# RURAL LITIGATION,& ENTITLEMENT KENDRA v. STATE OF U.P

- **Citation:** [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 690
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1988-08-30
- **Bench:** Ranganath Misra, Murari Mohon Dutt
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rural-litigation-entitlement-kendra-v-state-of-u-p-10014
- **Pages:** 46

## Headnote

c
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Limestone quarriesDehradun Mussoorie belt-Public interest litigation against pollutionHigh Powered Committee to. be set up to look after re-afforestation,
mining activities and bring about natural normalcy in the Doon Valley.
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980: Limestone quarries in Doon
Valley-Continuance of mining activity-lmpermissibitity of.
Public Interest Litigation·: Procedural laws apply but every
technicality. in procedural laws not available in matters of grave public
D importance.
A letter-petition, and an application, containing allegations of
unauthorised and illegal mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt,
affecting adversely the ecology and envlronmental order of the area,
were directed to be registrered as writ petitions under public interest
IE
litigation. Apart from the Governments of the Union and of Uttar
Pradesh, several governmental agencies and mining lessees appeared in
the proceedings. A number of committees and working groups were set
up both by the Court and the Central Government to look into the
various aspects of the problem, their reports received and several comprehensive interlocutory directions issued.
F
One of the Committees, referred to as the Bhargava Committee,
classified the mines into three groups, being A, B, C. On the basis of the
recommendations of the Bhargava Committee" Report and other material, the Court directed, by its order dated-12th March, 1985, that C
category mines of the Bhargava Committee Report should be closed
G down permanently. Similar order was made in regard to B category
mines situated in the shasradhara block. The Court further directed A
category mines located within the Mussoorie municipal limits and the
remaining B category mines to submit their mining scheme for scrutiny
of the Bandyopadhyay Committee. The Court, however, allowed A
category mines located outside the city limits to operate.
H
690
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P.
69!
Some of the mlnes which were ordered to be closed down had
A
earlier been refused renewal of their mlning licences. These mines,
however, continued to operate under the orders of various courts which
had granted extensio.n of their leases pending the final. orders of the
courts. This Court, in its order dated 12th March, 1985 had therefore,
directed that if any mining lessee of a mine, which had been ordered to
be closed down, was running under the first grant or under Court's B,
orders after its expiry, it would not be entitled to take advantage of that
position.
In its order dated 16th December, 1986 this Court recognised the
need to strike a balance between preservation and utilisation of de·
posits, and urged the Government to take a policy decision in the mat·
C
ter. The Government thereupon set up another committee to examine
the working of the limestone mining operations in the Doon valley. This
Committee inspected six mines which were operating. Three of these
mines were operating under valid mining leases and the other three,
whose leases had expired in December 1982, were operating under or·
ders of different courts.
D
Keeping in view the reports of the committee and the submissions
at the Bar, the Court passed further orders.
On behalf of the lessees it was contended: ( 1) decision of this
Court dated 12th March, 1985 was final in certain aspects including the
E
release of the A category mines outside the city limits from ihe proceed·
ings, and in view of such finality it is not open to this Court in the same
proceedings at a later stage to direct differently in regard to what has
been decided earlier; (2) during the pendency of these writ petitions,
the Environment Protection Act of 1986 has come into force and since
that Statute and the Rules made thereunder provide detailed procedure
F
to deal with the situations that arise ii) these cases, this Could should no
more deal with the matter and leave it to be looked into by the au•
thorities under the Act, and (3) there would be a tota

## Text

_Characters 0–39,621 of 108,075. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39621 for what follows._

A
RURAL LITIGATION,& ENTITLEMENT KENDRA
v.
STATE OF U.P.
AUGUST 30, 1988
B
[RANGANATH MISRA AND.MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.]
c
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Limestone quarriesDehradun Mussoorie belt-Public interest litigation against pollutionHigh Powered Committee to. be set up to look after re-afforestation,
mining activities and bring about natural normalcy in the Doon Valley.
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980: Limestone quarries in Doon
Valley-Continuance of mining activity-lmpermissibitity of.
Public Interest Litigation·: Procedural laws apply but every
technicality. in procedural laws not available in matters of grave public
D importance.
A letter-petition, and an application, containing allegations of
unauthorised and illegal mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt,
affecting adversely the ecology and envlronmental order of the area,
were directed to be registrered as writ petitions under public interest
IE
litigation. Apart from the Governments of the Union and of Uttar
Pradesh, several governmental agencies and mining lessees appeared in
the proceedings. A number of committees and working groups were set
up both by the Court and the Central Government to look into the
various aspects of the problem, their reports received and several comprehensive interlocutory directions issued.
F
One of the Committees, referred to as the Bhargava Committee,
classified the mines into three groups, being A, B, C. On the basis of the
recommendations of the Bhargava Committee" Report and other material, the Court directed, by its order dated-12th March, 1985, that C
category mines of the Bhargava Committee Report should be closed
G down permanently. Similar order was made in regard to B category
mines situated in the shasradhara block. The Court further directed A
category mines located within the Mussoorie municipal limits and the
remaining B category mines to submit their mining scheme for scrutiny
of the Bandyopadhyay Committee. The Court, however, allowed A
category mines located outside the city limits to operate.
H
690
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P.
69!
Some of the mlnes which were ordered to be closed down had
A
earlier been refused renewal of their mlning licences. These mines,
however, continued to operate under the orders of various courts which
had granted extensio.n of their leases pending the final. orders of the
courts. This Court, in its order dated 12th March, 1985 had therefore,
directed that if any mining lessee of a mine, which had been ordered to
be closed down, was running under the first grant or under Court's B,
orders after its expiry, it would not be entitled to take advantage of that
position.
In its order dated 16th December, 1986 this Court recognised the
need to strike a balance between preservation and utilisation of de·
posits, and urged the Government to take a policy decision in the mat·
C
ter. The Government thereupon set up another committee to examine
the working of the limestone mining operations in the Doon valley. This
Committee inspected six mines which were operating. Three of these
mines were operating under valid mining leases and the other three,
whose leases had expired in December 1982, were operating under or·
ders of different courts.
D
Keeping in view the reports of the committee and the submissions
at the Bar, the Court passed further orders.
On behalf of the lessees it was contended: ( 1) decision of this
Court dated 12th March, 1985 was final in certain aspects including the
E
release of the A category mines outside the city limits from ihe proceed·
ings, and in view of such finality it is not open to this Court in the same
proceedings at a later stage to direct differently in regard to what has
been decided earlier; (2) during the pendency of these writ petitions,
the Environment Protection Act of 1986 has come into force and since
that Statute and the Rules made thereunder provide detailed procedure
F
to deal with the situations that arise ii) these cases, this Could should no
more deal with the matter and leave it to be looked into by the au•
thorities under the Act, and (3) there would be a total stalemate in the
manufacture of drugs and sugar, as also steel, in case mining activity is
stopped.
G
Disposing of the writ petition, this Court,
HELD: (1) "Forest" was initially a State subject covered by En·
try 19 in List II of the Seventh Schedule. In 1976, under the 42nd ~mend·
ment the Entry was deleted and Entry 17'A in the concurrent List was
inserted. The change from the State List to-the Concurrent List was
H
A
.B
c
D
1!
F
G
692
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
brought about· following the realisation of the Central Government that
'forests' were of national importance and should be placed in the Concurrent List to enable the Central Governmentto deal with the matter.
The same amendment of the Constitution brought in Article 48-A and
Article 51A(g) in Part IVA. [713H; 7I4A-B]
(2) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 does not permit mining
in the forest area. If mining activity even to a limited extent is permitted
in future, it would be not congenial to ecology and environment, and the
natural calm and peace which is a special feature of this area in its
normal condition shall not be restored. This tourist zone in its m1tural
setting· would certainly be at its best if its serenity is restored in the
fullest way. [710E-F]
(3) By the Court's order of 12th March, 1985, the A category
mining leases outside the city limits were only exempted from further
scrutiny and not released from the proceedings. If the court really
intended to release the A category mines outside the city limits, it could
very well pronounce that in clear terms. l706E-HJ
( 4) The examination by this Court when it made the order of
12th March, 1985, omitted to considerthe impact of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which was then a statu'te in force. If the provision of
the Conservation Act had been noticed and impact thereof for the continuance of mining activity had been considered, perhaps the Court
would have made no exemptions and no mining may have been
permitted, l 706G]
( 5) The writ petitions are not inter-party disputes and have been
raised by way of public interest litigation, and the controve1'Sy before
the Court is as to whether for safety and for creating a hazardless
environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be
permitted or stopped. The Court may not be taken to have said that for
public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same
time, it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural
law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the Court. Even if it is said that there
was a final order, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult to
entertain the plea of res judicata. Leaving the question open for examination in future would lead to unnecessary multipiicity of proceedings
and would be against the interest of~ociety. [707B-D]
H
( 6) These writ petitions were filed more than three years before
J
I
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P.
693
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 came into force. This Court
A
appointed several expert commitees, received their reports and made
directions. The several parties and their counsel have been heard for
days together on different issues during the three and a quarter years of
the pendency of the proceedings. The Environment (Protection) Act
does not purport to-and perhaps could not-take away the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with a case of this type. In consideration of B
these facts,. there is no justification to decline the exercise of jurisdiction
at this stage. [ 707E-G I
(7) Ordinarily, the Court would not entertain a dispute for the
adjudication of which a special provision has been made by law bot that
rule is not attracted· in the present situation in these cases .. Besides it is a C
rule of practice and prudence and not one of jurisdiction. [707H]
(8) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies to renewals as
well and even if there was a provision for renewal in the lease agreement
on exercise of lessee's option, the requiremen.ts of 1980 Act had to be
satisfied.before suc.h renewal·could be granted. [7l7G-H]
D
Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1987] l SCC
2l3;State of Rajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajindra Pal, [1965] 3 SCR 402·
and State of Biharv. Banshi Ram Modi, [1985] 3 sec 643, referred to.
(9) It is ~ear from the directions contained iii the order of 12th
March, 1985, as also the ratio of the judgment in the Ambica Quarry
Works case, that even if there has been an order of the Court and no
challenge is raised against such order, this Court could invoke its
jurisdiction to nullify the direction or order, and if any order, direction
or decree has been passed ignoring the provisions of the Conservation
Act of 1980 the same would not be binding. [7l8B-C]
(10) Parties have been heard on various aspects. An order made
by this Court to nullify the decrees in such· circumstances would not be
violative of the principles of natural justice. [7l8F]
(ll) lf any decree or order bas already been obtained from any
court relating to renewal of these leases, the same· shall stand vacated,
and similarly any appeal or other proceeding taken to obtain a renewal
or against ordersidecrees granting renewal shall also become nones!. [718G-HJ
E
F
G
(12) Most of. these mines are either within reserved forests or in.
forest lands, as covered by the U .P. Amendment of ~he Forest Act. To
H
694
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A
these areas the Forest Conservation Act applies and to allow mining in
these areas even under strictest control as a permanent feature would
not only be violative of the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act but
would be detrimental to restoration of the forest growth in a natural
way in this area. Once the importance of forests is realised aud as a
matter of national policy and in the interests of tbe community,
preservation of forests is accepted as the goal, nothing which would
detract from that end should be permitted. In such circumstances,
mining activity in this valley must be completely stopped. But such a
situation will be available only after the original leases of the working
mines are over. [726G-H; 727 A]
B
C
(13) The court accepts the position that manufacture of drugs and
sugar, .as also steel, \Vould be hard.hit if mining activity in this area is
stopped all of a sudden. With the ·pressing demand in the market and
discovery of useful limestone deposits in other parts of the country,
apart from what has been indicated in the second affidavit of the Union
of India, the trade would adjust itself as every economic activity does.
D However, the position should be monitored and the switch-over from
the present position to a total ban should be spread over a period and
not be sudden. [7270-E]
(14) In the circumstances, allowing the three on-going mines to
operate for their initial period of lease is the most appropriate direction
E that can be given during the switch over from the present position to
one of complete closing down of mining operation. [730G-H]
(15) There is no dispute that continuance of mining operations
effects environment and ecology adversely and at the same time creates
a prejudicial situation against conservation of forests. It is, therefore,
F
necessary that each of these working mines shall have to work with an
undertaking given to the Monitoring Committee that all care and atteit·
lion shall be bestowed to preserve ecological and environmental balance
while carrying on mining operations. [7310-E]
(16) The Court ordered the setting up of the Monitoring CommitG
tee to look after reafforestation, mining activities and all other aspects
necessary to bring about natural normalcy in the Doon Valley. The
Court also issued directions regarding the finances, powers and duties
of the Monitoring Committee. t7.i3E]
( 17) The Court has no other option hut to close down the mining
H
activity in the broad Interests of the community. This, however, does
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, l.I
695
not mean that the displaced mine owners should not be provided with A
alternative occupation. Pious observation or even a direction in that
regard may not be adequate. What is necessary is a time frame functioning if rehabilitatiou is to be made effective. It is, therefore, neces•
sary that a Committee should be set up to oversee the rehabilitation of
the displaced mine owners. {732B·Ci
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: \\frit Petiiion (Civil) Nos. 8209
and 8821 of 1983.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
B
M.K. Banerjee, Solicitor General, M.K. Ramalllurthy, A.K.
C
Ganguli, A.K. Sen, R.K; Jain, Kapil Sibbal, B.D. Agarwal, O.P.
Rana, F.S. Nariman, Tapas Ray, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Rajendra
Sachhar, Yogeshwar Prasad, G.L. Sanghi, V.C. Mahajan, G.A.
Shah, M.A. Krishnamurthy, R.P. Srivastava, Ms. A. Sul:ihashini, Ravi
Prakash Gupta, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Badri Dass Sharma, Arunesh·
war Gupta, Inderbir Singh, Arnn Jaitley, Ms. Bina Gupta, Atuf D
Tewari, Raju Ramachandran, M.V. Goswami, S.K. Jain, E.C.
Agarwal, S. Atreya, Ravi P. Wadhwani, M.G. Ramachandran, Mrs.
Rachna Gupta, Dr. S.R. Srivastava, Pramod Dayal, Rishi Kesh,
R.B. Mehrotra, C.M. Nayar, Mrs. M. Katanjawala, S.A. Syed, P.P.
Juneja, P.K. Jain, K.N. Bhatt, D.N. Mishra, Ms. Indra Makwana, A.
Sobba Rao, Harjinder Singh, Parijat Sinha, C.P. Lal, Shri Narain.
E
S.K. Gupta, K.R. Nambiar, S.S. Khanduja, K.K. Jain, D.M.
Nargolkar, Devi Ditta Mal-In-person, A.K. Panda, Ranjit Kumar,
A.K. Shrivastava, A.K.. Jain, A.D. Sanger, Pramod Dayal, R.S.
Hedge, K.R. Nagaraja, P.K. Rao, M.N. Shroff, N.N. Keshwani,
R.N. Keshwani, Prashant Bhushan and Ms. Neeva Gupta Advocates
for the appearing parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. On Jilly 14, 1983, a letter received
from the R11ral Litigation and Entitlement Kendera, Dehradlin, bearing the date July 2, 1983, was directed to be registered as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and notice was ordered to the
State of Uttar Pradesh and the Collector of Dehradun. Allegations of
unauthorised and illegal mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt
which adversely affected the ecology of the area and led to environmental disorder were made. Later on another application with sim)lar
allegations was directed to be tagged with the earlier one. That is how
G
H
696
SUPREME CQURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A
these two writ petitions were both in the registry of this Court in a very
innocuous manner as public interest litigation. The number of parties
· inflated both under the orders of the Court and on application to be
added. Apart from the Governments of the Union and of Uttar
Pradesh, several governmental agencies and mining lessees appeared
in the proceedings. What initially appeared to be two simple applicaB
lions for limited relief got expanded into a comprehensive litigation
requiring appointment of committees, inspection and reports in them
from time to time, serious exercises on the part of the mine owners
before the committees, filing of affidavits both original and further,
and lengthy arguments at the Bar. These also necessitated several
comprehensive interlocutory directions and orders. These two writ
C petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
On August 11, 1983, this Court appointed a Committee for
inspection of the mines with a view to securing assistance in the determination as to whether safety standards laid down in the Mines Act
of 1952 and the Rules made thereunder have been followed and
0
whether there was any danger of land"slide on account of quarrying
operations particularly during the rainy season, and if there was any
other hazard to any individual, cattle or agricultural lands on account
of carrying of the mining operations. At the preliminary stage this
Court directed total stopping of blasting operations which, however,
was modified later. The said Committee, referred to as the Bhargava
E Committee after its Chairman, classified the mines which it inspected
into three groups, being A, B and C. It took note of the fact that
earlier an Expert Committee known as the Working Group had been
set up by the Union Government which had also inspected these
mines. The Bhargava Committee was of the view that the C Group
mines should be totally stopped; in the A Group mines, quarrying
F could be carried on after ensuring that there was no ecological or
environmental hazard; and in regard to the B Group mines, the Committee opined that those may not be closed down permanently but the
matter should be probed further.
A three-Judge Bench of this Court by an order dated March 12,
G 1985 ( 1985 3 SCR 169) directed closure of the C category mines as also
certain B category mines on permanent basis and gave directions in
regard to further action to be taken by the Bhargava Committee.
While making the order the Court specifically stated that the reasons
for the order would follow. One of the learned Judges constituting the
three-Judge Bench retired from the Court on September 30, 1985, and
H the said learned Judge (A.N. Sen, J.) expressed his views in a short
RURAL LITIGATION v. STAIB OF U.P. [MISRA, J.I
697
order dated 30th September, 1985. The working Group appointed by
the Union Government was also headed by the ·same·Mr. Bhargava
and had five other members. The examination by the two Committees
appeared to be with the same object, namely, as to whether the mining
was being properly done and whether.such activity should be carried
on in this area. The Working Group and classified the mines into two
categories being I and II. They put those mines which according to
them were suitable for continuing operation under Category I and the
mines which in their opinion were unsuitable for further mining under
Category II. An interesting feature in these two Reports seems to be
that almost the same lime stone quarries which have been put by the
Bhargava Committee under Category A feature in Category I of the
Working Group. This Court in its order of March 12, 1985, referred to
those aspects and pointed out:
"It will thus be seen that both the Bhargav CommitA
B
c
tee and the Working Group were unanimous in their view
that the lime stone quarries classified in category A by the
Bhargav Committee Report and category I by the Working D
Group were suitable for continuance of mining operations.
-"
So far as the lime stone quarries in category C of the
Bhargav Committee Report are concerned, they were regarded by both the Bhargav Committee and the Working
Group as unsuitable for continuance of mining operations
· and both were of the view that they should be closed down.
E
The only difference between the Bhargav Committee and
the Working·Group was in regard to lime stone quarries
classified in category B."
This Court had also appointed an Expert Committee consisting of
Prof. K.S. Valdia, Mr. Hukum Singh and Mr. l'r.N. Kaul to enquire
F
and investigate into the question of disturbance-of ecology and pollution and affectation of air, water and environment by reason of quarrying operations or stone crushers and setting up of lime stone kilns. Mr.
Kaul and Mr. Hukum Singh submitted a joint report with reference to
various aspects indicated in their order of appointment while Prof.
Valdia submitted a separate report. In the order of March 12, 1985,' :G
this Court took note of the position that Prof. Valdia's report was
confined largely to the. geological-aspect and consideFable .. reliance on
the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) had been placed by him in making
of the report and he had taken·the view that the· lime stone quarries
which were dangerously close to. the MBT should be closed down
inasmuch as that was a sensitive and vulnerable belt. This Court tllen
H
A,
B
c
D
E
F
G
698
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
took the view that not much importance could be placed to Dr.
Valdia's report for this litigation. The joint report submitted by Mr.
Kaul and Mr. Hukum Singh had been taken into. account by this
Court in making interim directions and for the making of the final
order no specific reference is ~ailed for.
In the order of March 12, 1985, this Court directed that the C
Category mines of the Bhargav Committee Report should be closed
down permanently and if any mining lessee of such a mine was running
under the first grant or under Court.'s orders after its expiry, it would
not be entitled to take advantage of the position. Similar order was
made in regard to the B category mines situated in the Shasradhara
block. This Court directed A category mines located within the Mussoorie municipal limits and the remaining B category mines to submit
schemes.sμbJected to further enquiry and ordered:
"We accordingly appoint a high powered Committee
consisting of Mr. D. Bandyopadhyay, Secretary, Ministry
of Rural Development as Chairman, and Shri H.S. Ahuja,
Director General, Mines Safety, Dhanbad, Bihar, Shri ·
D.N. Bhargav, Controller General, Indian Bureau of
Mines, New Secretariat Building, Nagpur and two experts
to be nominated by the Department of Environment,
Government of India within four weeks from the date of
this Order. The lessees of the lime stone quarries classified
as category A in Bhargav Committee Report and for
Category I in the Working Group Report and falling within
the city limits of Mussoorie as also the lessees of the lime
stone quarries classified as category Bin the Bha'!l!tav Committee Report will be at liberty to submit a full and detailed
scheme for mining their lime stone quarries to this. Committee (hereinafter called the Bandyopadhyay Committee)
and if any such scheme or schemes are submitted the
Bandyopadhyay Committee will proceed to examine the
same without'l!ny unnecessary delay and submit a report to
this Court whether in its opinion the particular lime stone
quarry can be allowed to be operated in accordance with
the scheme and if so, subject to what conditions and if if
cannot be allowed to be operated, the reasons for taking
that view. The Bandyopadhyay Committee in making its
report will take into account the various aspects which we
had directed the Bhargav Committee and the Kaul Committee to consider while making their reports including the
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. (MISRA, l.]
699
circumstances that the particular lime stone quarry may or
A
may not be within the city limits of Mussoorie and also give
an opportunity to the concerned lessee to be heard, even
though it be briefly."
Several mining lessees submitted their schemes which were examined
by the Committee but none of them was cleared. Objections against
B
rejection of the schemes had been filed before this Court by many of
the aggrieved lessees. It was directed in the aforesaid order of 12th
March, 1985, that until the Bandyopadhyay Committee cleared the
particular mines for operation, mining activity in regard to all mines
covered within the purview of examination by that Committee would
stop. This Court, however, allowed A.category mines located outside C
the city limits to operate. While.directing closure of the Shasradhara
area B category mines and all the C category mines, as also A a_nd B
category mines within the municipal limits, this Court made it clear
that the ban indicated by it would supersede any order of any other
court. The Court observed:
"The consequence of this Order made by us would be
that the lessees of lime stone quarries which have been
directed to be closed down permanently under this Order
D
or which may be directed to be closed down permanently
after consideration of the report of the Bandyopadhyay
Committee, would be thrown out of business in which they
E
have invested large sums of money and expanded considerable time and effort. This would undoubtedly cause hard,
ship to them but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people'-Jo live in
healthy environment with minimal disturbance of~~ological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to F 1
their cattle, homes and agriculturalland and undue affectation of air, water and environment."
The Order of 12th March, 1985, did not refer to the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 when it permitted the A category lime stone quarries
locat.ed outside the city limits to operate.
G
This Court made several orders relating to specific aspects after
the order of 12th March, 1985. One such order was made on 30th May,
1985, (1985 (3) SCC 614), another on ·18th December, 1986, (1986
Suppl. SCC 517) where reasons for _the order of 12th March, 1985,
w,ere given, and yet another order was made on 19th October, 1987
H
700
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A
(AIR 1987 SC 2426). We shall refer to the last of these orders in a later
part of this Judgment. Ill the order of 16th December, 1986, when the
reasonings for the order dated 12th March, 1985 were given, this Court
had stated:
c:
"It is for the Government and the NatiJ)n-and not
for the Court to-decide whether the deposits should be
exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental consi- .
derations 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 deci-. ~
sion and firmly implement the same."
The Court had also indicated in its earlier order that it should be
ensured that the l_ow grade cilica content lime stone is specifically
D utilised only iri special industries having regard to its quality and
should not be wasted by being utilised for purposes for which this
special grade lime stone is not required.
Keeping these aspects in view, the Government of India in the - ·
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Department of Environme!!.t,
E
Forests and wildlife, constituted a Committee to examine the working
of the lime· stone mining operations in the Doon Valley by its ·
memorandum No. J-20012/48/86-1A, dated 30th of December, 1986,
which was also called the Working Group. Shri D.N. Bhargava was
nominated as Chairman and the Committee had three other members,
namely, Shri V.C. Verma, Director General, Mines Safety, Dhanbad;
F
Prof. B.B. Dhar, Department of Mining Engineering of the Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi; and Shri R. Mehta, Principal Scientific
Officer, Department of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, New Delhi.
Shri Verma was substituted by Shri N. Mishra, Deputy Director General, Northern Zone. The terms of reference of the Committee were:
G
(i). Whether the operations are being carried out on scientific lines?
(ii) Whether the limestone quarried is being supplied to
end-users as stipulated by the Supreme Court?; and
.
H
(iii) The extent to which the mining operations are contributing to environmental damage?
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.]
701
This Committee visited the six mines which are operating and
A
indicated:
"The limestone deposits of Dehradun-Mussoorie
area are highly valuable mineral resource now essentially
required by the steel industry and it would be necessary to
exploit them, of course, in a very planned and systematic
B
manner.'
The Committee addressed itself to two aspects, namely,-
(i) those which were considered suitable for mining operations, and ·
(ii ) those which were considered unsuitable for furtner
mining.
c
The Committee whose entire report has. been made available to us
came to the following conclusions in regard to each of the six operating
D
mines.
(i) Lambidhar Limestone Mine of M/s Uttar Pradesh State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (UPSMDC) is a ·state Undertaking and holds a mining lease of 97 hectares covering the Lambidhar
Hills and the lease is valid up to 10th March, 1996. The Committee
E
found that 36% of its production~was supplied to steel and chemical
industries, 12% to sugar, 6% to cement and other miscellaneous industries and 46% to chips and lime kilns industries and disapproved
this position. It further found that while colour limestone which is a
metamarphose is being recorded as a minor mineral whereas--it was
learnt .. that it was being used for despatch as. major mineral. The
F
arrangement for classification of the lime stone also was not acceptable
to the Committee. It further found:
"The hill slopes and the river/nallah base are covered
by scree generated both during road construction as well as
subsequent mining operations. This is the result of allowing
G
the excavated material to roll down the slopes. The Committee is of the opinion that road making may be done
with front-end loader instead of bulldozer as with latter
equipment excavated materials roll down the hill slope
uncontrolably. The vegetation cover along the slopes has
been damaged by the rolling material as well as the excavaH
B
q
D
E
F
d
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
l1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
tion made for the road making and the hills present an ugly
look. Hydro-seeding may be done to improve looks of hill
slopes. Deposition of debris/scree in the nullahs specially in
Betarli is the cause of concern because it happens to be one
of the main steams which is source of water supply to the
villages as well as Dehradun city. The approach road has
reached the top and mining operations have been started
but not work on reclamation of mined out area has yet
commenced. A proper disposal yard for stocking. debris
must be provided so that the present practice of disposing it
near the camp office on the bank of the rivulet is prevented. Details of arrangements for controlling dust both
in mining and crushing operations are not available."
UPSMDC is the largest of the wo.rking mines and apart from the fact
that it belongs to the Go~emment of Uttar Pradesh, it has also the
largest of investment. It has been claimed before us on its behalf that it
operates most scientifically and satisfies all the requirements appropriate for ecolo,gical and environmental safeguards. The Report of the
Committee, extracted above, negatives all these claims.
(ii) We shall now refer to M/S Punjab Lime and Limestone
Company which has two mines both of which are working. Lease No.
14 covers 44.5 hectares and is a Ie;ise for 20 years from 1966; as such it
has already expired. Lease No. 96 is for 28.92 hectares and would
expire in December, 1989. Lease No. 14 had two areas and this Court
disallowed mining in the Northern block. The Committee found tha.t
16.4 hectares equal to 41 acres, out of lease No. 96 ·comprised of thick
forest and the lessee had surrendered the forest area. The mining
operation is being carried on in lease No. 14 under orders of the Court
and the residual portion of lease No. 96. The Committee found that
the scheme which had been offered to the Bandyopadhyay Committee
was in regard to the mining in the northern block of lease No. 14 which.
has since been abandoneo. It further transpires t-hat about 27% of its
·output during 1986 was supplied for the steel industry. The report
indicates that there is little generation of scree. As there is sparse
growth of trees in the area covered by the mines, no significant
deforestation is involved. Disposal of overburden is not significant.
Check dams have been set up in the lower reaches which are on the
right bank of Bhitarli river and no significant fall of the scree into the
river was apprehended.
(iii) Next is lease No. 72 of Shri R.K. Oberai which would expire
_J'
~·
.,
RURAL LITIGATION'"'. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.]
703
on 10th of April, 1994. It has an area of 15.91 hectares. The Committee found that this mine lies in the upper reaches of the Song river.
Thick forest growth is seen close to the mine and the Committee
gathered that the forest authorities have declined permission to extend
the mine workings beyond RL 1280. The Committee found that the
Jessee has undertaken to carry out afforestation and has also started
:ompensatory forestory in the adjacent areas. There was no appreJension -0f spreading of scree and future mining operations are not
likely to involve any significant deforestation. The Committee also has
opined that there is no apprehension of choking of the water-ways due
to mining operations as the Song river flows about 400 mts. away.
Apart from these three mines which are operating under valid
mining leases, the Committee inspected the mines corresponding to
lease Nos. 16, 17 and 76, belonging to Ved Pal Singh Chaudhary, Seth
Ram Avtar and Shri C.G, Gujral respectively. All these leases have
expired in December, 1982, and under orders of different courts mining
is being carried on.
Bhitarli Kalan Limestone Mines of Shri Ved Pal Singh Chaudhary was a lease for 38.8 hectares and expired on 29th December,
1982. This Court has already directed closure of mining operation in a
small area on the left bank of Bhitarli river.
A
B
c
D
Seth Ram Avtar has a lease of 14.18 hectares on the left bank of
E
Bhitarli-river and the lease expired on 2nd December, 1982. The
Committee found that he had no environment management plan. The
working plan submitted by the lessee did not show any plantation area.
The last of the working _mines which the Committee .visited is
that of Shri C.G. Gujaral. The lease was for 24.16 hectares and
F
expired on 17th December, 1982. The Committee found that the lease
area contained very good forest. The rolling of scree/debris along the
slopes had left not only ugly scars but also resulted in destruction of the
green cover. The debris flow has also choked.the Sansaru nullah which
once used to be a perennial stream: There was no environmental 1
management plan. In fact the Committee came to the conclusion that
G
the working of this mine was not conducive to the environnierttal
conservation.
We have in another part of this judgment indicated our conclusion that mining activity as a whole should be stopped in the Doon
Valley area but for the reasons indicated therein, we have also come to
H
A
B
c
D
704
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[!988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
the conclusion that the three mining lessees who have been operating
under valid lease may be permitted to work subject to such conditions
as have been indicated. Keeping the report of the Working Group in
view and for the reasons we have elsewhere indicated, we direct that
mining operations in lease Nos. 16, 17 and 76 where the respective
leases have expired and mining operation is being carried on under
Court's Orders, shall stop and the several orders of the courts enabling
mining activity shall stand superseded.
This Court in its order dated 19th of October, 1987, (AIR 1987
SC 2426) came to the clear conclusion:
"We are of the view that the stone quarrying in the
Doon Valley area should generally be stopped and reasons
therefor we shall provide in due course."
In another part of this judgment, reasons in support of that conclusion have been provided. The direction to close down the three
operating mines where the period of lease has expired is to bring the
position in accord with that conclusion.
One of the submissions advanced at the Bar is that the decision
me u mg t e re ease o t e
category mmes outs1 e t e city 1m1ts o
?f
1
thdis Cohurt d
1
ated 12fthh MAarch, 1985, was fina~din hcertain
1
.aspectsf
[
E
Mussoorie from the proceedings and in view of such finality it is not
open to this Court in the same proceedings at a latter stage to direct
differently in regard to what has been decided earlier. Connected with
r.;_:
this submission is the contention that durihg the pendency of these writ
petitions, the Environmental (Protection) Act of 1986 has come into
force and since that Statute and the Rules made thereunder provide
f
detailed procedure to deal with the situations that arise in these cases,
this Court should no more deal with the matter and leave it to be
looked into by the authorities under the Act. Counsel have relied upon
what was stated by this Court while giving reasons in support of the·
order of March 12, 1985, namely, "it is for the Government and the
Nation-and not for the Court-to decide whether the deposits should
G
be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental consideratiofis."
H
In the order of 12th March, 1985, this Court had pointed out:
"So far as the lime stone quarries classified as category A in the Bhargav Committee Report and/or category
1 in the Working Group Report are concerned, we would
divide them into two classes, one class consisting of those
'
. '
< ,
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. !MISRA, J.]
705·
lime stone quarries which are within the city limits of A
Mussoorie and the other consisting of those which are outside the city limits. We take the view that the lime stone
quarries falling within category A of the Bhargav Committee Report and/or category 1 of the Working Group Report
and falling outside the city limits of Mussoorie, should be
allowed to be operated subject, of course, to the obserB
vance of the requirements of the Mines Act, 1952, the
Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and other relevant
statutes, rules and regulations. Of course when we say this,
we must make it clear that we are not holding that if the
leases in respect of these lime stone quarries have expired
and suits or writ petitions for renewal of the leases are C
pending in the courts, such leases should be automatically
renewed. It will be for the appropriate courts to decide
whether such leases should be renewed or not having
regard to the law and facts of each case. So far as the lime
stone quarries classified in category A in the Bhargav
Committee Report and category 1 in the Working Group D
Report and falling within the city limits of Mussoorie are
concerned, we would give the same direction which we are
giving in the next succeeding paragraph in regard to the
lime stone quarries classified as category B in the Bhargav
Committee Report."
The argument that A category mines outside the city limits had been
cleared is based upon what has been indicated above. Dealing with this
part of the direction, this Court in its order of 19th October, 1987,
stated:
E
'.'Consciousness regarding environmental upkeep is
F
of recent origin. Cognizance of ecological importance has
entered into governmental activity only in this decade.
Everyday that consciousness as"also the sens< of social obligation in this regard aie on the increase. It has been
pointed out to us in course of hearing of the objections that
the classification of the A category lime stone quarries on G
the basis of their location-within the municipal limits and
outside-was indeed not a real one. We have been shown
and it seems to be factually true that some of the lime stone
quarries said to be outside the city limits are closer to the
heart of the city of Mussoorie that others located within the
city limits. If the real purpose of the order made by this
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supr. 2 S.C.R.
Court was not to permit mining within the city limits with·
out further scrutiny as in the case of B category stone q uar·
ries, we really do not see any justification as to why these
stone quarries located outside the city limits but close to
the heart of the city should not have been subjected to such
scrutiny .. .Since the writ petitions have not been finally dis·
posed of and the order made in regard to the A category
quarries located outside the city limits by the judgment
referred to abovt.