# M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2004] 3 S.C.R. 126
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2004-03-18
- **Bench:** Y.K. Sabharwal, H.K. Sema
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-c-mehta-v-union-of-india-and-ors-19839
- **Pages:** 87

## Headnote

Environmental Laws:
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986/Air (Prevention and Control of
C Pollution) Act, 1974/Water (Prevention and Control of Poilution) Act, 19741
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980/Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21:
D
Writ petition for stopping mining activity in the vicinity of Delhi-Haryana
border on ground of environmental degradation-Issuance of directions by
the Supreme Court to Expert Environment Agencies/Institutions to suggest
ways and means for preventing and controlling pollution in the sensitive
ecological region of the border area-Compliance thereto by the authorities
concerned to control mining operations in the area to the extent it adversely
affects local habitants in general and environment in particular-Authorities
concerned issuing notifications/taking remedial measures-On consideration/
E examination of reports/recommendations/notifications and reports of action
taken by the authorities, petitions disposed of the with directions.
F
Forest Policy-Mining and industrial development-Held: Permission
for mining activity should not be granted without appraisal of proper Mine
Management Plan from the environmental angle and enforcing it strictly.
Forest Land-Mining activity-Grant of-Held: It should be examined
in the light of princ~nle of sustainable development and can be permitted to
·(
continue so long as environment is not affected adversely-However, it should
not be allowed on the forest land ear-marked for afforestation/plantation from
G foreign jimds.
H
Mining Plan-Approval of-Permission-Held: Approval of the mining
plan does not signifo. approval of mining activity ipso facto-The lease-holders
have to comply with the statutory requirements for the protection of environment
and control of pollution before starting any such activity.
126
l
·,
M.C. MEHTA v.U.O.l.
127
Mining Activity-Gr1111t of per111issio11-Conditions-Held: Right to live A
includes right of enjoyment of"pollution fi"ee air and water-Mining operations
impairs ecological and natural resources-Utmost good faith and honesty on
the part of the /ease-holders are pre-requisite for preventing and considering
environmental degradation-They should disclose the probable effect of the
activity in polluting the environment to the authorities concerned before seeking B
permission to carry on the same.
Ground w11ter resources-Preservation of-Held: Water shed
management/rain water harvesting/other methods of conservation of water
resources and provisions thereto should be made-Funds should be created
for eco-restoration in the region-Continuous inspection should be carried C
out to ensure compliance with the requirements for sustainable development--
If due to mining activity water level 1~~ toucheq, it should be stopped and
Monitoring Committee has to carve out the area.
Notifications:
Notification dated May 7, 1992-Effect of-No mining activity could be
permitted in the area under plantation in Aravalli project in order to protect
-,.!
the ecology of the Aravalli region.
D
Notification dated January 27, 1994-Scope of-Held: No mining
operation could be commenced/renewed without Environment Impact E
Assessment having been done and clearance obtained from the Central
Government.
Notification dated November 29, 1999-Scope of-Held: It stipulates
preparation of master plan integrating the environmental concerns andfuture
land use-It has to be modified so as to indicate proposed restoration to F
compensate in lieu of environmental degradation and also to indicate
restoration programmes.
Role of Regulatory Authorities:
Role of State Pollution Control Board/Ministry of Environment and G
Forest/Forest Department-Held: They should undertake regular monitoring
of the mining activity to check and assess an ambient air and water quality
and other environmental protection measures-MOEF should monitor the ecorestoration efforts and to render technological supports thereto-Monitor
implementation of recommendations by the expert institutions-Arouse publi

## Text

_Characters 0–39,909 of 193,407. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39909 for what follows._

A
M.C. MEHTA
V.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
MARCH 18, 2004
B
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]
Environmental Laws:
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986/Air (Prevention and Control of
C Pollution) Act, 1974/Water (Prevention and Control of Poilution) Act, 19741
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980/Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21:
D
Writ petition for stopping mining activity in the vicinity of Delhi-Haryana
border on ground of environmental degradation-Issuance of directions by
the Supreme Court to Expert Environment Agencies/Institutions to suggest
ways and means for preventing and controlling pollution in the sensitive
ecological region of the border area-Compliance thereto by the authorities
concerned to control mining operations in the area to the extent it adversely
affects local habitants in general and environment in particular-Authorities
concerned issuing notifications/taking remedial measures-On consideration/
E examination of reports/recommendations/notifications and reports of action
taken by the authorities, petitions disposed of the with directions.
F
Forest Policy-Mining and industrial development-Held: Permission
for mining activity should not be granted without appraisal of proper Mine
Management Plan from the environmental angle and enforcing it strictly.
Forest Land-Mining activity-Grant of-Held: It should be examined
in the light of princ~nle of sustainable development and can be permitted to
·(
continue so long as environment is not affected adversely-However, it should
not be allowed on the forest land ear-marked for afforestation/plantation from
G foreign jimds.
H
Mining Plan-Approval of-Permission-Held: Approval of the mining
plan does not signifo. approval of mining activity ipso facto-The lease-holders
have to comply with the statutory requirements for the protection of environment
and control of pollution before starting any such activity.
126
l
·,
M.C. MEHTA v.U.O.l.
127
Mining Activity-Gr1111t of per111issio11-Conditions-Held: Right to live A
includes right of enjoyment of"pollution fi"ee air and water-Mining operations
impairs ecological and natural resources-Utmost good faith and honesty on
the part of the /ease-holders are pre-requisite for preventing and considering
environmental degradation-They should disclose the probable effect of the
activity in polluting the environment to the authorities concerned before seeking B
permission to carry on the same.
Ground w11ter resources-Preservation of-Held: Water shed
management/rain water harvesting/other methods of conservation of water
resources and provisions thereto should be made-Funds should be created
for eco-restoration in the region-Continuous inspection should be carried C
out to ensure compliance with the requirements for sustainable development--
If due to mining activity water level 1~~ toucheq, it should be stopped and
Monitoring Committee has to carve out the area.
Notifications:
Notification dated May 7, 1992-Effect of-No mining activity could be
permitted in the area under plantation in Aravalli project in order to protect
-,.!
the ecology of the Aravalli region.
D
Notification dated January 27, 1994-Scope of-Held: No mining
operation could be commenced/renewed without Environment Impact E
Assessment having been done and clearance obtained from the Central
Government.
Notification dated November 29, 1999-Scope of-Held: It stipulates
preparation of master plan integrating the environmental concerns andfuture
land use-It has to be modified so as to indicate proposed restoration to F
compensate in lieu of environmental degradation and also to indicate
restoration programmes.
Role of Regulatory Authorities:
Role of State Pollution Control Board/Ministry of Environment and G
Forest/Forest Department-Held: They should undertake regular monitoring
of the mining activity to check and assess an ambient air and water quality
and other environmental protection measures-MOEF should monitor the ecorestoration efforts and to render technological supports thereto-Monitor
implementation of recommendations by the expert institutions-Arouse public H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004] 3 S.C.R.
A awareness-Monitoring Committee constituted to undertake the assigned taskGrant of renewal of mining lease should be effected only after ensuring
compliance of the norms, public standard and safeguards-Act of negligence/
connivance on the part of the authority should be viewed seriously and principle
of accountability should be followed-Forest Department could carry out
afforestation on behalf of the mine-operators-The directions should also be
B followed in respect of mining activity in Faridabad district in public interest.
Ruleslprovisio11s-Jnadequacy of-Held: Rules need to be made for
levying charges for dump removal/ecological restoration-Appropriate
technology need to be used for mining operations/mining land use and mining
C decomposing.
Disputes relating to non-payment of royalty-Held: May be adjudicated
by the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
The petitions on environmental degradation due to mining activity
D were considered by the Supreme Court earlier, and it directed the Haryana
State Pollution Control Board vide its order dated 20th November, 1995
to inspect and ascertain the impact of mining operations on the Batkal
Lake and Suraj Kund, which are ecologically sensitive areas. The Board
recommended that the Environmental Management Programme (EMP)
should be prepared by Mine Lease Holders and become operative only
E after obtaining approval from the State Pollution Control Department/
Board. It also recommended stoppage of mining activities within the radius
of 5 Kms. from the specified area. The State Government had stopped
mining operations in the prescribed areas. The mine-operators/lease
holders raised objections and the matter was again considered by the
F Supreme Court, and the Court vide its order dated April 12, l 996 sought
expert opinion from National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI) on the point whether the mining operations in the said
area are required to be stopped in the interest of environmental protection,
pollution control and tourist development. On consideration of the Reports
submitted by NEERI, this Court came to the findings, that the mining
G activities in the vicinity of tourist resorts casting serious impact on the
local ecology; that in order to preserve environment and control pollution
within the vicinity of the tourist resorts, it was necessary to stop mining
activities within 2 Km. radius of these resorts; that Haryana Pollution
Control Board to enforce all the recommendations as contained in Para
H 6.1 of the Report; that failing to comply with the recommendations made
rr_--•
-\
M.C. MEHTA v.L:.0.1.
129
would result in the closure of the mining operations; and that the renewal A
of permission for mining activity shall not be granted without obtaining
prior No Objection Certificate from the authorities concerned.
In the meanwhile, an Interim Application has been filed by the Delhi
Ridge Management Board for direction to stop mining activities and
pumping of water to protect the Asola Bhatti Wild Life Sanctuary and B
the ridge in the interest of maintaining ecological balance in the area. This
Court directed the Government of Haryana to stop all mining activities
and pumping of ground water in and around the specified area. The matter
was considered further by this Court and vide its order dated 22nd July,
2002, it directed the Environmental Pollution Central Authority (EPCA) C
to give a report in regard to environmental pollution in the area after
making a personal visit without any advance notice. EPCA visited the sites
where alleged mining activities were going on and submitted a detailed
report. When the report came up for consideration, some of the
leaseholders complained that their mines had not been inspected by the
Committee. The Court directed the Committee to carry out the inspection D
of these mines as well. The Committee visited these mines and submitted
another report.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India,
issued a Notification dated May 7, 1992 issued under Section 3(2), Clause
(5) of the Environment Protection Act r/w Rule 5 of the Rules having E
bearing on the aspect of mining in the Aravalli Hills whereby all new
mining operations including renewal of mining lease have been prohibited.
The Notification also sets out procedure for taking prior permission before
undertaking any mining activity in the specified area. The powers vested
in the Central Government by virtue of the said notification were delegated F
to the State Government by issuing notification dated November 29, 1999
by the Central Government. Subsequently, the power delegated to State
Government has been withdrawn by the Central Government in terms of
notification dated 28th February, 2003. The Central Government issued
another notification on January 27, 1994, which stipulated that expansion
or modernization of any activity (if the pollution load exceeded the existing G
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 Centra I Government. Though the notification made
Environment Impact Assessment mandatory but the Ministry of
Environment and Forests did not carry out such assessment in respect of H
130
SllPREMF COURT REPORTS
[20041 3 S.C.R.
A any of the mining lease in the area. However, the lease holders had applied
for Environment Impact Assessment in terms of this Court's order dated
6'" May, 2002.
The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted by the
Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests for the
B purpose of monitoring and ensuring compliance of the orders of this Court
on the subject matter of forests and Wild life and ancillary issues. Since
then the Committee has submitted three reports for consideration by the
Court. Further, this Court vide its order dated 31st October, 2002 has
directed that no mining activity could be carried out without remedial
C measures taking place and for this purpose it is necessary that environment
impact assessment is done before any mining activity could be permitted.
The main question which arose in these writ petitions is as to whether
the mining activity in an area up to 5 Kms. from the Delhi-Haryana Border
on the Haryana side of the ridge and al~o in the Aravalli hills caused
D environmental degradation. Other aspects to be examined includes as to
whether the compliance of the conditions imposed by the Pollution Boards
while granting No Objection Certificate for mining as also compliance of
I
'
various statutory provisions and notifications and obtaining of the
'..(
E
necessary clearances and permission from the concerned authorities before
starting the mining activity.
It was contended by the lease-holders that the order dated 6th May,
2002, passed by this Court should not be given effect to; that the National
Forest Policy itself c?ntem plates for mining operations in forest area; and
that pollution, if any, as generated due to mining activities did not traverse
F beyond the distance of I Km. and therefore stoppage of mining operations
upto a distance of 5 Kms. was wholly unjustified.
State of Delhi, one of the respondents, submitted that the mining
activities in the specified areas should be stopped in compliance with this
Court's order dated 6th May, 2002; and that all the mining activities and
G the pumping of mining water in and around the area upto 5 Kms. from
Delhi-Haryana border should be prohibited.
Disposing of the Petitions, the C!mrt
HELD: 1.1. The natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be
H utilized if the utilization results in irreversible damage to environment.
-
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.l.
131
There has been accelerated degradation of environment primarily on A
account of lack of effective enforcement of environmental laws and noncompliance of the statutory norms. This Court has reiterated that right
to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it
includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full
enjoyment of life. [190-D, E]
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bthar, AIR (1991) SC 420; MC. Mehta v.
Union of India, ll 987] 4 SCC 463; Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of
India and Ors., 12000] 10 SCC 664 and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof
M V Nayuder (Retd) and Ors., [19991 2 SCC 718, referred to. 1.2.
1.2. Mining operation is hazardous in nature. It impairs ecology and
people's right to 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. The fullest disclosures including
B
c
the potential for increased burdens on the environment consequent upon
possible increase in the quantum and degree of pollution, has to be made D
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. 1191-D, E, F)
1.3. The Regulatory Authorities have to act with utmost care in
ensuring compliance of safeguards, norms and standards to .be observed E
by the entrepreneurs. They must act in the manner enjoined upon them.
Where these authorities, either connive or act negligently by not taking
prompt action to prevent, avoid o~ 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.
F
[191-F, G, HJ
1.4. If without degrading the environment or minimising adverse
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 but balance G
has to be struck. 1192-A, BJ
TN Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors., [1997) 2
sec 267, referred to.
2.1. The grant of mining lease is governed by the Mines and Minerals H
132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
12004] 3 S.C.R.
A (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 which was enacted to provide
for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the
control of the Union oflndia. Section 18 of the Act 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
B 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. A tentative scheme of mining and annual programme and
plan for excavation from year to year for five years is required to be
incorporated in the mining plan. It cannot be presumed that by approving
C Mining Plan and Scheme by Ministry of Mines, Central Government is
deemed to have approved mining and that it could be commenced
forthwith on such approval. A mining lease holder is also required to
comply with other statutory provisions of Environment (Protection) Act,
1986; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Forest (Conservation)
D 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 in the Acts. 1192-G; 193-B; G; 194-B-D]
2.2. The lessee is required to take steps so that the overburden, waste
E 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, it shall be back-filled into the mines excavation with a view to
F 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
terraced and stabilized through vegetation or otherwise. The phased
restoration, reclamation and rehabilitation of lands affected by mining
operation should be undertaken and it should be completed before the
G 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 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
H the permissible limit. The mining operations shall be carried out in such
·.,.i
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1.
133
a manner so as to cause least damage to the flora of the area and nearby A
areas. Every holder of mining lease shall take immediate measures for
planting in the same area or any other area 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. These measures B
should be strictly complied with for the protecti.,n o! environment and
control of pollution. (194-F, G, H; 195-A-D]
3.1. The basic objectives of the National Forest policy are
maintenance of environment stability through preservation and, where
necessary, restoration of the ecological balance that has been adversely C
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. 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 D
industrial development should be consistent with the needs for
conservation of trees in forest. It provides that no mining lease should be
granted to any party, private or public, without a proper Mine
Management Plan appraised from the environmental angle and strktly
enforced. (195-F, G, H; 196-C, D]
E
3.2. The mining operations on forest land could be continued so long
as it is possible to undertake it on the sustainable development principles
and after obtaining due approvals under ".arious statutory provisions
including Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. However, the
commencement and continuation of mining over the areas on which crores p
of foreign funds have been spent for afforestation and plantation should
not be allowed. (196-F]
4.1. The Notification dated 7th May, 1992 was passed with a view
to strictly implement the measures to protect the ecology of the Aravalli
range. Hence, any mining activity on the area under plantation under G
Aravalli project should not be permitted. The grant of leases for mining
operation over such an area would be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and
illogical. (198-B, q
4.2. Provisions have been made in the notification dated 29th
November, 1999, for preparation of a master plan integrating the H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004] 3 S.C.R.
A environmental concerns and the future land use of the area, but the master
plan prepared so does not 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
quality of air within safe limits. Though guidelines of operation in an ecoB friendly manner have been issued by the State Government but its
compliance was only partial. There exists no 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
C for void filling and for other purposes. There is lack of adequate awareness
among the people in respect of the environmental problems. 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 bave been recommended by CMPDI for the eco restoration in the
D Aravalli Range in Gurgaon district. 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 of ecological
restoration of Aravalli Hills in the district. The master plan should indicate
the proposed eco-restoration plan to compensate the environmental
E degradation by the proposed activities in the master plan. Rehabilitation
programmes for the abandoned mines areas should include conversion of
these either to water reservoirs and eco-parks or its reclamation by filling
with rural waste, urban waste or fly ash. The planning should also include
environmental impact and concerns of activities of one sector on the other
sectors in the district. [199-A-H; 200-A)
F
4.3. All efforts should be made to preserve the ground water
resources. Water shed management and rainwater harvesting have to be
implemented in the Aravalli hills region on war footing. In the areas where
mining deeper than the ground water table of the area has to be carried
G 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 line with the requirement
for sustainable development. 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 ecoH restoration of the Aravalli hills. Where during mining activities water level
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1.
135
is touched, the Monitoring Committee shall carve out that area and that A
the leaseholders would co-operate and not to undertake any mining in such
area. [200-A-C; 209-AI
4.4. The State Pollution Control Board shall undertake regular
monitoring to check compliance and to assess the ambient air quality,
water quality and other environmental protectior. mt~sures. The Ministry B
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 C
should be displayed on the internet to arouse awareness in public and for
further usage. Stringent action should be taken for water conservation.
Forest Department may even carry out afforestation on behalf of mine
operators. Expenses should, however, be borne by the mine operators. The
mine lessee should implement the environmental management plan and
mining plan approved by the concerned authority. In future, efforts in D
., 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. 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 E
should, therefore, be planned in a coherent manner and there should be
integrated approach for sustainable development. [200-C-HJ
4.5. The short term and long term action plan for the restoration
of environmental quality of the area should be prepared separately. The
action plan should be prepared in such a way that it could be a guiding p
tool 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. 1201-EJ
5. There is need of enactment of rules for grant of mine leases to
levy a separate charge for dump removal, ecological restoration in the G
area, the technology to be used for mining operations and post mining land
use and mine decommissioning. From the point of view of environmental
protection in the Aravalli hills, planning and provisions must start from
the stage of grant of mine lease. Though the environmental upgradation
measures need to be taken more seriously by the mine and other industrial H
136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004] 3 S.C.R.
A 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. {202-E-F; 203-A-B]
6. The notification dated January 27,.1994 mandates that the mining
operation shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless
B environmental clearance by the Central Government has been accorded.
However, in none of the leases, requirements of the notification was
complied with either at the stage of initial grant of the mining lease or at
the stage of renewal. No mining operation can commence without obtaining
environmental impact assessment in terms of the notification. No doubt,
C the notification is prospective in effect but the question is whether it would
be applicable to the cases of renewal that comes up for consideration after
the issue of the notification. It cannot be said that the notification would
not apply to the cases for renewal of the leases. Though the notification is
not applicable to minor minerals, but having regard to degradation of
environment and the required standard about the risk of harm to the
D environment or to human health to be decided in public interest according
to 'reasonable person's test' and the report of Central Mine Planning &
Design Institute Limited, the Monitoring Committee is directed to examine
..,.
the leases being granted for extraction of minor mineral in light thereof
'-<.
E
and file its report. (204-F; 206-G-H; 207-A; 209-E-Fj
Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of India and Ors., [2000] IO SCC
644, Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [1987] I SCC 213
and Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., [1989[ Supp.
I SCC 504, referred to.
F
7. Mining activity within forest area cannot be permitted in
contravention of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The Act
makes the contravention of any of the provisions of Section 2 of the Act
as an offence punishable in the manner as provided in the Act. The State
Government cannot be permitted to take a compete summersault in these
proceedings and contend that the earlier stand in regard to certain area
G under the lease was covered under notification issued under Section 4 and/
or 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act and treating the said area as
forest and now stating that it was so stated under some erroneous
impressions. These areas shall be treated as forest area and for its use for
non-forestry purpose, it would be necessary to comply with the provisions
H of the FC Act. [207-C; 208-E, F, G]
.,
,
)
M.C. MEHTAv. U.0.1.
137
TN. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors., 119971 2 A
SCC 267 and Environmental Awareness Forum v. State of Jammu and
Kashmir and Ors., referred to.
8. Though the study conducted by CMPDI relates to mining activity
in Aravalli Hills in Gurgaon district, but in public interest, the general
safeguards and suggestions as given in the report should be implemented B
in respect of mining in Faridabad district also. Accordingly, the
Monitoring Committee shall inspect the leases in question in Faridabad
District as well in the light of these recommendations by NEER!, EPCA,
CEC and CMPDI and file its report containing suggestions on
recommencement or otherwise of the mining activity therein. If, despite C
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. However, 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 (NEER!, D
EPCA anci CEq. This question would be considered on individual basis
after ~eceipt of report -0f the Monitoring Committee. 1209-G-H; 210.A-B-CI
9. The application for environment irnput assessme::! fi!ed by the
lessee in terms of notification dated 27'" January, 1994 have to be
considered by the Ministry of Environment and Forest The adverse effect,
;; .::ry,-a!ttl 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. [210-El
E
10. The dispute as to non-payment of royalty to villagers cannot F
be properly adjudicated in these proceedings. Hence, it could be
adjudicated before appropriate forum in accordance with law. (209-CI
I 1. 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 G
contained in the reports, it is necessary to constitute a Monitoring
Committee comprising of the heads of certain Boards/departments and
also representatives of the public. 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 H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004] 3 S.C.R.
A mines in question and file a report within a period of three months.
(210-F, G, H; 211-A-EI
B
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
NO. 1785 OF 200 I
IN
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 22 AND
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4677 OF I 985
C
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India )
WITH
I.A. Nos. 1806, 1815, 1817-18, 1819, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1794
and 1795 In I.A. No. 1785 In W.P. (C) Nos. 4677/85, 410/2002, I.A. Nos.
I 832. 1835-36, 1838 and 1839-40 In I.A. No. I 785 in I.A. No. 22 in W.P.
D (C) Nos. 4677/85, 661, 428, 624/2002 and C.P. (C) No. 568/2002 in W.P.
(C) No. 428 of 2002
E
Mukul R.ohtagi. Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, Ranjit
Kumar, Kailash Vasdev, Dr. RajeP.v Dhavan, M.C. Mehta-in-person, Naresh
Kaushik, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Abn1snek Maratham, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik,
S.C. Gupta, K.C. Kaushik, D.S. Mahra, K.K. Lahiri, Ejaz Maqbool, Gou~·
Kejftwa!, Nt1eraj Kumar Jain for Ms. Kavita Wadia, T.A. Khan, P.
Parmeswaran, K.B. Rohtagi, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Mahesh Kasana,
Mrs.Nanita Sharma. Vivek Sharma, Abhishek Atrey, Mrs. Vanita Bhargavn,
Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Bina Gupta, Mrs. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, D.N.
f
Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Mrs. Sheil Sethi, Sanjay
Sarin, AshuK. Malffiu:,. Dhruv Mehta, Mohit Choudhary, Ms. Shalitni Gupta,
S.U.K. Sagar, Ms.Bina Madhdvan, Prasanth P., R.C. Verma, Mukesh Verma,
Manish Shanker, S.K. Dubey, A.K. Yadav, K..V. Mohan, Mohan Pandey.
R.S. Suri, Vijay Panjwani, Mrs. Indra Sawheny, Bharat Sangal, C.D. Singh,
V.B. Saharya, Mahabir Singh, Shiva Pujan Singh, J.P. Dhanda, S.K. Sabharwal,
G Neeraj Kumar Sharma and A.D.N. Rao for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
H Delhi-Haryana border on the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli
..
•.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. .I.]
\39
hills causes environment degradation and what directions are required to be A
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 B
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 C
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 D
and must be implemented strictly by the implementing authorities. The report
recommended stoppage of mining activities within a radius of 5 krrls. from
Badkal Lake and Surajkund (tourist place). The Haryana Government, on the
basis of the recommendations made in the report, stopped mining operations
within 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.
E
NEERI Report and eariier directions
By order dated April 12, 1996, the Court sought the expert opinion of
National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEER!) on the point
whether the mining operations in the said area are to be stopped in the
interest of environmental protection, pollution control and tourisl)l development
and, if so, whether the limit should be 5 kms. or less. NEER! in its inspection
F
report dated 20th April, 1996, inter a/ia, recommended that:
G
"6.1 Mining. (I) 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 H
140
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004] 3 S.C.R.
in series, i.e. mining activities must be completed to fulr 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) ...
B
(IO) 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.
c
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
D
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
E
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
impac·. on the local ecology. The mining brings extensive alteration in the
F 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
G 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
H Surajkund. The Court further directed the Director, HPCB to enforce all the
-{
..,.
j
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O I. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. J.]
\41
recommendations of NEER! contained in para 6.1 of its report so far as the A
mining operations in the State of Haryana are concerned. Further, it was
directed that failing to comply with the recommendations may result in th.e
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 B
Control Board (CPCB). Unless both the Boards grant no objection certificate,
the mining leases in the said area shall not be renewed. MC. Mehta v. Union
of India and 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. 1785/0 I has been filed by the Delhi Ridge Management Board
praying that the Government of Haryana be directed to stop all mining activities
c
D
and pumping of ground water in and from area upto 5 kms from Delhi- E
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 F
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 G
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 H
{
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2004] 3 S.C.R.
A and also pumping of large quantity of ground water from.mining pits.