http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENTKENDRA & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/12/1986

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1987 AIR  359            1987 SCR  (1) 641  1986 SCC  Supl.  517     JT 1986  1119  1986 SCALE  (2)1083  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1987 SC2426  (5)  R          1988 SC2187  (14)

ACT: Constitution of India, 1950:--     Article                51A(g)--Environment--Preservation of--Ecological balance keeping  unaffected--Task--Government as also every citizen undertake. Mineral  Regulations  Act, 1948/Minerals  Concession  Rules, 1949.     Limestone--Quarrying of--Grant of mining  leases--Depos- its not to be exploited at cost of ecology and environmental consideration.

HEADNOTE:     A letter received from the Rural Litigation and Entitle- ment  Kendra  Dehradun was treated as a  Writ  Petition  and notices  issued.  The main allegations  therein  related  to unauthorised and illegal mining operations carried on in the Mussoorie Hills and the area around adversely affecting  the ecology  of the area and leading to  environmental  disturb- ances. In July, 1983 this Court directed all fresh quarrying to be stopped.     On 11.8.1983 this Court appointed Bhargav Committee  for inspecting all the mines except those belonging to the State of  Uttar  Pradesh and the Union of  India  for  determining whether the safety standards laid down in the Mines Act 1952 and  the Mines Rules were being observed or not and  whether there  was  any danger of landslides or was  any  hazard  to individuals, cattle or agricultural lands by carrying on  of mining operations. Blasting operations in the area were also directed  to be stopped. On the basis of the main report  of the  said Committee this Court on August 24, 1983  permitted removal of limestone already quarried. The Committee direct- ed  closure  of some of the mines and reported  the  defects appearing in other mines and called upon the mine owners  to carry out rectifications.     The Bhargav Committee classified the mines in A, B and C groups.  So far as the mines in Group C were concerned,  the Committee  recommended that they should he closed  down.  As regards the mines in Group A, the Committee opined that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

quarrying  could he carried on without any environmental  or ecological hazard. The Committee also 642 recommended closure of B Group mines permanently. The  Union Government  had also appointed a Working Group on mining  of limestone quarries in Dehradun and Mussoorie area some  time in.  1983  which  was also headed by Shri  Bhargav  who  was heading  the Committee appointed by this Court. The  Working Group  submitted  its  report in September,  1983.  After  a comparative  analysis  of the two reports, the  Court  found that the Working Group had taken these very mines for  their study and had divided the mines into two categories, namely, Class  I  and Class II. All the mines  then  categorised  as Class I were now included by the Bhargav Committee in  Group A  and the remaining mines now classified as Group B  and  C were in Class II.     This Court had also appointed an Expert Committee headed by Professor Valdia to consider the problems of ecology  and environment with reference to mining. Professor Valdia  gave a  separate report while the other two members gave a  joint report. In its order of March 12, 1985, this Court  observed that it does not propose to rely on the report of  Professor Valdia  and  it would not be safe to direct  continuance  or discontinuance of mining operations in limestone quarries on the basis of Main Boundary Thrust. In 12th March, 1985 order this  Court directed that the limestone quarries located  in Sahasradhara Block and placed in Category Il by the  Working Group  should  be closed down, that the  limestone  quarries placed in Category II by the Working Group other than  those which are placed in Category B and C by the Bhargav  Commit- tee  should  also  be closed down save and  except  for  the limestone quarries covered by the mining leases numbers  31, 36  and 37 for which the same direction should be  given  as would  be given in regard to the limestone quarries  classi- fied as Category B in the Bhargav Committee Report, and that if  there  are any subsisting leases in respect  of  any  of these limestone quarries they will forthwith come to an  end and if any suits or writ petitions for continuance expire on unexpired leases in respect of any of these limestone  quar- ries are pending, they too will stand dismissed.     This Court also directed closing down of the mines in  A Category located within the municipal limits of Mussoorie.     In  regard to B Class quarries of the Bhargav  Committee Report  which featured in Category II of the  Working  Group Report, as also of the A Category quarries within the munic- ipal  limits, this Court set up a Committee headed  by  Shri Bandopadhyay, then Secretary in the Ministry of Rural Devel- opment and called upon the mine owners to submit a full  and detailed scheme to that Committee for its examination 643 and report to the Court about the same. It was directed that until  further  orders from this Court on the basis  of  the Bandopadhyay  Committee  Report  these mines  shall  not  be worked. Bandopadhyay Committee submitted its report  reject- ing the schemes put forward by various lessees of the  mines which have been closed down.     On  20th November, 1986 this Court granted time  to  the erstwhile lessees of mines to file objections to  Bandopadh- yay Committee Report within six weeks and reply, if any,  to be filed by the petitioners and the State within four  weeks thereafter.  The  petitions were to come up for  hearing  in February, 1987.     By order dated March 12, 1985 the Court made a  detailed order  containing various directions reported in  [(1985)  3 SCR 169] and the reasons therefor were to follow later.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

   Hon’ble  Mr. Justice A.N. Sen one of the members of  the Bench who heard these petitions before his retirement deliv- ered  judgment on 30th September 1985 expressing  his  views that  it is not necessary to give any further  reasons  than those  which  are already stated in the order made  on  12th March,  1985 because the broad reasons have been  adequately set out in the order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to elaborate them. Giving the reasons the Court,     HELD:  1. On a perusal of order dated 12th  March,  1985 the  other members of the Bench are inclined to  agree  with the view taken by Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Sen that the said order  covered almost all the relevant aspects  and  touched upon every issue germane to the matter. [646E]     2.  The  question whether the schemes submitted  by  the mine  lessees  to Bandopadhyay Committee have  been  rightly rejected  or not and whether under those schemes,  the  mine lessees can be allowed to carry on mining operations without in  any  way adversely affecting environment  or  ecological balance or causing hazard to individuals, cattle or agricul- tural lands still remain to be considered and would have  to be  decided in the light of the view taken by this Court  in the  order dated 12th March, 1985 and the instant  judgment. [650C-E]     3.  Preservation  of  the environment  and  keeping  the ecological  balance  unaffected  is a task  which  not  only Governments  but also every citizen must undertake. It is  a social obligation and every Indian citizen 644 is reminded that it is his fundamental duty as enshrined  in Article 51 A(g) of the Constitution. [653D-E]     4.  Consciousness  for environmental  protection  is  of recent origin. Scientific development have made it  possible and  convenient  for man to approach the  places  which  are beyond  his ken. The consequences of such interference  with ecology  and  environment  have now  come  to  be  realised. [652F-H]     5.  Government both at the Centre and in the  State-must realize  and  remain cognizent of the fact  that  the  stake involved  in the matter is large and far reaching. The  evil consequences  would last long. Once that unwanted  situation sets in, amends or repairs would not be possible. The green- ery  of India may perish and the Thar desert may expand  its limits. [652 E-F]     6.  It has been commended earlier to the State of  Uttar Pradesh  as  also to the Union of India  that  afforestation activity  may  be carried out in the whole  valley  and  the hills. Such activity has been undertaken. This Court is  not oblivious of the fact that the natural resources have to  be tapped for the purposes of social development but one cannot forget of the same time that tapping of resources have to be done  with requisite attention and care so that ecology  and environment  may not be affected in any serious  way;  there may  not be any depletion of water resources and  long  term planning must be undertaken to keep up the national  wealth. [653B-C]     7.  It is for the Government and the Nation-and not  for the Court--to decide whether the deposits should be exploit- ed  at the cost of ecology and environmental  considerations or the industrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied. It  may be perhaps possible to exercise greater control  and vigil over the operation and strike a balance between  pres- ervation  and utilisation and that would indeed be a  matter for an expert body to examine and on the basis of  appropri- ate  advice,  Government should take a policy  decision  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

firmly implement the same. [652D-E]     8.  In the instant case, the limestone quarries  in  the area are estimated to satisfy roughly three per cent of  the country’s demand. At the present rate of mining, the  depos- its  are likely to last some 50 years. Digging of  limestone and allowing the waste to roll down or carried down by  rain water to the lower levels has affected the villages as  also the agricultural lands located below the hills. For removing the 645 limestones quarried from the mines, roads have been laid and for that purpose the hills have been interfered with;  traf- fic  hazard  for  the  local  population  both  animals  and men--has increased. [652B]     9.  In  1949 the Minerals Concession Rules made  by  the Central Government under the Minerals Regulations Act,  1948 authorised  grant  of mining leases and  several  applicants came  forward for quarrying of high grade  limestone.  Until 1962,  extraction  of limestone was permitted  on  temporary permits by the State Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. [651 F-G]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8209 & 8821 of 1983. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)     M.A.   Krishnamoorthy,  Pramod Dayal, Rishi  Kesh,  R.B. Mehrotra,  M.G. Ramachandran, C.M. Nayyar,  M.  Karanjawala, S.A. Sayed, Sushil Kumar Jain, S. Dikshit, P.P. Juneja, P.K. Jain,  K.N.  Bhatt, D.N. Misra, I. Makwana,  A.  Subba  Rao, Harjinder  Singh, B.P. Singh, Parijat Sinha, C.P. Lal,  Shri Narain, S.K. Gupta, K.R. Nambiar, S.S. Khanduja, K.K.  Jain, C.M.  Nargolkar,  Kapil Sibal, R. Ramachandran and  Miss  A. Subhashini  for  the Appearing Parties and  Devi  Ditta  Mal Petitioner in person. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,     RANGANATH  MISRA,  J. On March 12, 1985,  after  hearing counsel and parties appearing in person at great length this Court made a detailed order wherein it was said;               "This  case  has been argued at  great  length               before  us not only because a large number  of               lessees of limestone quarries are involved and               each of them has painstakingly and exhaustive-               ly  canvassed  his factual as  well  as  legal               points  of view but also because this  is  the               first case of its kind in the country  involv-               ing issues relating to environment and ecolog-               ical  balance  and the questions  arising  for               consideration are of grave moment and signifi-               cance  not only to the people residing in  the               Mussoorie  Hill  range  forming  part  of  the               Himalayas  but also in their  implications  to               the welfare of the generality of people living               in the country. It brings into sharp focus the               conflict between development and  conservation               and serves to emphasise the need for reconcil-               ing  the  two in the larger  interest  of  the               country. But since               646               having  regard  to  the  voluminous   material               placed  before  us and  the  momentous  issues               raised for decision, it is not possible for us               to prepare a full and detailed judgment  imme-               diately  and at the same time, on  account  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             interim  order made by us,  mining  operations               carried out through blasting have been stopped               and  the  ends  of justice  require  that  the               lessees  of  limestone quarries  should  know,               without  any  unnecessary delay, as  to  where               they stand in regard to their limestone  quar-               ries, we propose to pass our order on the writ               petitions.  The reasons for the order will  be               set out in the judgment to follow later."     In the meantime, one of us our learned Brother Sen,  J., has  retired from the Court. Before that event happened,  on 30th September, 1985, he delivered a judgment expressing his views on the matter. He indicated:               "I  do  not  think it necessary  to  give  any               further  reasons than those which are  already               stated in the order made by us on 12th  March,               1985. Speaking personally for myself, I  think               that  the broad reasons have  been  adequately               set out in the order and it would be an unnec-               essary exercise to elaborate them." On  a perusal of our order of the 12th March, 1985,  we  are inclined  to  agree with his view that  the  detailed  order covered  almost  all the relevant aspects and  touched  upon every issue germane to the matter.     As  this  was the first case of its type with  wide  and serious  ramifications, we would like. to give a  brief  ac- count of the manner in which the proceedings commenced, were carried on and are to be concluded.     By  an  order  dated 14.7.1983, this  Court  directed  a letter  received from the Rural Litigation  and  Entitlement Kendra,  Dehra  Dun dated 2.7.1983 along  with  accompanying affidavits  to  be  treated as a writ  petition  and  issued notice  to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the  Collector  of Dehra  Dun. The main allegation therein related to  unautho- rised and illegal mining operations carried on in the  Muss- oorie  Hills  and the area around  adversely  affecting  the ecology’  of the area and leading to environmental  disturb- ances.  Later  on, another application was  directed  to  be tagged on and both the applications were dealt with  togeth- er.  Several parties, mainly, mining lessees numbering  more than 100, got impleaded either at the instance of the  peti- tioners  or on their own seeking. By a later order  made  in the month of July 1983, 647 this  Court directed all fresh quarrying to be  stopped  and called  upon the District Magistrate and the  Superintendent of  Police  of Dehra Dun District to strictly  enforce  that order.     On 11.8.1983, after heating the counsel for parties then appearing, this Court appointed a Committee for the  purpose of  inspecting all the mines other than those  belonging  to the  State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India,  with  a view  to determining whether the safety standards laid  down in the Mines Act, 1952, and the Mines Rules made  thereunder were being observed or not and whether there was any  danger of landslides on account of the quarrying operations partic- ularly  during the monsoon in any of the mines and if  there was any other hazard to individuals, cattle or  agricultural lands  by  reason of the carrying on of  mining  operations. Blasting  operations  in the area were also directed  to  be stopped.  This  Committee came to be known as  the  Bhargava Committee  and  its members were authorised to  inspect  the mines  and give suitable directions. The Committee made  its main  report on the basis whereof this Court on  August  24, 1983  permitted removal of limestone already  quarried.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

Committee directed closure of some of the mines and reported the defects appearing in the other mines and called upon the mine owners to carry out rectifications.     The Bhargava Committee classified the mines in the  area into  three groups being A, B and C. So far as the mines  in Group  (C)  were concerned, the Committee was  of  the  view that.they  were  not suitable for  continuance  and  should, therefore, be closed down. So far as the question related to the  mines in Group A the Committee was of the opinion  that the quarrying could be carried on without any  environmental or  ecological hazard. In regard to the B group  mines,  the Bhargava Committee opined that those may not be closed  down permanently though it did notice the adverse impact of their mining  activities. In its order of 12th March,  1985,  this Court  took note of the fact that the Union  Government  had appointed a Working Group on mining of limestone quarries in Dehra  Dun  and  Mussoorie area some time in  1983  and  the Working  Group  was  also headed by  Shri  Bhargava  who-was heading  the  Committee appointed by this Court.  The  other members  of the Working Group were experts in the field  and the  Working  Group had submitted the  report  in  September 1983.  A  comparative  analysis was made by  this  Court  in regard  to the mines by referring to both the  reports.  The Court  found  that the Working Group had  taken  these  very mines  for  their study and had divided the mines  into  two categories--namely, Class I and Class II. It transpires 648 that  all  the mines then categorised as Class  I  were  now included  by the Bhargava Committee in Group A and  the  re- maining mines now classified as Group B and C by the Bharga- va Committee were in Class II.     This  Court  also, appointed an  Expert  Committee  with Professor  Valdia  and two Members mainly  to  consider  the problems  of ecology and environment with reference to  min- ing. Professor Valdia gave a separate report while the other two  members gave a joint report. Dealing with the  separate report  furnished by Professor Valdia, this Court in its  of March 12, 1985 stated:               We  may-observe  straightaway that we  do  not               propose  to  rely on the report  of  Professor               Valdia  who  was  one of the  Members  of  the               Expert Committee appointed by our order  dated               2.9.1983  as modified by the order dated  23rd               October  1, 1983 This. Committee consisted  of               Professor  Valdia,  Shri Hukum Singh and  Shri               D.N. Kaul and it was appointed to enquire  and               investigate  into the question of  disturbance               of  ecology and pollution and  affectation  of               air, water and environment by reason of  quar-               rying operations or working  of stone crushers               or limestone kilns. Shri Hukum Singh submitted               a  joint report in regard to  various  aspects               while  Professor Valdia submitted  a  separate               report. Professor Valdia’s report was confined               shortly  to  the  geological  aspect  and  his               report he placed considerable reliance on  the               Main  Boundary Thrust (shortly referred to  as               M.B.T)  and  he took the view  that  limestone               quarries  which  were  dangerously  close   to               M.B.T.  should  be closed down,  because  they               were in the sensitive and vulnerable belt.  We               shall  examine this report in detail  when  we               give our reasons but we may straightaway point               out  that  w do not think it  safe  to  direct               continuance or discontinuance of mining opera-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

             tions-in  limestone quarries on the  basis  of               M.B.T." At  the further. hearings after the said order, parties  did not address arguments with reference to M.B.T. and we are of the  view that this topic need not be dealt  with by us:  In 12th  March 1985 order we directed that the limestone  quar- ries  located  in Sahasradhara Block and II by  the  Working Group should be closed down.               also direct, agreeing with the Report made by               649               the Working Group that the limestone  quarries               placed  in  Category II by the  Working  Group               other  than those which are placed in  Catego-               ries B and C by the Bhargava Committee  should               also not be allowed to be operated and  should               be  closed down save and except for the  lime-               stone  quarries covered by the  mining  leases               numbers  31,36 and 37 for which we  will  give               the  same  direction as we are giving  in  the               succeeding  paragraphs in regard to the  lime-               stone quarries classified as Category B in the               Bhargava  Committee Report. If there  are  any               subsisting  leases in respect of any of  these               limestone quarries they will forthwith come to               an end and if any suits or writ petitions  for               continuance  expire  or  unexpired  leases  in               respect of any of these limestone quarries are               pending, they too will stand dismissed."     This  Court  directed  closing down of the  mines  in  A Category located within the municipal limits of Mussoorie.     In regard to B Class quarries of the Bhargava  Committee Report  which featured in Category II of the  Working  Group Report, as also of the A Category quarries within the munic- ipal limits, we set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Shri  D.  Bandyopadhyay, then Secretary in the  Ministry  of Rural Development and called ’upon the mine owners to submit a  full  and detailed scheme to that Committee  which  would examine  the said scheme keeping in view the  provisions  of the law as also the expediency of allowing mining operations in the area and report to the Court about the same. We  have directed  that until further orders from this Court  on  the basis of Bandopadhyay Committee report these mines shall not be  worked.  It  may be pointed out  that  the  Bandopadhyay Committee has submitted its report rejecting the schemes put forward  by  various lessees of the mines  which  have  been Closed  down  and  on 20th November, 1986,  this  Court  has directed:               "We  are informed that Bandopadhyay  Committee               has   submitted  its  report  rejecting   the.               schemes  put  forward  by  various   erstwhile               lessees  of the mines which have  been  closed               down now. This Report was made as far back as’               in  April 1986 and those who wanted  to  raise               objections,  ought  to have done so  within  a               reasonable time after the report was submitted               and those who have failed to do so, we  cannot               shut  them out and prevent them  from  raising               their  objections; and in any event  delay  in               filing cannot prejudice public interest  since               stone quarrying had already closed               650               down.  We would, therefore, grant time to  the               erstwhile lessees of mines, who wish to  raise               objections,  to file their  objections  within               six  weeks from to-day and reply, if  any,  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

             those objections may be filed on behalf of the               petitioners  and  the State of  Uttar  Pradesh               within four weeks thereafter.                         The old record of the case may  also               be kept in Court at the time of the hearing of               this Writ Petition.                         Writ  Petition  will  come  up   for               hearing on 3rd Tuesday in February 1987 before               a Bench of which Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranganath               Misra is a member."     From the aforesaid order it is clear that in view of the directions given by this Court the question still remains to be  considered  whether the schemes submitted  by  the  mine lessees to the Bandopadhyaya Committee under our Order dated 12th March 1985 have been rightly rejected or not and wheth- er  under those schemes, the mine lessees can be allowed  to carry  on  mining operations without in  any  way  adversely affecting  environment  or  ecological  balance  or  causing hazard  to individuals, cattle and agricultural lands.  This question  would, of course, have to be decided in the  light of  the view taken by us in our Order dated 12th March  1985 and the present judgment.     The Himalayan range on the Northern Boundary of India is the most recent mountain range and yet it is the tallest. It has  formed the Northern boundary of the country  and  until recent  times  provided  an impregnable  protection  to  the Indian  sub-continent  from  the  Northern  direction.  This mountain range has been responsible to regulate the monsoons and consequently the rainfall in the Indo-gangetic belt. The Himalayas  are the source for perennial rivers--the  Ganges, Yamuna  and  Brahmputra as also  several  other  tributaries which have joined these main rivers. For thousands of  years nature  has displaced its splendour through the  lush  green trees, innumerable springs and beautiful flowers. The  Hima- layas has been the store house of herbs, shrubs and  plants. Deep  forests  on the lower hills have  helped  to  generate congenial conditions for good rain.     The Doon Valley has been an exquisite region bounded  by the  Himalayan  and the Shivalik ranges and  the  Ganga  and Yamuna  rivers. The perennial water streams and the  fertile soil  have contributed not only to the growth of dense  lush green forests but have helped the yield 651 of  basmati rice and leeches. Mussoorie, known as the  queen of  Indian  hill stations situated at a height of  5000  ft. above  sea  level and Dehra Doon located below  the  heights have  turned out to be important places of  tourist  attrac- tion, centres of education, research and defence complex.     At  present the Valley is in danger because of  erratic, irrational  and  uncontrolled quarrying  of  limestone.  The landscape has been stripped bare of its verdant cover. Green cover  today  is about 10 per cent of the  area  while  from decades ago it was almost 70 per cent.     The limestone belt has acted as the aquifer--to hold and release water perennially. All the important  streams--Song, Baldi,  Rispana,  Kairuli and Bhitarli originate  from  this area. Reckless mining, careless disposal of the  mine-debris and  random blasting operations have disturbed  the  natural water  system and the supply of water both for drinking  and irrigation  has substantially gone down: There is a  growing apprehension that if mining is carried on in this process, a stage  will come when there would be dearth of water in  the entire belt.     About a hundred years back around the middle of the last century,  Britishers penetrated into the area and  developed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Mussoorie as a Hill Resort. The existence of huge  limestone deposits  came  to be discovered by the  beginning  of  this century.  Quarrying operations on small scale began.  Direct human  interference  in limestone quarrying  seems  to  have begun in 1900. Around 1904 all the quarries were declared as property  of the Government and as appears from  the  Bando- padhyay  Report,  in the year 1911 there existed  only  four limestone  quarries.  It had been working in the  Dehra  Dun area. Around 1947, limestone quarrying took a new turn and a number  of  persons who had migrated from  Pakistan  started working on limestone deposits by quarrying in private lands. In  1949, the Minerals Concession Rules made by the  Central Government under the Minerals Regulations Act, 1948,  autho- rised  grant  of mining leases and several  applicants  came forward  for quarrying of high grade limestone. Until  1962, extraction  of limestone was permitted on temporary  permits by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh.     In  these proceedings we came across 105  mining  leases and these, as the various reports have indicated, had direct environmental impact on the area. It is said that the  lime- stone  deposits in this area are of high grade  having  upto 99.8  calcium  carbonate. Mining operations in  these  areas have led to cutting down of the forest. Digging of 652 limestone  and  allowing the waste to roll down  or  carried down  by  rain water to the lower levels  has  affected  the villages  as also the agricultural lands located  below  the hills.  The  naturally  formed streams  have  been  blocked. Blasting  has  disturbed the natural quiet, has  shaken  the soil, loosened the rocky structures and disturbed the entire ecology  of the area. For removing the  limestones  quarried from  the mines, roads have been laid and for  that  purpose the hills have been interfered with; traffic hazard for  the local population--both animals and men--has increased.     The  limestone  quarries in this area are  estimated  to satisfy  roughly three per cent of the country’s demand  for such  raw material and we were told during the heating  that the  Tata Iron and Steel Company is the largest consumer  of this limestone for manufacturer of a special kind of  steel. At  the present rate of mining, the deposits are  likely  to last  some  50  years.  It is for  the  Government  and  the Nation-and not for the Court--to decide whether the deposits should be exploited as the cost of ecology and environmental considerations  or  the  industrial  requirement  should  be otherwise satisfied. It may be perhaps possible to  exercise greater  control and vigil over the operation and  strike  a balance  between  preservation and  utilisation  that  would indeed be a matter for an expert body to examine and on  the basis of appropriate advice, Government should take a policy decision and firmly implement the same.     Governments--both  at the Centre and in the  State--must realize  and  remain cognizant of the fact  that  the  stake involved  in the matter is large and far-reaching. The  evil consequences  would last long. Once that unwanted  situation sets in, amends or repairs would not be possible. The green- ery of India, as some doubt, may perish and the Thar  desert may expand its limits.     Consciousness for environmental protection is of  recent origin.  The United Nations Conference on World  Environment held  in  Stockholm in June 1972 and  the  follow-up  action thereafter  is  spreading the awareness. Over  thousands  of years  men had been successfully exploiting  the  ecological system for his sustenance but with the growth of  population the demand for land has increased and forest growth has been and  is being cut down and man has started encroaching  upon

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

Nature and its assets. Scientific developments have made  it possible and convenient for man to approach the places which were  hitherto  beyond  his ken. The  consequences  of  such interference  with ecology and environment have now came  to be realised. It is necessary that the 653 Himalayas and the forest growth on the mountain range should be  left uninterfered with so that there may  be  sufficient quantity  of  rain. The top soil may  be  preserved  without being eroded and the natural setting of the area may  remain intact.  We  had  commended earlier to the  State  of  Uttar Pradesh  as  also to the Union of India  that  afforestation activity  may  be carried out in the whole  valley  and  the hills. We have been told that such activity has been  under- taken.  We  are not oblivious of the fact that  natural  re- sources  have  got to be tapped for the purposes  of  social development  but  one cannot forget at the  same  time  that tapping  of resources have to be done with requisite  atten- tion  and  care so that ecology and environment may  not  be affected in any serious’ way; there may not be any depletion of water resources and long-term planning must be undertaken to  keep up the national wealth. It has always to be  remem- bered that these are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation.     We  must place on record our appreciation of  the  steps taken  by the Rural Litigation and Entitlement  Kendra.  But for  this move, all that has happened perhaps may  not  have come.  Preservation of the environment and keeping the  eco- logical balance unaffected is a task which not only  Govern- ments but also every citizen must undertake. It is a  social obligation and let us remind every Indian citizen that it is his fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 51 A(g) of  the Constitution.     We are of the view that the Kendra should be entitled to the  costs  of this proceeding. We assess the  same  at  Rs. 10.000 and direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay the same either directly or through Court within one month. A.P.J. 654