcome of the project is the reduced soil erosion and improved water  regime in the rehabilitated area will be drastically reduce and run-off  leading to recharge of constantly depleting ground water resources.  It  records that Haryana Forest Department has implemented a project on the  eco-restoration of common lands in the Aravalli hills, from June 1990 to  October 1999.  The project is being funded by Delegation of European  Communities.  The total cost  was 28.8 million ECU in which external  assistance was to the extent of 23.2 million EUC. Aravallis Hill Range         The Aravallis, most distinctive and ancient mountain chain of  peninsular India, mark the site of one of the oldest geological formations in  the world.  Heavily eroded and with exposed outcrops of the slate rock and  granite, it has summits reaching 4950 feet above sea level.  Due to its  geological location, the Aravalli range harbours a mix of Saharan,  Ethiopian, Peninsular, oriental and even Malayan elements of flora and  fauna. In the early part of this century, the Aravallis were well wooded.   There were dense forests with waterfalls and one could encounter a large  number of wild animals.  Today, the changes in the environment at Aravalli  are severe.  Though one finds a number of tree species in the hills, timber  quality trees have almost disappeared.  Despite the increase of population  resulting in increase of demand from the forest, It cannot be questioned  nor has been questioned that to save the ecology of the Aravalli mountain,  the laws have to be strictly implemented.  The notification dated 7th May,  1992 was passed with a view to strictly implement the measures to protect  the ecology of the Aravalli range.  The notification was followed more in its  breach.         In the aforesaid background, any mining activity on the area under  plantation under Aravalli project cannot be permitted.  The grant of leases  for mining operation over such an area would be wholly arbitrary,  unreasonable and illogical. Report of CMPDI on Aravalli         The Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited (CMPDI) on  being asked by the Central Pollution Control Board to conduct a study of  environmental problems of Aravalli hills and preparation of action plan for  restoration of environmental quality in Gurgaon district, after extensive  examination, has submitted to CPCB its final report in July 2003.  CMPDI  is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited (Government of India Enterprise).  The  report in respect of Aravalli range in Gurgaon district has been prepared by  CMPDI with the following objectives : 1.      To prepare status report of the pollution problems in the Aravalli

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 42 of 50  

Hills. 2.      To prepare environmental management plan to abate various  environmental problems 3.      To prepare action plan for restoration of environmental quality.

       The environmental problems in the Aravalli Range in Gurgaon  district have been identified and remedial measures including the pollution  control guidelines and action plan for various stakeholders have been  suggested by CMPDI.  It has been noticed that in large scale mining  projects what is still required is a proposal on district level as to what will  be mined, how it will be mined and with what method and many such areas  of environmental concern which had not been adequately addressed  keeping in view the environmental degradation of the Aravalli Hills.  It has  also been noticed that the Aravalli notification restricts process and  operations under certain categories of the land in district.  Though the  records of such lands are available at every village level map, there is no  record available in the district level in respect of these areas to undertake  realistic appraisal and effective monitoring of mining and other projects at  the macro level on such lands.    While noticing that, notification dated 29th  November, 1999, inter alia, made provision for preparing a master plan  integrating the environmental concerns and the future land use of the area,  but the master plan prepared on 28th August, 2002 does not, inter alia,  address the issue of natural resource assessment and water Resource  status; the areas near crushing zone and active mining zone remain a  matter of concern and concerted efforts have not been given to the quality  of roads and the dust suppression measures to maintain the air quality  within safe limits.  The guidelines of operation in an eco-friendly manner  have been issued by the State Government but the compliance is only  partial, inasmuch as wind breaking walls are not proper, pollution control  devices are not operating and the green belt around the crushing zones  are not maintained.  Identification of mines in the district is difficult.  There  does not seem to be mechanism to upgrade the mining technologies and  methodologies to minimize the impact due to mining in the eco-sensitive  zones in the district.  There is no identified land where overburden could  be temporarily dumped prior to being utilized for void filling and for other  purposes.  There does not seem to adequate awareness among the  people in respect of the environmental problems.  In some parts of the  district, the ground water potential is already in the dark category.  Lack of  water conservation measures and rainwater harvesting may ultimately lead  to water scarcity in the near future.         Having identified the environmental problems, various actions have  been recommended by CMPDI for the eco restoration in the Aravalli  Range in Gurgaon district.  It has been, inter alia, recommended that it is  imperative on the part of the State Government to improve inter- departmental co-ordination among various Government departments to  achieve the common objective, i.e., ecological restoration of Aravalli Hills  in the district.  The master plan should indicate the proposed eco- restoration plan to compensate the environmental degradation by the  proposed activities in the master plan.  Rehabilitation programmes for the  abandoned mines areas either to convert these to water reservoirs and  eco-parks or reclamation by filling by rural waste, urban waste or fly ash.   The master plan should be detailed to show the areas where overburden  could be dumped, areas where waste material could be stocked, areas  where plantation could be carried out, etc.etc.  The planning should, inter  alia, include environmental impact and concerns of activities of one sector  on the other sectors in the district, e.g., afforestation should be planned not  only with a view to increase vegetation on the hills but also to be  supplement for fuel, fodder etc. in the district.  All efforts should be made to  preserve the ground water resources.  Water shed management and  rainwater harvesting to be implemented in the Aravalli hills regions on war  footing.  In the areas where mining deeper than the ground water table of  the area is to be carried out, adequate provision of pollution control and  conservation of water resources should be made.  There should be  frequent inspections of the mining operations to ensure that these are in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 43 of 50  

line with the requirement for sustainable development.  The inspections  may be carried out at an interval of three months.  There should be  continual source of revenue from the mining operations to the fund,  recommended to be created, for the eco-restoration of the Aravalli hills.     The minimum period of lease should be for 15-20 years.  This will induce  the mine operators to take environmental protection measures more  seriously.  The State Pollution Control Board shall undertake regular  monitoring to check compliance and to assess the ambient air quality,  water quality and other environmental protection measures.  The Ministry  of Environment and Forest should take initiative to appoint a Central  Agency to monitor the eco-restoration efforts and to provide technical  support to the implementing organizations.  The renewal of mining lease  and granting new leases should be effected after examining the  environmental protection measures taken by the lessee.  Requisite data  should be displayed on the internet to arouse awareness in public and for  further usage.  Stringent action should be taken for water conservation.   The Forest Department may even carry out the afforestation on behalf of  mine operators.  Expenses should, however, be borne by the mine  operators.  The afforestation shall be carried out keeping in view, inter alia,  the consideration of checking the soil erosion.  The mine lessee should  implement the environmental management plan and mining plan approved  by the concerned authority.  In future, efforts in respect of search for  sustainable development should broadly take into consideration resource  potential in the region, the demand of the products and the supply options.   Though the demand for the niche products existing in the Aravalli range  which is one of the oldest mountain ranges in India will continue to grow,  the supply options need to be given a closer look due to eco-sensitivity of  the region.  The environmental cost needs to be internalized in the cost of  the product and there is need to limit the supply options.  Noticing that the  Aravalli range prevents the desert from spreading into Indo-Gangetic  plains, it has been suggested that all future planning should not only  concentrate to meet the ever growing demand of the products but due  consideration should also be given to protect the chain.  All the  developmental activities should, therefore, be planned in a coherent  manner and there should be integrated approach for sustainable  development.         CMPDI has noticed that in the Aravalli Hills, a large number of  activities, operations of stone crushers and deforestation besides other  activities are causing environmental degradation.  These mines are usually  located in the clusters in remote mineral rich districts/areas where living  standards is lower and understanding of people towards environmental  impact is also poor.  In the past, the mine operators took no note of  environmental damage.  In fact, they were not even conscious about it.   The attitude of mining community is to ignore the environmental concerns.   In majority of the cases, the environmental concerns are ignored for  making quick profits.  The small mines (less than 5 hectares) and the  mining of minor minerals which are no doubt small individually but have  damaging characteristics when in clusters, e.g. the mines of granite,  marble, slates, quartzite etc. (falling under minor minerals) are no less  damaging than the others, especially when the processing is taken into  consideration.  The mining activities results in disturbance of land surface,  altering drainage pattern and land use, besides the pollution problems,  which may lead to the environmental problems of air, water and noise  pollution and solid waste pollution.         It has been suggested that the short term and long term action plan  for the restoration of environmental quality of the area shall be prepared  separately.  The action plan shall be prepared in such a way that it should  be a guiding tool also in the hands of the state pollution control boards and  Government agencies for enforcement of the environmental laws for the  restoration of environmental quality of the area.  Monitoring programme  shall include frequency of monitoring for air quality, water quality, ground  water, solid wastes, noise level etc.         In respect of water resources, it has been, inter alia, suggested that  in order to draw water resource management plan, it is essential to assess  the water quality of the various components of the hydrologic cycle, i.e.,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 44 of 50  

stream, ground water, surface water etc.  It has been pointed out that since  the surface water potential is not promising in the district, there is  increased dependence on the ground water for meeting the agricultural,  domestic and industrial requirement resulting in depletion of ground water  resources in the district.  It has been suggested that utmost care is  required for further development of ground water in the areas where the  recharge of the ground water is low.         Dealing with the flora and fauna, it has been pointed out that the  earliest account shows that at one time the Aravalli hills were well covered  with dhauk (Anogeissus pendula).  Now, except in few places, viz., the Jhir  Forest in Firozpur Jhirka (dedicated to Mahadeo Temple) and near  Bhondsi recently regenerated with dhauk, the Aravallis are by and large,  bereft of vegetation in the district.   It has been noticed that in order to take stock of the environmental  problems, CPCB and CMPDI team made several visits to Aravalli hills and  held discussion with the mine operators, State officials and local people.   There are number of mining projects etc. which are already existing and  there is also tremendous potential to further increase the industrial and the  other development activities.  The environmental impact due to mining  projects on air quality, water quality, noise level, overburden etc. have  been noticed and it has been pointed out that the opening of new projects  will further affect some of the environmental attributes. The report notices that the environmental degradation has taken  place due to mining activities.  The existing crusher units are also not  functioning on the environmental sound systems.  The situation warrants  closer look on various components of the systems affecting the  environmental attributes in the area, devising pragmatic approaches to  facilitate eco-restoration of the Aravalli hills and offering broad framework  to the industrial units to function under environmentally sustainable  framework.  The suggestions also include the enactment of rules for grant  of mine leases to levy a separate charge for dump removal, ecological  restoration in the area, the technology to be used for mining operations  and post mining land use and mine decommissioning.  As far as  environmental protection in the Aravalli hills is concerned, planning and  provisions must start from the stage of grant of mine lease and what all it  should include have been set out.  It has been, inter alia, suggested that  the environmental framework shall include the framework for  environmental clearance such as depth of cutting, area of plantation and  the type of plantation, which are attributes related to closure planning as  also framework for monitoring and for forestry besides air quality, land use  pattern etc.  In nutshell, it has been suggested that it is imperative on the  part of the mine operators to carry out the mine operations in such a  fashion that it has least impact on the ecology of the area.  The pollution  prevention guidelines have been suggested in para 7.1.1.2 Having regard to the detailed study, the recommendations and  action plan has been dealt with in Chapter VIII of the report, inter alia,  suggesting that concerted efforts from various departments are needed.   The report states that though the environmental upgradation measures  need to be taken more seriously by the mine and other industrial  operators, there is need on the part of the State Government to  immediately start these measures in the areas where degradation has  already taken place.  The other recommendations have already been  broadly noticed. No one has raised any objection to the recommendations contained  in the report of CMPDI.  We accept the recommendations in principle.   Modification of Order dated 6th May, 2002 Regarding Mining in  Aravalli

Now, the question is should mining activities in the Aravalli range in  Gurgaon district be permitted to restart and, to that extent, the order dated  6th May, 2002 be modified, meanwhile directing implementation of  recommendations in the report of CMPDI and earlier referred reports.  The  other option is to first constitute a monitoring committee directing it to  individually examine and inspect mines from environmental angle in the  light of the said recommendations and file a report in this Court in respect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 45 of 50  

of individual mines with its recommendations for restart or otherwise as  also recommendation, if any, for the payment by the mine operators and/or  by State Government towards environmental fund having regard to the  precautionary principles and polluter pays principle and on consideration of  that report, to decide the aspect of modification of the order dated 6th May,  2002, partially or entirely.  We are of the view that the second option is  more appropriate.  We are conscious of observations in CMPDI that  measures for protecting the environment can be undertaken without  stopping mine operations and also the suggestions of MOEF to permit  mining subject to the mine lease holders undertaking to comply with such  conditions which remain to be complied, but, having regard to the  enormous degradation of the environment, in our view, the safer and the  proper course is to first constitute a Monitoring Committee, get a report  from it and only thereafter consider, on individual mine to mine basis, lifting  of ban imposed in terms of order dated 6th May, 2002.  Before concluding  this aspect, we may note that assuming there was any ambiguity about the  applicability of order dated 6th May, 2002 to mining in Aravalli Range, it is  clarified that the said order would be applicable to all the mines in Aravalli  hill range in Gurgaon district. Applicability of notification dated 27th January, 1994         The notification has been reproduced in the earlier part of the  judgment.  It, inter alia, applies to mining projects (major minerals) with  leases of more than 5 hectares.  It can neither be disputed nor has been  disputed that the notification is mandatory.  It, inter alia, provides that on  and from the date of its publication in official Gazette expansion or  modernization of any activity (if pollution load is to exceed the existing one)  or a new project listed in Schedule A of this notification shall not be  undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded environmental  clearance by the Central Government in accordance with the procedure  specified therein.  The contention urged on behalf of the lease-holders is  that the leases in question do not relate to expansion or modernization of  any activity as postulated by the notification.  Further, it is contended, that  the notification applies to ’a new project’ which means that it will apply to  mining lease granted after issue of notification.  It has been strenuously  contended that the renewal of existing mining lease is neither ’an  expansion’ nor ’modernization’ nor is it a ’new project’ and, therefore, the  notification will have no applicability at the time of consideration of the  renewal of the lease.  Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court  in Narmada’s case (supra) holding that the notification is clearly  prospective and, inter alia, prohibits the undertaking of a new project listed  in Schedule I without prior environmental clearance from the Central  Government.  The contention urged was that since in Narmada’s case,  where construction had commenced nearly 8 years prior to the notification,  same very notification was not held applicable.   On the same analogy, it  cannot have any applicability to the leases granted prior to the issue of  notification.   No doubt, the notification is prospective but the question here is  whether it would be applicable when the aspect of renewal comes up for  consideration after the issue of the notification.  In Narmada’s case, it was  not held that this notification will not apply at the stage of renewal.  The  observations made in para 129 of the said decision and relied upon by  learned counsel for the lease holders have no relevance to determine the  applicability of the notification at the stage of renewal.  In Narmada’s  case, the environmental clearance had been granted in the year 1987 and  this Court noticing that when it was granted by the Prime Minister,  whatever studies were available were taken into consideration, it was  known that the construction of the dam would result in submergence and  the consequent effect which the reservoir will have on the ecology of the  surrounding areas and various studies relating to environmental impact  had been taken into consideration and  that there was no obligation to  obtain the statutory clearance under 1994 notification.           In the present case, regarding the manner of grant of no objection  certificate from environmental angle for proposed mining activity, by way of  illustration, we may refer to the order dated 18th January, 1999 issued by  Haryana State Pollution Control Board whereby no objection certificate for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 46 of 50  

renewal of lease was granted stipulating that the applicant Som Prakash  Sethi in respect of mining activity at village Anangpur, district Faridabad  shall also seeking environmental clearance of its mining project in  compliance with this notification without even mentioning any time limit for  it and admittedly till date that had not been done.  None bothered to find  out whether conditions in the order has been complied or not.  Further the  letter dated 25th January, 2003, sent to Principal Secretary of Central  Empowered Committee  by Director Mines and Ecology, Haryana shows  how the State Government has been circumventing the legal requirements  and permitting mining.  In that letter, it has been stated that pending  approval of the environmental plan, the mining lessees undertook the  mining operation of the minor mineral on issue of short term permit, in  cases where the fresh mining leases were granted and in case of renewal  of mining leases, the mining activities were going on.  This is despite  conditions in the judgment dated 10th May, 1996 by this Court that the  Director Mining and Ecology Haryana would be responsible for mining in  the State of Haryana.         Be that as it may and reverting to legal position, in Ambica Quarry  Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(1987) 1 SCC 213], though a case  under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 rejecting the contention that  approval at the stage of renewal was not necessary and also the plea that  since the leaseholders had invested sum of money in mining operation, it  was the duty of the authorities to renew the lease, it was held that having  regard to the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a  result of deforestation have become social menaces and the same should  be prevented and that the concept that power coupled with the duty  enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease stood eroded by the  mandate of the FC Act.  It was held that The primary duty was to the  community and that duty took precedence.  In such cases, the obligation to  the society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals.  It  would be apposite to reproduce what was said by Justice Mukherjee (as  he then was) in paras 14 and 15 which read thus : "14. Here the case of the appellants is that they  have invested large sums of money in mining  operations. Therefore, it was the duty of the  authorities that the power of granting permission  should have been so exercised that the  appellants had the full benefits of their  investments. It was emphasized that none of the  appellants had committed any breach of the  terms of grant nor were there any other factors  disentitling them to such renewal. While there  was power to grant renewal and in these cases  there were clauses permitting renewals, it might  have cast a duty to grant such renewal in the  facts and circumstances of the cases specially in  view of the investments made by the appellants in  the areas covered by the quarrying leases, but  renewals cannot be claimed as a matter of right  for the following reasons.  15. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 47 of 50  

obligation to the society must predominate over  the obligation to the individuals."

       In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.  [1989 Supp.(1) SCC 504], agreeing with views expressed in Ambica  Quarry Workers, it was held that the FC Act 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 requirement of the Act had to be satisfied  before such renewal could be granted.  In State of M.P. & Ors. v.  Krishnadas Tikaram [1995 Supp.(1) SCC 587], these two decisions  were relied upon and it was held that even the renewal of lease cannot be  granted without the prior concurrence of the Central Government.  It is  settled law that the grant of renewal is a fresh grant and must be  consistent with law.           We are unable to accept the contention that the notification dated  27th January, 1994 would not apply to leases which come up for  consideration for renewal after issue of the notification.  The notification  mandates that the mining operation shall not be undertaken in any part of  India unless environmental clearance by the Central Government has  been accorded.  The clearance under the notification is valid for a period  of five years.  In none of the leases the requirement of notification was  complied with either at the stage of initial grant of the mining lease or at  the stage of renewal.  Some of the leases were fresh leases granted after  issue of the notification.  Some were cases of renewal.  No mining  operation can commence without obtaining environmental impact  assessment in terms of the notification.

The Applicability of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to areas  treated as forest by State Forest Department

       The provisions of the Act provide for the conservations of forest and  for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto.  Any  forest land or portion thereof cannot be used for any non-forest purposes  or assigned by way of leases or otherwise to any private person or to any  authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned,  managed or controlled by the Government, except with the prior approval  of the Central Government.  Mining activity within forest area cannot be  permitted in contravention of the provisions of the Act.  The Act makes the  contravention of any of the provisions of Section 2 as an offence  punishable in the manner provided in the Act.   The controversy is in respect of certain leases where area under  the lease is covered under notification issued under Section 4 and/or 5 of  the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900.  The question is whether such  area is ’forest’ of any kind.   Under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, whenever it appears to the  State Government that it is desirable to provide for the conservation of  sub-soil water or the prevention of erosion in any area subject to erosion  or likely to become liable to erosion, such Government may by notification  make a direction accordingly.  Under Section 4(b), the State Government  has power to regulate, restrict or prohibit the quarrying of stone or the  burning of lime at placed where such stone or lime had not ordinarily been  so quarried or burnt prior to the publication of the notification under section  3.  Section 5(b) in respect of any specified village or villages, or part or  parts thereof, comprised within the limits of any area notified under section  3, the State Government may, by special order, temporarily regulate,  restrict or prohibit the quarrying of any stone or the burning of any lime at  places where such stone or lime had ordinarily been so quarried or burnt  prior to the publication of the notification under section 3.  In respect of  some mining areas notifications have been issued under Section 4 and in  respect of some notifications have been issued both under Sections 4 and  5.  The submission is that invoking of Sections 3, 4 and 5 is only to  conserve sub-soil water and prevention of the area from erosion of land  and is not to create any forest.  It has been pointed out that in cases

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 48 of 50  

where the notifications have been issued, only felling of trees had been  prohibited and not quarrying of stone.   It cannot be disputed that the State Forest Department has been  treating and showing the aforesaid areas as ’forest’.  The contention urged  on behalf of the State Government is that it was on account of erroneous  view point of Forest Department.  In fact and law, such area is not ’forest’  and mining is not prohibited and, therefore the question of seeking  permission under Section 2 of the FC Act does not arise. In the instant case, it is not necessary to decide the legal effect of  issue of the notification under Section 4 and/or 5 of the Act.  Not only in  their record the area has been shown as forest but the affidavits have been  filed in this Court stating the area to be ’forest’.  In T.N. Godavarman  Thirumulkpad v. Union of India & Ors. [(1997) 2 SCC 267]  , this Court  held that the term ’forest’ is to be understood in the dictionary sense and  also that any area regarded as a forest in Government record irrespective  of ownership would be a forest.  The State of Haryana, besides having  filed affidavits in the forest matters treating such areas as forest for the  purposes of the FC Act has been seeking prior approval from the Central  Government for diversion of such land for non-forestry purpose.    Reference in this connection may also be made to the affidavit dated 8th  December, 1996 filed by Banarsi Das, Principal Chief Conservator of  Forest, Chandigarh, Haryana in Civil Writ No.171 of 1996 Environmental  Awareness Forum v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors.  Our  attention has also been drawn to letter dated 26th November, 2002  addressed by Divisional Forest Officer, Faridabad to Mining Officer,  Faridabad forwarding to him a list of blocked forest areas of Faridabad  district and requesting him to ensure that the said forest areas are not  affected by any mining operations as also to a letter dated 17th September,  2001 sent by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana (Panchkula)  to Director of Environment, Haryana stating therein that no mining activity  can be permitted in the area.  On the facts and circumstances of the case,  we cannot permit the State Government to take a compete summersault in  these proceedings and contend that the earlier stand that the area is  ’forest was under some erroneous impressions.  In the present case, for  the purposes of the FC Act, these areas shall be treated as forest and for  use of it for non-forestry purpose, it would be necessary to comply with the  provisions of the FC Act. We may also note that assuming that there was any confusion or  erroneous impression, it ought to have been first sorted out at appropriate  level and where affidavits had been filed in this Court, clarifications/orders  sought before issue of the mining lease in respect of such area.  Impact of Mining on Ground Water Where during mining water level is touched, the Monitoring  Committee shall carve out that area and it was agreed on behalf of the  leaseholders that they would co-operate and not undertake any mining in  such an area.   Non-payment of royalty to the villagers         A controversy has been raised about non-payment of royalty by the  leaseholders to villagers on whose behalf it was contended that the order  dated 6th May, 2002 prohibiting mining should not be varied till the  leaseholders discharge their liability to pay royalty to the villagers.  On the  other hand, mine leaseholders dispute the claim put-forth on behalf of the  villagers and it has been submitted that no amount is payable by them and  the villagers can make their claim, if any, from the State Government.     The dispute of this nature cannot be properly adjudicated in these  proceedings.  We leave it open to be adjudicated before appropriate forum  in accordance with law.   Leases in respect of minor mineral         Though notification dated 27th January, 1994 is not applicable to  minor minerals, but having regard to what we have discussed above in  regard to degradation of environment and the required standard about the  risk of harm to the environment or to human health to be decided in public  interest according to ’reasonable person’s test’, and the report of CMPDI,  we direct the Monitoring Committee to examine the leases granted for  extraction of minor mineral in light thereof and file its report.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 49 of 50  

Committee would, however, bear in mind that the notification dated 27th  January, 1994 as such is not applicable to these leases. Mining in Faridabad District         Having examined the matter, we are of the view that though the  study conducted by CMPDI relates to mining activity in Aravalli Hills in  Gurgaon district, in public interest the general safeguards and suggestions  in that report deserve to be implemented in respect of mining in Faridabad  district as well.         We have already extracted the recommendations of NEERI, as also  violations noticed in the reports submitted by EPCA and the suggestions of  EPCA, CEC and CMPDI.  The Monitoring Committee shall inspect the  leases in question in Faridabad District as well in the light of these  recommendations and file its report containing suggestions on  recommencement or otherwise of the mining activity therein.         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.         As earlier noticed as well, it would not be expedient to lift the ban on  mining imposed in terms of the order of this Court dated 6th May, 2002  before ensuring implementation of suggestions of CMPDI and other  recommendations of experts (NEERI, EPCA and CEC).  The safer course  is to consider this question, on individual basis after receipt of report of the  Monitoring Committee. Environment Impact assessment applications         During the course of hearing environment assessment applications  in terms of notification dated 27th January, 1994 have been filed by some  of the leaseholders.  In case, those applications are presently with Central  Empowered Committee, the same shall be forthwith forwarded by CEC to  MOEF.  The adverse effect, if any, and extent thereof on human health  and ecology shall be examined while deciding impact of these activities.   There is also the desirability of transparency in such matter.  The MOEF is  directed to consider the said applications within a period of 10 weeks. Monitoring Committee         With a view to monitor the overall eco-restoration efforts in the  Aravalli Hills and to provide technical support to the implementing  organizations and also to monitor implementation of recommendations  contained in reports referred herein, it is necessary to constitute a  Monitoring Committee.  The heads of the following departments would be  members of the Monitoring Committee : 1.      Regional Officer of State Pollution Control Board. 2.      Forest Department 3.      District Administration 4.      Department of Mining & Geology 5.      Irrigation Department 6.      Regional Officer of CGWB 7.      Agriculture Department 8.      District Industry Department. 9.      Chairman - CPCB.

       Besides above, MOEF is directed to appoint an officer from Central  Ground Water Board to be a member of the Monitoring Committee.  The  following persons as representatives of public shall also be members of  the said Committee : 1.      Prof. Dilip Biswas,         Ex Chairman, CPCB. 2.      Mr. Valmiki Thapar, 3.      Mr. Bhure Lal.         The MOEF would act as a nodal agency of the Monitoring  Committee.  The Secretary of MOEF is directed to appoint an officer not  below the rank of a Joint Secretary in the Ministry for the said purpose. The Monitoring Committee is directed to inspect the mines in  question and file a report within a period of three months, inter alia,  containing suggestions for recommencement of mining in individual cases.   All concerned individuals and departments are directed to render full co-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 50 of 50  

operation to the Monitoring Committee. Conclusions      1.      The order dated 6th May, 2002 as clarified hereinbefore cannot be  vacated or varied before consideration of the report of the Monitoring  Committee constituted by this judgment. 2.      The notification of environment assessment clearance dated 27th  January, 1994 is applicable also when renewal of mining lease is  considered after issue of the notification. 3.      On the facts of the case, the mining activity on areas covered under  Section 4 and/or 5 of Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 cannot be  undertaken without approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act,  1980. 4.      No mining activity can be carried out on area over which plantation  has been undertaken under Aravalli project by utilization of foreign  funds. 5.      The mining activity can be permitted only on the basis of sustainable  development and on compliance of stringent conditions. 6.      The Aravalli hill range has to be protected at any cost.  In case  despite stringent condition, 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. 7.      MOEF is directed to prepare a short term and long term action plan  for the restoration of environmental quality of Aravalli hills in  Gurgaon district having regard to what is stated in final report of  CMPDI within four months. 8.      Violation of any of the conditions would entail the risk of cancellation  of mining lease.  The mining activity shall continue only on strict  compliance of the stipulated conditions.   The matters are directed to be listed after reopening of courts after  summer vacation on receipt of the report from the Monitoring Committee.