# TARUN BHARAT SANGH, AL WAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1993] 3 S.C.R. 21
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1993-04-08
- **Bench:** B.P.Jeevan Reddy, N. Venkatachala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tarun-bharat-sangh-al-war-v-union-of-india-and-others-11833
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

B
Constitution of lndia, 1950: Article 32.
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980: Section 2.
c
Rajasthan Forest Act: Section 29.
Rajastlian Miner Mineral Concession Rules, .J986: Rule 4(6).
Environment (Protection) Act: 1986, Section 3 and Notification 0
dated May 7, 1992. Environment-Protection of-Illegal mining activity in area declared as Tiger Reserve in A/war District of RajastllanDiretions by Court.
The petitioner, a voluntaQ' organisation interested in protecting
environment, approached this Court under Article 32 of the ConstiE
tution of India com plaining of the widespread illegal mining activity
going on in the area declared as a Tiger Reserve in Alwar District in
the State of Rajasthan. It prayed that in the interest of ecology,
environment and rule of law, the activity should stop. It was alleged
that the area where the mining activity was carried on was declared F
as a tiger reserve under the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds
Protection Act, 1951; as a sanctuary and a National Park under the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as protected forest under the
Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and that these notifications prohibit all or
any mining activity, and yet the State Government had granted
hundreds of licences for mining marble, dolomite and other materials G
and that such section was contrary to law.
This Court issued notices to the State Government and the
mineowners respondents in the Writ Petition. An inter~ocutory direction wasalsomadethat no mining operation be carried on in the protected H
21
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1993) 3 S.C.R.
A area.
B
The Court also appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship
of a Former Judge of the State High Court to ensure due obsen·ance
of the various Acts and Notifications that had been issued in respect
of the protected area. The Committee was requested in particular to
demarcate the area declared as protected forest under the notification dated January 1, 1975 issued by the Rajasthan Government
under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act.
The Committee submitted its Report dated September 28, 1992,
C stating that the Committee had verified and cross-checked the tracing
maps furnished by the Forest Department with the maps furnished by
..__
the Revenue Department and found that both of them matched, and
that after looking into the Khasra numbers mentioned in the notification dated January 1, 1975 and the other material placed before it
••
D by the parties, the Committee identified the areas declared as protected forest. It stated that the_}' were not in one contiguous block. hut
were comprised in several blocks or areas. The 215 mines mentioned
in Appendix-A to the Report fall complete!_}' within the areas declared
as protected forest while 47 mines mentioned in Appendix-B to the
Report fall partly inside and partly outside the areas declared as
E protected forest. There was no difference of opinion among the
members of the committee regarding the location of the mines but
only with respect to the question whether they should be directed to
ht- dosed. The Chairman recommended that .the mining operations in
all the 215 mines listed in Appendix-A should be stopped forthwith
F
and the mining operation in the 47 mines listed in Appendix-B be
stopped forthwith to the extent they fell within the area declared as
proteded forest. The three other Members of the Committee viz.
Colledor, Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden
and Additional Director of Mines differed from the Chairman. They
suggested that this Court should accede to the representation of the
G State Government (Appendix 'C') that th.e area ~overed by the mines
should be allowed to be excluded from the protected forest, in lieu of
which the state Government undertook to provide an equal extent of
..
the area for being included in the protected forest. The Sate
Government's application to the Court was also to the same effect. It
r
H was stated therein that the protected forest area measures about 800
TAR UN BH

## Text

_Characters 0–39,835 of 55,160. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39835 for what follows._

. -
TARUN BHARAT SANGH, AL WAR
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
APRIL 8, 1993
[B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA,JJ.]
B
Constitution of lndia, 1950: Article 32.
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980: Section 2.
c
Rajasthan Forest Act: Section 29.
Rajastlian Miner Mineral Concession Rules, .J986: Rule 4(6).
Environment (Protection) Act: 1986, Section 3 and Notification 0
dated May 7, 1992. Environment-Protection of-Illegal mining activity in area declared as Tiger Reserve in A/war District of RajastllanDiretions by Court.
The petitioner, a voluntaQ' organisation interested in protecting
environment, approached this Court under Article 32 of the ConstiE
tution of India com plaining of the widespread illegal mining activity
going on in the area declared as a Tiger Reserve in Alwar District in
the State of Rajasthan. It prayed that in the interest of ecology,
environment and rule of law, the activity should stop. It was alleged
that the area where the mining activity was carried on was declared F
as a tiger reserve under the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds
Protection Act, 1951; as a sanctuary and a National Park under the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as protected forest under the
Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and that these notifications prohibit all or
any mining activity, and yet the State Government had granted
hundreds of licences for mining marble, dolomite and other materials G
and that such section was contrary to law.
This Court issued notices to the State Government and the
mineowners respondents in the Writ Petition. An inter~ocutory direction wasalsomadethat no mining operation be carried on in the protected H
21
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1993) 3 S.C.R.
A area.
B
The Court also appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship
of a Former Judge of the State High Court to ensure due obsen·ance
of the various Acts and Notifications that had been issued in respect
of the protected area. The Committee was requested in particular to
demarcate the area declared as protected forest under the notification dated January 1, 1975 issued by the Rajasthan Government
under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act.
The Committee submitted its Report dated September 28, 1992,
C stating that the Committee had verified and cross-checked the tracing
maps furnished by the Forest Department with the maps furnished by
..__
the Revenue Department and found that both of them matched, and
that after looking into the Khasra numbers mentioned in the notification dated January 1, 1975 and the other material placed before it
••
D by the parties, the Committee identified the areas declared as protected forest. It stated that the_}' were not in one contiguous block. hut
were comprised in several blocks or areas. The 215 mines mentioned
in Appendix-A to the Report fall complete!_}' within the areas declared
as protected forest while 47 mines mentioned in Appendix-B to the
Report fall partly inside and partly outside the areas declared as
E protected forest. There was no difference of opinion among the
members of the committee regarding the location of the mines but
only with respect to the question whether they should be directed to
ht- dosed. The Chairman recommended that .the mining operations in
all the 215 mines listed in Appendix-A should be stopped forthwith
F
and the mining operation in the 47 mines listed in Appendix-B be
stopped forthwith to the extent they fell within the area declared as
proteded forest. The three other Members of the Committee viz.
Colledor, Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden
and Additional Director of Mines differed from the Chairman. They
suggested that this Court should accede to the representation of the
G State Government (Appendix 'C') that th.e area ~overed by the mines
should be allowed to be excluded from the protected forest, in lieu of
which the state Government undertook to provide an equal extent of
..
the area for being included in the protected forest. The Sate
Government's application to the Court was also to the same effect. It
r
H was stated therein that the protected forest area measures about 800
TAR UN BHARAT SANGH v. UNION OF INDIA
23
Sq. kilometers whereas the 262 mines mentioned in Appendixes'~' A
and 'B' co\'er only an area of 2.08 Sq. kilometers and that in the
interest of the economy of the State, industry and workers, an extent
of 5.02 Sq. kilometers including the area covered by the said mines be
allowed to be deleted from the protected forest, the State Government
offering to place an equal extent for the purpose of being declared as
protected forest.
B
The mine-owners also filed objections to the Report of the
Committee and requested that they be allowed to continue their
mining operations.
c
The Go,·ernment oflndia which was directed to file an affida\•it,
filed the same and stated that the area declared as project tiger/tiger
reserve was covered by notification issued under the Rajasthan Forest
Act, Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Mines and Minerals
Regulation and Development Act, 1957. It submitted that the Forest D
Consenation Act applies not only to reserve and protected forest but
to all areas recorded as forest in Government records, and that
Mining was non-forestry activity and, therefore, cannot be carried on
in areas to whi.ch the Forest Conservation Act applies, without prior
approval of the Government of India. It was further stated that on
May 7, 1992 the Government oflndia had issued the final notification E
under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 prohibiting
all mining activity, except with the approval of the Government of
India and that since no permission was obtained under any of the said
enactments with respect to the said 262 mines, no mining operations
can be carried on in the area unless and until the permission of the F
Central Government was obtained.
On petitioner's behalf it was submitted that all the mmmg
activity in the areas notified under the notification dated May 7, 1992
should have stopped long ago and continuance of mining activity
amounts to gross contempt and constitutes a clear ,·iolation of orders; G
that the State Government appears to be colluding with the mineowners which is evident from the dissent expressed by officers of the
State Government who were Members of the Committee to the
straight forward and logical recommendation of the Chairman, and
that prohibition of mining flows from the provisions.of the Forest ff
24
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1993) 3 S.C.R.
A Conservation Act as well as the notification issued under the Environment Protection Act in May, 1992.
B
On behalf of the State Go,·ernment it was submitted that the
State Government and its officers were not aware when they granted
-leases/licences in respect of the listed mine that they fell within the area
declared as protected forest and that the certificate issued by the
Forest Department indicates that they did not fall within the protected forest· area. It. was thus a bonafule grant. It was further
submitted that the State was prepared to abide fully by the orders of
this Court,-54 mines had been shut down and it was prepared to shut
, C down all the listed mines if this Court so directs. A map prepared by
the State officers showing the areas CO\'ered by tiger reserve, sanctuary, protected forest, and the location of the listed mines was placed
before the Court for consideration.
D
On behalf of the mine-owners in Mallana village it was submitted
that demarcation of protected forest by the Committee was defective,
erroneous and unacceptable for the various reasons set out in the
objections filed to the report, that the map produced by the State
Government delineating the tiger reserve was incorrect besides being
unauthenticated, that the mine-owners do not admit that their mines
E fell within the tiger reserve or within the protected forest areas, and
that closing down of hundreds of mines employing thousands of
workers, wherein a large amount of capital was invested would
disturb the economy of the State besides affecting the supplies of
marble and other minerals, serving no public purpose.
F
On behalf of the some of the other mine owners it was submitted
that it was unsafe to act upon and to pass any orders based up"cm the
map produced by the State Go,·ernment; that the declaration as tiger
reserve by the Government of India was not under any statutory
authority; that the areas declared as protected forest was not coG extensive with the area declared as tiger reserve and sanctuary and
national park; that none of the mines fell within the sanctuary or the
National Park-not even within project tiger, and that the mine owners
. are as much interested in protecting the environment and ecology as
the petitioner.
H
....
\
-
..
,r· ·-
...,
--
TAR UN BHARAT SANGH v. lJNION OF INDIA
25
Declaring that the relevant laws were violated, and passing A
directions, the Court,
HELD: I. This is not a case where the Court is called upon to shut
down an activity being carried on lawfully, in the name of higher
considerations of ecolog)' and em'ironment. It is a simple case to
ensure obsen:ance of ~nacted laws made b)· the State to protect the B
environment and ecology of the area. In such a case, there is no need
to be oppressed by considerationsofbalancingthe interests of economy
and ecology. That has already been done hy the Legislature and
Parliament (37-D-E).
In the instant case, the petitioner's grie\'ance is against the
executive. Charged with the delegation of implementing the laws of
·the land, the executive is yet failing to do its duty by law and by people,
and that when faced with the might of mone)", respect for law is
dissol\'ing into respect for mammon (37-E-F).
c
D
2. The State Go\·ernment is empowered not only to declare any
forest land as a protected forest hut also an)' waste land as such. The
idea evidently is not only to protect the existing fo~est but also to bring
waste lands under schemes of afforestation. Once declared as protected forest, the distinction between forest land and waste land E
disappears. The entire area becomes a protected forest. (38-B)
3. Reading Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act as a whole, it
appears, the normal rule is to make an enquir)' into the rights of the
state Government and of the prirnte parties over the land proposed F
to be declared as protected forest in the first instance, prepare a
record thereof and then declare it as a protected forest. But in case of
urgenC)", it is open to the State Government to issue such notification
forthwith subject, of course, to the existing rights of individuals and
communities in the area concerned. (38-F)
In the instant case, the notification dated JanuaQ· 1, 1975 issued
by the Government of Rajasthan appears to be one issued under the
proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 29. (38-G)
G
4. Section 29 contemplates only one notification declaring an H
26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1993) 3 S.C.R.
A area as a protected forest. Whether issued after a normal enquir~· and
record or without enquiry or record, s.ection 29 contemplates only one
.notification and not two in any everft. Therefore, the notification
issued is the valid and effective one. It is not a provisional or p.reliminary notification. It is not also the case of the mine owners that leases
or licences in their favour were granted prior to January 1, 1975. All
B of them were granted in the middle of or in the late eighties. The
sa\'ings clause contained in the proviso to sub-section (3) does not avail
t.hem. (39-A-B)
S. The Committee appointed by this court to demarcate and
C identify the areas declared as protected forest was composed of high
officials of the Government of Rajasthan. They had undertaken an
elaborate and intensive exercise and have demarcated the areas
declared as protected forest with the help of the official maps and
records. There is no reason not to accept the said report. The sen!ral
D objections submitted by the mine owners cannot pre,·ail O\'er the
official maps and records. They were represented before the commission at the time of the said exercise. The dissent note appended b)' the
officers of the Government of Rajasthan was not with respect to the
demarcation or identification of areas declared as protected forest,
but onl~· with respect to the closure ;,f the mines operating within those
E · areas. The report of the committee is accepted. (39-D-F)
6. Once an area is declared as a protected forest it coines within
the purview of the Forest (Consenation) Act, 1980. E\·en the State
Government cannot carry on any non-forest activity in the said area
F
without prior approvalof the Central Government. That the mining
acfrvity amounts to non-forest purpose is be)·ond dispute. Thus the
grant of mining leases/licenses and their renewal b)' the State Government, without obtaining the prior apprO\·al of the Central Government, in respect oft he mines situated within the protected forest, after
January 1, 1975 is contraQ' to law. (39-G-H, 40-li)
G
H
7. All the mines listed in Appendix A to the Committee's Report
·do fall within the areas declared as protected forest while the mines
listed in Appendix-B fall partly within and partly out side such areas.
(41-B)
~ .
--
)-
...
TAR UN BHARAT SANGH \', UNION OF INDIA
8. According to rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral A
Concession Rules, 1986 no mining lease could have been granted or
renewed within the forest "without clearance from the Central
Government in accordance with the forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
and the Rules made there-under" .. Admittedly, no such prior approval or clearance of central Government was obtained.
9. The purpose of Forest Acts and Environmental Protection
Act may not always be the same. Closure of the mines may not serve
the environmental purpose but it may serve the forest purpose.
(40-B)
B
c
10. It is appropriate that the merits of the proposal of the State
Government to delete an extent of 5.02 Sq. kilometers from out of the
protected forest be examined by the l\ilinistry of Environment and .
Forest, forests, and a report submitted to this Court, within three
months. Orders will be passed thereafter on the application filed by D
the State of Rajasthan. (40-E)
11. The notification issued b)' the Central Government under
Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 on Ma)' 7, 1992
expressl)' prohibits the carrying on of mining operations, except with
the Central Government's prior permission, in the "areas covered E
under project tiger". The prohibition extends to existing mining
leases in Sanctuaries/National Park. All mining operations are prohibited therein. (41-C-D)
12. There can be no legitimate dispute with respect to the correctF
ness of the map produced by Government of Rajasthan or with
respect to the area declared as tiger reserve~Both the State Government and Central Government have delineated it. May be that the
declaration as tiger reserve was without any statutory authority and
is relatable to the executh·e power of the Union of India-but the
G
notification issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection)
Act puts the stamp of statutory authority O\'er it. The Central
Government has specifically stated in its affidavits that no ''prior
permission" was obtained with respect to the mines located within the
tiger reserve.·on this ground, the mining operations being carried on
in the tiger reserve, including the listed mines also appears to be H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1993] 3 S.C.R.
A contrary to law. (42-C-D)
B
13. The situation is that the mining activity in the listed mines
{mining activities in 54 mines has already been stopped) is illegal and
has to stop. May be that this will have the effect of bringing to halt the
activity involving a good amount of capital and a large number of
workers. But in view of the inherent illegality attaching to them, there
is no option but to close them. They cannot be permitted to operate.
If and when the Central Government recommends the plea of the
State Government and any of the areas already declared as protected
forest are deleted with the leave of this Court, can the mining activity
C go on in these areas. (43-D)
14.It is directed that the mining activity in the mines situated
outside the protected forest areas but within the tiger reser,·e may
continue for a period of four months. Within this period it shall be
D open to the concerned mine owners to approach the Department of
Forest and Environment, Government of India for permission to
continue their mining operations. They can continue the mining
operations in these mines only if the Central Go,·ernment permits
them and subject to the orders of the Central Go,·ernment in that
behalf. If no permission is obtained from the Central Government
E
within the said period of four months, the mining activity in the entire
area declared as tiger resene shall stop and cease on the expiry of four
F
months. {44-B-C)
-.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: WritPetition(c) No. 509of 1991.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Dr. Raj iv Dhawan. V .. Akshya Bali and Miss Kamini Jaiswal for
the Petitioner.
G
M.C. Bhandare P. Chidambaram, Sushi] Kumar Jain, Ms.
H
Meenakshi Arora. S.S. Jauhar. Aruneshwar Gupta and E.C. Agrawala
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
TAR UN BHARAT SANGH l'. UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.]
29
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Tarun Bharat Sangh, a voluntary A
Organisation interested inter alia in protection of environment, approached this court complaining that widespread illegal mining activity was going on in the area declared as Tiger Reserve in Al war District
of Rajasthan. In the interest of ecology, environment and rule of law,
it said, the activity should stop.
B
The petitioner's case is that the area wherein the illegal mining is
going on has been declared as a tiger reserve under Rajasthan Wild
Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951, as a Sanctuary and a National
Park under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and as protected forest
under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. These various notifications, said C
the petitioner, prohibit all or any mining activity and yet the Government of Rajasthan had granted hundred of Licences for mining marble,
dolomite and other minerals in late 1980s, contrary to law.
After issuing notices to the Government of Rajasthan and the 0
mine owners (which expression is used in this order to denote leasees
and licences under the leases and licences granted by the State of
Rajasthan), this court gave certain directions on October 11, 1991. An
interlocutory direction was issued to the effect that "no mining
operation of whatever nature shall be carried on in the protected area".
A Committee under the chairmanship of Shri M.L. Jain, J., former E
Judge of the Rajasthan High Court was appointed to ensure due
observance of the various Acts and Notifications issued there under
with respect to the said protected area. In particular, the committee was
asked to demarcate the area declared as protected forest under the
notification dated January 1. 1975 issued by the Rajasthan GovernF
ment under section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act. This demarcation
was.felt necessary in view of the ambiguity prevailing with respect to
the precise boundaries of the protected forest declared as such under
the notification aforesaid. Petitioner's case was that no mining lease/
licence can be granted within the protected forest except with the prior
permission of the Government of India - Section 2 of the Forest G
(Conservation) Act, 1980 and Rule 4(6) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral
Concession Rules)-and that no such permission was obtained in fact.
By its order dated November 26, 1991, the court clarified that the
order dated October 11, 1991 was not intended to permit the mineH
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1993] 3 S.C.R.
A owners to carry on their mining activity where such activity was
prohibited by any Act, Rule or Notification having the force of Law.
In effect, the order said, it meant to prohibit-and not to permit-the
mining activity.
n
In its order dated May 14, 1992, the court clarified the meaning
of the expressio·n "protected area" used in the order dated October 11,
1991. The expression, it was clarified, was intended to and does refer
to all the areas which have had legal protection against non-forest
activities that devastated the environment including poaching, mining,
felling of trees etc. It was further clarified that once an area is declared
C as protected forest, it becomes a protected forest notwithstanding the
fact that a part of that area is waste. The idea behind declaring an area
as protected forest, it was pointed out, is not merely the protection of
the existing forest but also afforestation.
D
The Committee submitted its report dated September 28, 1992.
The Report states that the Committee verified and cross-checked the
tracing maps furnished by the Forest Department with the maps
furnished by the Revenue Department and found that both of them
matched. After looking into the khasra numbers mentioned in the
notification dated January 1, 1975 and all other material placed before
E it by the parties including the mine-owners, the report states, the
conunittee identified the areas declared as protected forest. The report
indicates that the areas declared as protected forest under the said
notification was not in one contiguous block but was comprised in
several blocks or areas, as it may be called.
F
As per the said Report, 215 mines mentioned in appendix-A to the
Report fall completely within the areas declared as protected forest
while 47 mines mentioned in Appendix-B to the Report fall partly
inside and partly outside the areas declared as protected forest. (These
262 mines are referred to hereinafter as "Listed miQes"). To this
G extent, there is no difference of opinion among the members of the
. committee. Differing opinions have, however, been expressed when it
came to making of reconunendations for the consideration of this
court. The Chairman, Shri Justice M.L. Jain recommended that the
mining operations in all the 215 1nines listed in appendix-A should be
H stopped forthwith and that the mining operations in the 47 mines listed
...
...
TARUN BHARAT SANGH"· UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.)
31
in appendix-B should be stopped forthwith to the extent they fell within A
the area declared as protected forest. Three other members of the
Committee (Collector, Alwar, the Chief Con~ervator of Forest and
Chief Wild Life Warden, Rajasthan and the Additional Director of
Mines) differed from the Chairman. They suggested that this Court be
pleased to accept the representation of the State Government (appended as appendix-C .to the Report) wherein it was prayed that the 8
area covered by the mines should be allowed to be excluded from the
protected forest, in lieu of which the Government of Rajasthan will
provide an equal extent of area for being included in the protected
forest. An application has also been filed by the State of Rajasthan to
the same effect. It is stated therein. that the protected forest area c
measures about 800 sq. km., whereas the 262 mines mentioned in
appendix (A) and (B) cover only an area of 2.08 s9. km. In the interest
of economy of the State, industry and the workers engaged therein, it
is submitted. an extent of 5.02 sq. km. including the area covered by
the said mines be allowed to be deleted from the protected forest. In
D
lieu thereof, the Government of Rajasthan offered to place an equal
extent for the purpose of being declared as protected forest. It is
submitted further that when the mining leases with respect to the said
262 nlines were granted, the Government of Rajasthan was under the
impression that the said mines did not fall within the protected forest
area. Indeed, it was so certified by the Forest Department. ·This E
happened because of want of clarity about the precise boundaries of the
areas declared as protected forest.
The mine owners too have filed objections to the Report of the
Committee, to the recommendation made by the Chairman of the F
Committee and submitted alternately that the proposal of the Government of Rajasthan be accepted and they be allowed to continue their
mining operations.
At this stage, we directed the Government of India tO file an
affidavit making their stand clear in the matter. Accordingly, an G
affidavit sworn to by Shri S.P. Singh, Deputy Director in the Ministry
of Environment and Forest, Project Tiger, New Delhi has been filed.
It is stated in the affidavit that the area declared as project tiger/tiger
reserve is covered by notifications issued under the Rajasthan Forest
Act, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Mines and Minerals H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1993) 3 S.C.R.
A (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. It is submitted that the
Forest (Conservation) Act applies not only to reserve and protected
forest but to all areas recorded as forest in Government records.
Mining is non-forestry activity and, therefore cannot be carried on in ·
the areas to which Forest (Conservation) Act applies without the prior
approval of the Government of India. It is stated further that on May
H 7, l 992, the Government oflndia has issued the final n9tification under
Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 prohibiting all
mining activity, except with _the approval of the Government of India,
in the protected forest, Sariska National Park and certain areas of
Alwar District mentioned in the Notification. Since no permission is
c obtained under any of the said enactments with respect to the said 262
mines. it is submitted. no mining operations can be carried on in the
area until and unless they obtain the permission of the Central
Government. Indeed. the prohibition extends not merely to protected
forest areas but to the emire area declared as tiger reserve and as
D Sari ska National Park. A copy of the notification dated May 7. 1992
issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act is appended to the affidavit. It is necessary to notice the relevation portions
of the said notification. They read:
F
G
H
"Now. therefore. in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section ( 1) and clause ( v) of sub-section (2) of
·section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
(29 of 1986) read with rule 5 of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986. the Central Government
hereby prohibits the carrying on of the following
processes and operations, except with the prior permission, in the areas specified in the Table appended
to this Notification:
(i) .Location of any new industry including expan
sion/modernisation;
(ii) (a) All new mining operations including renewals
of mining lease.
(b) Existing mining leases in sanctuaries National
Park and areas covered under Project Tiger and; or
,
'
-
' ,
-
~
I
TARUN BHARAT SANGH v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.)
(c) Mining is being done without pennission of the
competent authority;
(iii) Cutting of trees;
(iv) {:onstruction of any clusters of dwelling units.
farms houses, sheds, community centres, infor
mation centres and any other activity connected
with such construction (including roads a part of
any infrastructure relating thereto);
( v) Electrification (laying of new transmission lines).
TABLE
33
Areas where carrying on of processes and operations without pennission is prohibited.
(i) all reserved forests, protected forests or any other
area shown as "forest" in the land· records maintained
by the State Government as on the date of this notification in relation to Gurgaon District of the State of
A
B
c
D
Haryana and the Alwar District of the State of
E
Rajasthan.
(ii) all areas shown as
(a)
Gair Mumkin Pahar, or
(b)
Gain Mumkin Rada, or
(c)
Gain Mumkin Behed, or
(d)
Banjad Beed, or
(e)
Rundh
In the land records maintained by the State Government as on the date of this notification in relation to
Gurgaon District of the State of Haryana and the
Al war district of the State of Rajasthan.
F
G
H
34
A
.B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
11993) 3 S.C.R.
(iii) all areas covered by notifications issued under
sedions 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act,
1900 as applicable to the State of Haryana in the
district of Gurgaon upto the date of this Notification.
(iv) all areas of Sariska National Park and Sariska
Sanctuary notified under tile Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 (53 of 1972). ··
(emphasis added)
We have heard Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, counsel for the writ petitioner,
C Shri Amneshwar Gupta, counsel for the State of Rajasthan and S/Shri
M.C. Bhandare and P. Chidambaram, council appearing for the mineowners. Certain other mine-owners have intervened. We permitted
them to file their written submissions.
D
Dr. Rajiv Dhawan submitted that in view of the earlier orders of
this court and the report of the committee, all the mining activity in all
the areas declared as protected forest and in the areas notified under the
notification dated May 7, 1992 should stop forthwith. Indeed, he says,
it should have stopped long ago. Continuance of mining activity is in
gross contempt of this court and constitutes a clear violation of its
E orders. The Govemmenrof Rajasthan is equally guilty of contempt in
as much as it has come forward with an application for directions
instead of taking stringent action forthwith to stop the mining activity
in all the listed mines. As a matter of fact, he says, the Government of
Rajasthan appears to be colluding with the mine-owners which is
F evident from the diss~nt expressed by the officers of the Rajasthan
'·
.
Government (who were members of the Committee appointed by this
Court) to the straight-forward and logical recommendation of the
Chairman of the Committee. The Government of India's affidavit
places the matter beyond doubt. Not only the mining operations in the
listed mines should be injuncted forthwith but the mine owners and the
G Government of Rajasthan should be proceeded against for ~ontempt,
says the counsel. He pointed out further that the mining leases granted
by the Government of Rajasthan are ex-facie illegal inasmuch as prior
permission of the Central Government was admittedly not obtained for
the said leases as required by the Forest (Conservation) Act and Rule
H 4 ( 6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Prohibition of
--
, .
-
.....
'
-;~
---
TARUN BHARAT SANGH v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.)
35
mining flows from the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act as A
well as the notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act
in May, 1992.
Shri Arunseshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the State of Ra jasthan
submitted that the Rajasthan Government and its officers were not 8
aware, when they granted leases/licences in respect oflisted mines that
they fell within the area declared as protected forest.
Indeed, a
certificate was issue·d by the Forest Department to the effect that they
did not fall within the protected forest area. It was thus a bonafide
grant. The boundaries of the areas declared as protected areas were not
clearly known nor were they demarcated on the spot. Of course, it now C
turns out that the said listed mines fall wholly or partly within the
protected forest but for the reasons mentioned in the application filed
by the Government ofRajasthan, the area of five sq. kilometers should
be allowed to be deleted from out of the protected forest subject to the
conditions offered in the said application. Counsel says that the D
Government of Rajasthan is neither colluding with the mine-owners
nor has it any intention to flout the orders of the court. It is prepared
to abide fully by the orders of this court. It has already shut down 54
mines. It is also prepared to shut down all the other listed mines if this
court so directs. It is. however, making an earnest request that it may
be allowed to exclude the areas covered by these mines from the E
protected forest in public interest. Learned counsel has placed before
us map, said to have been prepared by the officers of the Rajasthan
State, showing the areas covered by tiger reserve, sanctuary, protected
forest and the location of the listed mines.
Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned counsel appearing for the mineowners in Mallana village submitted that demarcation of protected
forest by the committee is defective, erroneous and unacceptable for
F
the various reasons set out in the objections filed by his clients. It is
technically imperfect. The very description of the boundaries in the
notification dated January 1, 1975 is vague and misleading. It mentions G
old khasra numbers which were not in vogue in the year 1975. The map
produced by the Government ofRajasthan, for the perusal of this court,
delineating the tiger reserve is equally incorrect besides being
unauthenticated. It is not know who prepared the map and on what
basis. The mine-owners do not admit that their mines fall within the H
36
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
I 1993 I 3 S.C.R.
A tiger reserve or within the protected forest areas. Closing down
hundreds of mines employing t.hou~ands of workers, wherein a large
amount of capital is invested would disturb the economy of the State
besides affecting the supplies of marble and other minerals. No public
purpose would be served by such closure. The mine owners are not
guilty of contempt of this court inasmuch as their mines do not fall
within the protected forest or protected area. Even otherwise, it
appears that the areas declared as protected forest are in disparate
patches away from each other. Mines are located not only within the
areas declared as protected forest but also in the adjacent areas which
are not declared as protected forest. In such a case, no purpose is served
c by closing the mines within the protected forest inasmuch as the
mining activity ir. the mines located outside the protected forest will
continue uninterrupted. The purpose of ecology and· environment
would not be served by such a situation. Moreover, the notification
issued by the Governmen! of Rajasthan on January 1, 1975 declaring
certain areas as protected areas is only a provisional or an interim
D
E
notification. It is not a final notification. The final notification is yet to
be issued. Since there is no forest in the areas covered by the mines nor
is any afforestation possible in such areas, they should be allowed to
be deleted from the protected forest in the final notification to be
issued.
Shri P. Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for some of the
mine-owners submitted that it is unsafe for this court to act upon and/
or to pass any orders based upon the map produced by State of
Rajasthan showing the tiger reserve and identifying the areas declared
F as protected forest. It is not known who prepared the said map and on
what basis and for what purpose. The declaration as tiger reserve by
the Government oflndia is not under any statutory authority. The area
declared as tiger reserve and the area notified as sanctuary under
Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, as also the area declared
as National Park under Section 35 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act are
G not co-extensive with each other. More particularly, the areas declared
as protected forest are not co-extensive with the area declared as tiger
reserve, sanctuary or National Park. It is not known how many areas
declared as protected forest fall within tiger reserve and how many in
the sanctuary and/or National Park. The Government of India has not
H prepared or submitted any map showing these various areas. None of
--
\
--
..
TAR UN BHARAT SANGH 1•. UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.)
37
the mines fall within the sanctuary or the National Park, not even A
within project tiger. In such a situation, any orders stopping the mining
.
-
operations merely on the basis of the _report of the commission or the
unauthenticated map produced by the Government ofRajasthan would
be wholly unsafe. The proper course would be to appoint a committee,
or to call upon the Government of India, to identify the areas declared
as tiger reserve, sanctuary, National Park and the areas declared as 8
protected forest Indicating at the same time the location of mines, if
any, in the said areas. Only theri will the correct position be known.
Counsel also submitted that ·the proposal of the Government of
Rajasthan merits acceptance by this court. Both the counsel appearing
for the mine-owners affinned that the mine-owners are not acting in c
a spirit of adverserial litigation but in a spirit of cooperation. They are
as much interested in protecting the environment and ecology as the
petitioner but, they say, it should not be a one-sided affair.
At the outset, we may be permitted to clarify an aspect. This is not 0
a case where we are called upon to shut down an activity being carried
on lawfully, in the name of higher considerations of ecology and
environment. This is a simple case where we are called upon to ensure
oservance of enacted laws made by the State to protect the environment and ecology of the area. In such a case, we need not be oppressed
by considerations of balancing the interests of economy and ecology. E
That has already been done by the Legislature and Parliament. The
grievance of the petitioner is against the cxecutiye. Charged with the
delegation of implementing the laws of the land, the executive is yet
failing to do its duty by law and by people, when faced with the might
of money; respect for law is dissolving into respect for mammon. says F
the petitioner. Let us therefore first find out which la\vs are violated,
if any, a~d then decide, what are the proper directions to make.
(A) Section 2 of the Forest ( Co11sen·atio11) Act read with Section 29
of the Rajastlzan Forest Act and Rule 4 (6) of t/ze Rajastlzan Minor
Mineral Concessions Rule:-
G
Section 29 of the Rajasthan Act empowers the Government to
declare any forest land or waste land to be a protected.forest. Subsection ( 1) says that, "the State Government may by notification in the
officiaJ gazette declare the provisions of this chapter applicable to any H
38
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1993] 3 S.C.R.
A forest land or waste land which is not included in a reserve forest but
which is the property of the State Government or 6ver which the State
Government has proprietary rights" It is not disputed in this case that
the land over which the listed mines (mines listed in Appendix A and
B to the Report of the Justice M.L. Jain Committee) are situated is the
property of the State Government. The State Government is empowB ered not only to declare any forest land as a protected forest but also
any waste land as such. The idea evidently is not only to protect the
existing forest but also to bring waste lands under schemes of.afforestation. Once declared as protected forest the distinction between forest
land and waste land disappears.-The entire area becomes a protected
c forest. Before, however, declaring any forest land or waste land as a
protected forest, the State Government is obliged to make an enquiry
into the nature and extent of the rights of the State Government and of
private persons in or over the forest land or waste land proposed to be
declared as protected forest and record the same at a survey or
settlement or in such other manner as .the State Government thinks
D sufficient. This is the requirement of sub-section (3). However, the
proviso to sub-section (3) empowers the State Government. in case it
thinks that such an enquiry and record will occupy such length of time
as in the meantime to endanger the rights of the State Government, it
may, pending such enquiry and record; declare a particular area to be
E a protected forest without, of course. abridging or affecting any rights
of individuals or communities. Sub-section (4) empowers the State
Government to delete any area from out of the area declared as
protected forest.