Judgment
As delivered
PETITIONER:RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:STATE OF U.P.
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/08/1988
BENCH:MISRA RANGNATHBENCH:MISRA RANGNATHVENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)
CITATION:1989 AIR 594 1989 SCC Supl. (1) 537JT 1988 (4) 710 1988 SCALE (2)1574
ACT:Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32 Limestonequarries- Dehradun Mussoorie belt-Public interest litigationagainst pollution- High Powered Committee to be set up tolook after re-afforestation, mining activities and bringabout natural normalcy in the Doon Valley.%Forest (Conservation) Act 1980: Limestone guarries inDoon Valley-- Continuance of mining activity--Impermissibility Of.Public Interest Litigation: Procedure laws apply butevery technicality in procedural laws not available inmatters of grave public importance.
HEADNOTE:A letter-petition, and an application, containingallegations of unauthorised and illegal mining in theMussoorie-Dehradun belt, affecting adversely the ecology andenvironmental order of the area, were directed to beregistrered as writ petitions under public interestlitigation. Apart from the Governments of the Union and ofUttar Pradesh, several governmental agencies and mininglessees appeared in the proceedings. A number of committeesand working groups were set up both by the Court and theCentral Government to look into the various aspects of theproblem, their reports received and several comprehensiveinterlocutory directions issued.One of the Committees, referred to as the BhargavaCommittee, classified the mines into three groups, being A,B, C. On the basis of the recommendations of the BhargavaCommittee Report and other material the Court directed, byits order dated 12th March, 1985, that category mines ofthe Bhargava Committee Report should be closed downpermanently. Similar order was made in regard to categorymines situated in the shasradhara block. The Court furtherdirected category mines located within the Mussooriemunicipal limits and the remaining B category mines tosubmit their mining scheme for scrutiny of the BandyopadhyayCommittee. The Court, however, allowed category mineslocated outside the city limits to operate.PG NO 690PG NO 691Some of the mines which were ordered to be closed downhad earlier been refused renewal of their mining licences.These mines, however, continued to operate under the ordersof various courts which had granted extension of theirleases pending the final orders of the courts. This Court,in its order dated 12th March, 1985 had therefore, directedthat if any mining lessee of a mine, which had been orderedto be closed down, was running under the first grant orunder Court's orders after its expiry, it would not beentitled to take advantage of that position.In its order dated 16th December, 1986 this Courtrecognised the need to strike a balance between preservationand utilisation of deposits, and urged the Government totake a policy decision in the matter. The Governmentthereupon set up another committee to examine the working ofthe limestone mining operations in the Doon valley. ThisCommittee inspected six mines which were operating. Three ofthese mines were operating under valid mining leases and theother three, whose leases had expired in December 1982? wereoperating under orders of different courts.Keeping in view the reports of the committee and thesubmissions at the Bar, the Court passed further orders.On behalf of the lessees it was contended: (1) decisionof this Court dated 12th March, 1985 was final in certainaspects including the release of the A category minesoutside the city limits from the proceedings, and in view ofsuch finality it is not open to this Court in the sameproceedings at a later stage to direct differently in regardto what has been decided earlier; (2) during the pendency ofthese writ petitions, the Environment Protection Act of l986has come into force and since that Statute and the Rulesmade thereunder provide detailed procedure to deal with thesituations that arise in these cases, this Could should nomore deal with the matter and leave it to be looked into bythe authorities under the Act, and (3) there would be atotal stalemate in the manufacture of drugs and sugar, asalso steel,in case mining activity is stopped.Disposing of the writ petition, this Court,HELD: (1) "Forest" was initially a State subject coveredby Entry 19 in List II of the Seventh Schedule. In 1976,under the 42nd Amendment the Entry was deleted and Entry 17-A in the concurrent List was lnserted. The change from theState List to the Concurrent List was brought aboutPG NO 692following the realisation of the Central Government that`forests' were of national importance and should be placedin the Concurrent List to enable the Central Government todeal with the matter. The same amendment of the Constitutionbrought in Article 48,A and Article 51A(g) is Part IVA.[713H; 714A-B](2) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 does not permitmining in the forest area. If mining activity even to alimited extent is permitted in future, it would be notcongenial to ecology and environment, and the natural calmand peace which is a special feature of this area in itsnormal condition shall not be restored. This tourist zone inits natural setting would certainly be at its best if itsserenity is restored in the fullest way. [7l0E-F](3) By the Court's order of 12th March, l985, the Acategory mining leases outside the city limits were onlyexempted from further scrutiny and not released from theproceedings. If the court really intended to release the Acategory mines outside the city limits, it could very wellpronounce that in clear terms. [706E-H](4) The examination by this Court when it made the orderof 12th March, 1985, omitted to consider the impact of theForest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which was then a statute inforce. If the provision of the Conservation Act had beennoticed and impact thereof for the continuance of miningactivity bad been considered, perhaps the Court would havemade no exemptions and no mining may have been permitted.[706G](5) The writ petitions are not inter-party disputes andhave been raised by way of public interest litigation, andthe controversy before the Court is as to whether for safetyand for creating a hazardless environment for the people tolive in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped.The Court may not be taken to have said that for publicinterest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At thesame time, it has to be remembered that every technicalityin the procedural law is not available as a defence when amatter of grave public importance is for considerationbefore the Court. Even if it is said that there was a finalorder, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult toentertain the plea of res judicata. Leaving the questionopen for examination in future would lead to unnecessarymultiplicity of proceedings and would be against theinterest of society. [707B-D](6) These writ petitions were filed more than threeyears before the Environment (Protection) Act, l986 camePG NO 693into force. This Court appointed several expert commitees,received their reports and made directions. The severalparties and their counsel have been heard for days togetheron different issues during the three and a quarter years ofthe pendency of the proceedings. The Environment(Protection) Act does does purport to- and perhaps couldnot--take away the jurisdiction of this Court to deal with acase of this type. In consideration of these facts, thereis no justification to decline the exercise of jurisdictionat this stage. [707E-G](7) Ordinarily, the Court would not entertain a disputefor the adjudication of which a special provision has beenmade by law but that rule is not attracted in the presentsituation in these cases. Besides it is a rule of practiceand prudence and not one of jurisdiction. [707H](8) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies torenewals as well and even if there was a provision forrenewal in the lease agreement on exercise of Lessee'soption,the requirements of l980 Act had to be satisfiedbefore such renewal could be granted. [717G-H]Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1987]1 SCC 213; State of Rajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajindra Pal,[l965l 3 SCR 402 and State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi,[l985] 3 SCC 643, referred to.(9) It is clear from the directions contained in theorder of 12th March, 1985, as also the ratio of thejudgment in the Ambica Quarry Works case, that even if therehas been an order of the Court and no challenge is raisedagainst such order, this Court could invoke its jurisdictionto nullify the direction or order, and if any order,direction or decree has been passed ignoring the provisionsof the Conservation Act of 1980 the same would not bebinding. [7l8B-C](10) Parties have been heard on various aspects. Anorder made by this Court to nullify the decrees in suchcircumstances would not be violative of the principles ofnatural justice. [718F](11) it any decree or order has already been obtainedfrom any court relating to renewal of these leases, thesame shall stand vacated, and similarly any appeal or otherproceeding taken to obtain a renewal Or againstorder/decrees granting renewal shall also become nonest.[718G-H](12) Most of these mines are either within reservedforests or in forest lands as covered by the U.P. Amendmentof the Forest Act. To these areas the Forest ConservationPG NO 694Act applies and to allow mining ia these areas even understrictest control as a permanent feature would not only beviolative of the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act butwould be detrimental to restoration of the forest growth ina natural way in this area. Once the importance of forestsis realised and as a matter of national policy and in theinterests of the community, preservation of forests isaccepted as the goal, nothing which would detract from thatend should be permitted. In such circumstances, miningactivity in this valley must be completely stopped. But sucha situation will be available only after the original leasesof the working mines are over. [726G-H; 727Al(13) The court accepts the position that manufacture ofdrugs and sugar, as steel, would be hard-hit if miningactivity in this area is stopped all of a sudden. With thepressing demand in the market and discovery of usefullimestone deposits in other parts of the country apart fromwhat has been indicated in the second affidavit of the Unionof India, the trade would adjust itself as every economicactivity does. However, the position should be monitored andthe switch-over from the present position to a total banshould be spread over a period and not be sudden. [727D-E](14) In the circumstances, allowing the three on-goingmines to operate for their initial period of lease is themost appropriate direction that can be given during theswitch over from the present position to one of completeclosing down of mining operation. [730C-H](15) There is no dispute that continuance of miningoperations effects environment and ecology adversely and atthe same time creates a prejudicial situation againstconservation of forests. It is, therefore, necessary thateach of these working mines shall have to work with anundertaking given to the Monitoring Committee that all careand attention shall be bestowed to preserve ecological andenvironmental balance while carrying on mining operations.[731D-E](16) The Court ordered the setting up of the MonitoringCommittee to look after reafforestation, mining activitiesand all other aspects necessary to bring about naturalnormalcy in the Doon Valley. The Court also issueddirections regarding the finances, powers and duties of theMonitoring Committee. [733E](17) The Court has no other option but to close down themining activity in the broad interests of the community.This, however, does not mean that the displaced mine ownersPG NO 695should not be provided with alternative occupation. Piousobservation or even a direction in that regard may not beadequate. What is necessary is a time frame functioning ifrehabilitation is to be made effective. It is, therefore,necessary that a Committee should be set up to oversee therehabilitation of the displaced mine owners. [732B-C]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDlCION : Write petition (Civil) Nos. 8209and 8821 of 1983.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).M.K. Banerjee, Solicitor General, M.K. Ramamurthy, A.K.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, W.C.Mahajan, G.A. Shah, M.A. Krishnamurthy, R.P. Srivastava, Ms.A. Subhashni, Ravi Prakash Gupta, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, BadriDass Sharma, Aruneshwar Gupta, lnderbir Singh, Arun Jaitey,Ms. Bina Gupta, Atul 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. Karanjawala, S.A. Syed, P.P. Juneja, P.K.Jain, K.N. Bhatt, D.N. Mishra, Ms. lndra Makwana, A. SubbaRao, Harjinder Singh, Parijat Sinha. C.P. Lal, Shri Narain,S.K. Gupta, K.R. Namibiar, S.S Khanduja, K.K. Jain,. D.M.Nargolkar, Devi Ditta Mal-ln-person, A.k. Panda, RanjitKumar, A.K. Shrivastava, A.K. Jain, A.D. Sanger. PramodDayal, R.S. Hedge, K.R. Nagaraja, P.K. Rao, M.N. Shroff.N.N. Keshwani, R.N. Keshwani Prashant Bhushan and Mr. NevvaGupta Advocates for the appearing parties.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byRANGANATH MlSRA, J. On July 14, 1983, a letter receivedfrom the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera, Dehradun,bearing the date July 2, 1993, was Directed to beregistered as a writ petition under Article 32 of theConstitution and notice was ordered to the State of UttarPradesh and the Collector of Dehradun. Allegations ofunauthorised and illegal mining in the Mussoorie- Dehradunbelt which adversely affected the ecology of the area andled to environment disorder were made. Later on anotherapplication with similar allegations was directed to betagged with the earlier one. That is how these two writPG NO 696petitions were both in the registry of this Court in a veryinnocuous manner as public interest litigation. The numberof parties inflated both under the orders of the Court andon application to be added. Apart from the Governments ofthe Union and of Uttar Pradesh, several governmentalagencies and mining lessees appeared in the proceedings.What initially appeared to be two simple applications forlimited relief got expanded into a comprehensive litigationrequiring appointment of committees, inspection and reportsin them from time to time, serious exercises on the part ofthe mine owners before the committees, filing of affidavitsboth original and further, and lengthy arguments at theBar.These also necessitated several comprehensiveinterlocutory directions and orders. These two writpetitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.On August If, 1983, this Court appointed a Committee forinspection of the mines with a view to securing assistancein the determination as to whether safety standards laiddown in the Mines Act of 1952 and the Rules made thereunderhave been followed and whether there was any danger of land-side on account of quarrying operations particularly duringthe rainy season, and if there was any other hazard to anyindividual, cattle or agricultural lands on account ofcarrying of the mining operations. At the preliminary stagethis Court directed total stopping of blasting operationswhich, however, was modified later. The said Committee,referred to as the Bhargava 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 anExpert Committee known as the Working Group had been set upby the Union Government which had also inspected thesemines. The Bhargava Committee was of the view that the CGroup mines should be totally stopped; in the A Group mines,quarrying could be carried on after ensuring that there wasno ecological or environmental hazard; and in regard to theB Group mines, the Committee opined that those may not beclosed down permanently but the matter should be probedfurther.
A three-Judge Bench of this Court by an order datedMarch 12, 1985 (l985 3 SCR 169) directed closure of the Ccategory mines as also certain B category mines on permanentbasis and gave directions in regard to further action to betaken by the Bhargava Committee. While making the order theCourt specifically stated that the reasons for the orderwould follow. One of the learned Judges constituting thethree-Judge Bench retired from the Court on September 30,1985, and the said learned Judge (A.N. Sen, J.) expressedhis views in a short order dated 30th September, 1985. ThePG NO 697working Group appointed by the Union Government was alsoheaded by the same Mr. Bhargava and had five other members.The examination by the two Committees appeared to be withthe same object, namely, as to whether the mining wasbeing properly done and whether such activity should becarried on in this area. The Working Group and classifiedthe mines into two categories being I and II. They put thosemines which according to them were suitable for continuingoperation under Category I and the mines which in theiropinion were unsuitable for further mining under CategoryII. An interesting feature in these two Reports seems to bethat almost the same lime stone quarries which have been putby the Bhargava Committee under Category A feature inCategory I of the Working Group. This Court in its order ofMarch 12, 1985, referred to those aspects and pointed out:
"It will thus be seen that both the Bhargav Committeeand the Working Group were unanimous in their view that thelime stone quarries classified in category A by the Bhargavcommittee Report and category I by the Working Group weresuitable for continuance of mining operations. So far as thelime stone quarries in category C of the Bhargav CommitteeReport are concerned, they were regarded by both the BhargavCommittee and the Working Group as unsuitable forcontinuance of mining operations and both were of the viewthat they should be closed down. The only difference betweenthe Bhargav Committee and the Working Group was in regard tolime stone quarries classified in category B."
This Court had also appointed an Expert Committeeconsisting of Prof. K.S. Valdia, Mr. Hukum Singh and Mr.D.N. Kaul to enquire and investigate into the question ofdisturbance of ecology and pollution and affectation of air,water and environment by reason of quarring operations orstone crushers and setting up of lime stone kilns. Mr. Kauland Mr. Hukum Singh submitted a joint report with referenceto various aspects indicated in their order of appointmentwhile Prof. Valdia submitted a separate report. In the orderof March 12. 1985, this Count took note of the positionthat Prof. Valdia's report was confined largely to thegeological aspect and considerable reliance on the MainBoundary Thrust (MBT) had been placed by him in making ofthe report and he had taken the view that the lime stonequarries which were dangerously close to the MBT should beclosed down in such as that was a sensitive and vulnerablebelt. This Court then took the view that not muchPG NO 698importance could be placed to Dr. Valdia's report for thislitigation. The joint report submitted by Mr. Kaul and Mr.Hukum Singh had been taken into account by this Court inmaking interim directions and for the making of the finalorder no specific reference is called for.
In the order of March 12, 1985, this Court directed thatthe C Category mines of the Bhargav Committee Report shouldbe closed down permanently and if any mining lessee of sucha mine was running under the first grant or under Court'sorders after its expiry, it would not be entitled to takeadvantage of the position. Similar order was made in regardto the B category mines situated in the Shasradhara block.This Court directed A category mines located within theMussoorie municipal limits and the remaining B categorymines to submit schemes subjected to further enquiry andordered:
"We accordingly appoint a high powered Committeeconsisting of Mr. D. Bandyopadhyay, Secretary, Ministry ofRural Development as Chairman, and Shri H.S. Ahuja, DirectorGeneral, Mines Safety, Dhanbad, Bihar, Shri D.N. Bhargav,Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, New SecretariatBuilding, Nagpur and two experts to be nominated by theDepartment of Environment. Government of India within fourweeks from the date of this Order. The lessees of the limestone quarries classified as category A in Bhargav CommitteeReport and for Category P in the Working Group Report andfalling within the city limits of Mussoorie as also thelessees of the lime stone quarries classified as category Bin the Bhargav Committee scheme for mining their lime stonequarries to this Committee (hereinafter called theBandyopadhyay Committee) and if any such scheme or schemesare submitted the Bandyopadhyay Committee will proceed toexamine the same without any unnecessary delay and submit areport to this Court whether in its opinion the particularlime stone quarry can be allowed to be operated inaccordance with the scheme and if so, subject to whatconditions and if it cannot be allowed to be operated, thereasons for taking that view. The Bandyopadhyay Committee inmaking its report will take into account the various aspectswhich we had directed the Bhargav Committee and the KaulCommittee to consider while making their reports includingPG NO 699the circumstances that the particular lime stone quarry mayor may not be within the city limits of Mussoorie and alsogive an opportunity to the concerned lessee to be heard,even though it be briefly. "
Several mining lessees submitted their schemes whichwere examined by the Committee but none of them was cleared.Objections against rejection of the schemes had been filedbefore this Court by many of the aggrieved lessees. It wasdirected in the aforesaid order of 12th March, 1985, thatuntil the Bandyopadhyay Committee cleared the particularmines for operation, mining activity in regard to all minescovered within the purview of examination by that Committeewould stop. This Court, however, allowed A category mineslocated outside the city limits to operate. While directingclosure of the Shasradhara area B category mines and all theC category mines, as also A and B category mines within themunicipal limits this Court made it clear that the banindicated by it would supersede any order of any othercourt. The Court observed:
"The consequence of this Order made by us would be thatthe lessees of lime stone quarries which have been directedto be closed down permanently under this Order or which maybe directed to be closed down permanently afterconsideration of the report of the Bandyopadhyay).Committee, would be thrown out of business in which theyhave invested large sums of money and expanded considerabletime and effort. This would undoubtedly cause hardship tothem but it is a price that has to be paid for protectingand safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthyenvironment with minimal disturbance of ecological balanceand without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle,homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air,water and environment. "
The Order of 12th March, 1985, did not refer to theForest (Conservation) Act of 1980 when it permitted the Acategory lime stone quarries located outside the city limitsto operate.
This Court made several orders relating to specificaspects after the order of 12th March, 1985. One such orderwas made on 30th May, 1985, (1985 (3) SCC 614), another on'18th December, 1986, (1986 Suppl. SCC 517) where reasonsfor the order of 12th March, 1985, given, and yet anotherorder was made on 19th October, 1987 (AIR 1987 SC 2426). WePG NO 700shall refer to the last of these orders in a later part ofthis Judgment. In the order of 16th December, 1986, when thereasonings for the order dated 12th March, 1985 were given,this Court had stated:
"It is for the Government and the Nation-and not for theCourt to-decide whether the deposits should be exploited atthe cost of ecology and environmental consideration or theindustrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied. It maybe perhaps possible to exercise greater control and vigilover the operation and strike a balance between preservationand utilisation; that would indeed be a matter for an expertbody to examine and on the basis of appropriate advice,Government should take a policy decision and firmlyimplement the same."
The Court had also indicated in its earlier order thatit should be ensured that the low grade cilica content limestone is specifically utilised only in special industrieshaving regard to its quality and should not be wasted bybeing utilised for purposes for which this special gradelime stone is not required.
Keeping these aspects in view, the Government of Indiain the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Department ofEnvironment, Forests and wildlife, constituted a Committeeto examine the working of the lime stone mining operationsin the Doon Valley by its memorandum No. J-20012/48/86-1A,dated 30th of December, 1986, which was also called theWorking Group. Shri D.N. Bhargava was nominated as Chairmanand the Committee had three other members, namely, Shri V.C.Verma, Director General, Mines Safety, Dhanbad; Prof. B.D.Dhar, Department of Mining Engineering of the Banaras HinduUniversity, Varanasi; and Shri R. Mehta, PrincipalScientific Officer, Department of Environment, Forest andWildlife, New Delhi. Shri Verma was substituted by Shri N.Mishra, Deputy Director General, Northern Zone. The terms ofreference of the Committee were:
(i) Whether the operations are being carried out onscientific lines?
(ii) Whether the limestone quarried is being supplied toend-users as stipulated by the Supreme Court; and
(iii) The extent to which the mining operations arecontributing to environmental damage?
PG NO 701This Committee visited the six mines which are operatingand indicated:
"The limestone deposits of Dehradun-Mussoorie area arehighly valuable mineral resource now essentially required bythe steel industry and it would be necessary to exploitthem, of course, in a very planned and systematic Manner.'The Committee addressed itself to two aspects, namely,-
(i) those which were considered suitable for miningoperations, and
(ii) those which were considered unsuitable for furthermining.
The Committee whose entire report has been madeavailable to us came to the following conclusions in regardto each of the six operating mines.
(i) Lambidhar limestone Mine of M/s Uttar Pradesh StateMineral Development Corporation Ltd. (UPSMDC) is a StateUndertaking and holds a mining lease of 97 hectares coveringthe Lambidhar Hills and the lease is valid up to. 10thMarch, 1996. The Committee found that 36% of its productionwas supplied to steel and chemical industries, 12% to sugar,6% to cement and other miscellaneous industries and 46% tochips and lime kilns industries and disapproved thisposition. It further found that while colour limestone whichis a metamarphose is being recorded as a minor mineralwhereas it was learnt that it was being used for despatch asmajor mineral. The arrangement for classification of thelime stone also was not acceptable to the Committee. Itfurther found:
"The hill slopes and the river/nallah base are coveredby scree generated both during road construction as well assubsequent mining operations. This is the result of allowingthe excavated material to roll down the slopes. TheCommittee is of the opinion that road making may be donewith front-end loader instead of bulldozer as with latterequipment excavated materials roll down the hill slopeuncontrolably. The vegetation cover along the slopes hasbeen damaged by the rolling material as well as thePG NO 702excavation made for the road making and the hills present anugly look. Hydro-seeding may be done to improve looks ofhill slopes. Deposition of debris/scree in the nullahsspecially in Betarli is the cause of concern because ithappens to be one of the main steams which is source-ofwater supply to the villages as well as Dehradun city. Theapproach road has reached the top and mining operations havebeen started but not work on reclamation of mined out areahas yet commenced. A proper disposal yard for stockingdebris must be provided so that the present practice ofdisposing it near the camp office on the bank of the violetis prevented. Details of arrangements for controlling dustboth in mining and crushing operations are not available."
UPSMDC is the largest of the working mines and apart fromthe fact that it belongs to the Government of Uttar Pradesh,it has also the largest of investment. It has been claimedbefore us on its behalf that it operates most scientificallyand satisfies all the requirements appropriate fOrecological and environmental safeguards. The Report of theCommittee, extracted above, negatives all these claims.
(ii) We shall now refer to M/S Punjab Lime and LimestoneCompany which has two mines both of which are working. LeaseNo. 14 covers 44.5 hectares and is a lease for 20 years from1966; as such it has already expired. Lease No. 96 is for28.92 hectares and would expire in December, 1989. Lease No.14 had two areas and this Court disallowed mining in theNorthern block. The Committee found that 16.4 hectares equalto 41 acres, out of lease No. 96 comprised of thick forestand the lessee had surrendered the forest area. The miningoperation is being carried on in lease No. 14 under ordersof the Court and the residual portion of lease No. 96. TheCommittee found that the scheme which had been offered tothe Bandyopadhyay Committee was in regard to the mining inthe northern block of lease No. 14 which has since beenabandoned. It further transpires that about 27% of itsoutput during 1986 was supplied for the steel industry. Thereport indicates that there is little generation of scree.As there is sparse growth of trees in the area covered bythe mines, no significant deforestation is involved.Disposal of overburden is not significant Check dams havebeen set up in the lower reaches which are on the right bankof Bhitarli river and no significant fall of the scree intothe river was apprehended:
(iii) Next is lease No. 72 of Shri R.K. Oberai whichwould expire on 10th of April, 1994. It has an area of 15.92PG NO 703hectares. The Committee found that this mine lies in theupper reaches of the Song river. Thick forest growth is seenclose to the mine and the Committee gathered that the forestauthorities have declined permission to extend the mineworkings beyond RL 1280. The Committee found that the lesseehas undertaken to carry out afforestation and has alsostarted compensatory forestory in the adjacent areas. Therewas no apprehension of spreading of scree and future miningoperations are not likely to involve any significantdeforestation. The Committee also has opined that there isno apprehension of choking of the water-ways due to miningoperations as the Song river flows about 400 mts. away.
Apart from these three mines which are operating undervalid mining leases, the Committee inspected the minescorresponding to Iease Nos. 16, 17 and 76, belonging to VedPal Singh Chaudhary, Seth Ram Avtar and Shri C.G. Gujralrespectively. All these leases have expired in December,1982, and under orders of different courts mining is beingcarried on.
Bhitarli Kalan Limestone Mines of Shri Ved Pal SinghChaudhary was a lease for 38.8 hectares and expired on 29thDecember, 1982. This Court has already directed closure ofmining operation in a small area on the left bank ofBhitarli river.
Seth Ram Avtar has a lease of 14. 18 hectares on theleft bank of Bhitarli river and the lease expired on 2ndDecember, 1982. The Committee found that he had noenvironment management plan. The working plan submitted bythe Iessee did not show any plantation area.The last of the working mines which the Committeevisited is that of Shri C.G. Gujaral. The Iease was for24.16 hectares and expired on 17th December, 1983. TheCommittee found that the Iease area contained very goodforest. The rolling of scree/debris along the slopes hadleft not only ugly scars but also resulted in destruction ofthe green cover. The debris flow has also choked the Sansarunullah which once used to be a perennial stream. There wasno environmental management plan. In fact the Committee cameto the conclusion that the working of this mine was notconducive to the environmental conservation.We have in another part of this judgment indicated ourconclusion that mining activity as a whole should be stoppedin the Doon Valley but for the reasons indicated therein, wehave also come to the conclusion that the three miningPG NO 704lessees who have been operating under valid lease may bepermitted to work subject to such conditions as have beenindicated. Keeping the report of the Working Group in viewand for the reasons we have elsewhere indicated, we directthat mining operations in lease Nos. 16, 17 and 76 where therespective leases have expired and mining operation is beingcarried on under Court's Orders, shall stop and the severalorders of the courts enabling mining activity shall standsuperseded.
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 DoonValley area should generally be stopped and reasons thereforwe shall provide in due course."
In another part of this judgment, reasons in support ofthat conclusion have been provided. The direction to closedown the three operating mines where the period of lease hasexpired is to bring the position in accord with thatconclusion.
One of the submissions advanced at the Bar is that thedecision of this Court dated 12th March, 1985, was final incertain aspects including the release of the A categorymines outside the city limits of Mussoorie from theproceedings and in view of such finality it is not open tothis Court in the same proceedings at 3 latter stage todirect differently in regard to what has been decidedearlier. Connected with this submission is the contentionthat during the pendency of these writ petitions, theEnvironmental (Protection) Act of 1986 has come into forceand since that Statute and the Rules made: thereunderprovide detailed procedure to deal with the situations thatarise in these cases, this Court should no more deal withthe matter and leave it to be looked into by the authoritiesunder the Act. Counsel have relied upon what was stated bythis Court while giving reasons in support of the order ofMarch 12, 1985, namely, "it is for the Government and theNation-and not for the Court-to decide whether the depositsshould be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmentalconsiderations." In the order of 12th March, 1985, thisCourt had pointed out:
"So far as the lime stone quarries classified ascategory). A in the Bhargav Committee Report and/or category1 in the Working Group Report are concerned, we would dividethem into two classes, one class consisting of those limePG NO 705stone quarries which are within the city limits of Mussoorieand the other consisting of those which are outside the citylimits. We take the view that the lime stone quarriesfalling within category A of the Bhargav Committee Reportand/or category 1 of the Working Group Report and fallingoutside the city limits of Mussoorie, should be allowed tothe operated subject, of course, to the observance of therequirements of the Mines Act, 1952, the Metalliferous MinesRegulations, 1961 and other relevant statutes, rules andregulations. Of course when we say this, we must make itclear that we are not holding that if the leases in respectof these lime stone quarries have expired and suits or writpetitions for renewal of the leases are pending in thecourts, such leases should be automatically renewed. It willbe for the appropriate courts to decide whether such leasesshould be renewed or not having regard to the law and factsof each case. So, far as the lime stone quarries classifiedin category A in the Bhargav Committee Report and category 1in the Working Group Report and falling within the citylimits of Mussoorie are concerned, we would give the samedirection which we are giving in the next succeedingparagraph in regard to the lime stone quarries classified ascategory B in the Bhargav Committee Report."
The argument that A category mines outside the citylimits had been cleared is based upon what has beenindicated above. Dealing with this of the direction, thisCourt in its order of 19th October, 1987, stated :
Consciousness regarding environmental upkeep is ofrecent origin. Cognizance of ecological importance hasentered into governmental activity only in this decade.Everyday that consciousness as also the sense of socialobligation in this regard are on the increase. It has beenpointed out to us in course of hearing of the objectionsthat the classification of the A category Iime stonequarries on the basis of their location-within the municipallimits and outside--was indeed not a real one. We have beenshown and it seems to be factually true that some of thelime stone quarries said to be outside the city limits arecloser to the heart of the city of Mussoorie that otherslocated within the city limits. If the real purpose of theorder made by this Court was not to permit mining within thePG NO 706city limits without further scrutiny as in the case of Bcategory stone quarries, we really do not see anyjustification as to why these stone quarries located outsidethe city limits but close to the heart of the city shouldnot have been subjected to such scrutiny. Since the writpetitions have not been finally disposed of and the ordermade in regard to the A category quarries located outsidethe city limits by the judgment referred to above onlyexempted them from further scrutiny as was directed inrespect of the other quarries, we see no impediment in thematter of giving a re-look at the matter even with referenceto the A category quarries located outside the city limits.In this connection it is relevant to take note of thefact that the State Government has already formed animprovement programme of the area by constituting a combinedbody for Mussoorie and Dehradun. The considerations whichhad weighed with the Court on the basis of municipal limitshas indeed to be extended not to the entire area covered bythe new scheme. We are, therefore of the view that the Acategory stone quarries in this area irrespectlve oflocation within or outside city limits should be subjectedto further order of this Court and there is no legalimpediment for this Court to do the same."
We reiterate our opinion that by the order of 12th March,1985, the A category mining leases outside the city Iimitswere only exempted from further scrutiny and not releasedfrom the proceedings. Our order of 18th December, 1986, leftcertain aspects to be considered by the State andimmediately the Central Government responded by appointingthe second Working Group. We would like to reiterate what wehave already said in the order of 19th of October, 1987,that the examination by this Court when it made the order of12th March, 1985, omitted to consider the impact of theForest (Conservation) Act of 1980 which was then a statutein force. If the provisions of the Conservation Act had beennoticed and impact thereof for the continuance of miningactivity had been considered, perhaps the Court would havemade no exemptions and no mining may have been permitted.Besides, if the Court really intended to release the Acategory mines outside the city limits, it could very wellpronounce that in clear terms.
PG NO 707In view of what we have indicated above, it is difficultto accept the stand taken by some of the lessees and by Mr.Nariman appearing for the intervener that a final order hasbeen by this Court in regard to the A category mines outsidethe city limits of Mussoorie.
The writ petitions before us are not inter-partydisputes and have been raised by way of public interestlitigation and the controversy before the Court is as towhether the social safety and for creating a hazardfessenvironment for the people to live in, mining in the areashould be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to havesaid that for public interest litigations, procedural lawsdo not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered thatevery technicality in the procedural law is not available asa defence when a matter of grave public importance is forconsideration before the Court. Even if it is said thatthere was a final order, in a dispute of this type it wouldbe difficult to entertain the plea of res judicata. As wehave already pointed out when the order of 12th6 March,1985, was made, no reference to the Forest (Conservation)Act of 1980 had been done. We are of the view that leavingthe question open for examination in future would lead tounnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and would be againstthe interests of society. It is mete and proper as also inthe interest of the parties that the entire question istaken into account at this stage.
Undoubtedly, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29of 1986) has come into force with effect from 19th November,1986. Under this Act power is vested in the CentralGovernment to take measures to protect and improve theenvironment. These writ petitions were filed as early as1983-more than three years before the Act came into force.This Court appointed several expert Committees, receivedtheir reports and on the basis of materials placed beforeit, made directions, partly final and partly interlocutory,in regard to certain mines in the area. Several directionsfrom time to time have been made by this Court. As many asfour reportable orders have been given. The several partiesand their counsel have been heard for days together ondifferent issues during the three and a quarter years of thependency of the proceedings. The Act does not purport to-and perhaps could not-take away the jurisdiction of thisCourt to deal with a case of this type. In consideration ofthese facts, we do not think there is any justification todecline the exercise of jurisdiction at this stage.Ordinarily the Court would not entertain a dispute for theadjudication of which a special provision has been made bylaw but that rule is not attracted in the present situationin these cases. Besides it is a rule of practice andprudence and not one of jurisdiction. The contention againstPG NO 708exercise of jurisdiction advanced by Mr. Nariman for theintervener and reiterated by some of the lessees before thisCourt must stand overruled.
We shall now briefly indicate reasons in support of ourconclusion mentioned in the order of October 19, 1987, thatmining in this area should be stopped.
Kalidas, the greatest of the Indian poets, sang thepraises of the Himalayas in 'Meghadoot' by describing it asthe loftiest mountain on earth surface located on the northof the country. The Himalayan ranges apart from operating asa natural seal on the northern border against intruders,have influenced the climate, culture, ecology andenvironment of the sub continent. These are the ranges fromwhere originate several perennial rivers like the Ganges andthe Yamuna. These two rivers which mingle at Allahabad andlater flow into the Bay of Bengal as one river have built upwhat is known as the gangetic belt-the most fertile part oflndia. The lcgendary tradition of our culture is deeplyassociated with these two rivers. Apart from providingsuccour to millions of people who inhabit this belt. Yamunais said to have provided the backdrop of Krishna Leela. Thecatchment area of this river is spread over the MussoorieHills-otherwise known as the Doon Valley with which we areconcerned. Before a quarter of a century, Yamuna was havingadequate water flow through-out the year. Unlike the Gangeswhich has her main tributaries originating from the snow-clad regions of the mountain range and melting snow insummer helping the tributaries to be perennial, the Yamunaused to receive the bulk of her water from the streamsjoining her in the lower regions. The Doon Valley used toreceive sumptuous rains during the season; the tree rootshelped the water to be stored; the lime stone mines operatedas aquifers. The stored water was released in a continuousprocess and that streams even without the support ofmelting snow, provided perennial supply to the Yamuna.Assured of such supply, the twin cities of Mussoorie andDehradun grew up. Lower down, hundreds of villages and smalltowns had also sprung up.
Lime stone mining operations in the Doon Valley becamewide-spread during the decade between 1955 and 1965 and manyof the leases were granted in 1962. In the decade after1965. the depredation, of mining began to be felt. Peace andtranquillity of the Valley was gone. Trees were felled atrandom and lush green forests disappeared. Blasting affectedand shook up the hills. Rocks and scree rolled down andkilled or injured the cattle, damaged the cultivable landsand adversely affected the villagers. The natural beauty ofPG NO 709the Queen of the hill stations was no more to be seen. Withthe felling of the forests, rains became less, with thetrees gone and the lime stone dug out, the aquifers ceasedto exist. The streams got blocked by scree and stones andthe flow of water was substantially reduced. Tourist trafficwas adversely affected. Irrigation was no more possible. Thetributaries no longer fed the Yamuna sufficiently. Dehradunexperienced scarcity of even drinking water. These led tothe despatch of the letter in July, 1983 to this Court.The Doon Valley lime stone deposits are a gift of Natureto mankind. Underneath the soil cover there is an unseenstore house of bountry almost everywhere. Similarly forestsprovide the green belt and are a bequest of the pastgenerations to the present. Lime stone deposits if excavatedand utilised get exhausted while if forests are exploited,there can be regeneration provided reafforestation isundertaken. Trees, however, take time to grow and ordinarilya 15 to 25 year period is necessary for such purpose.We have already indicated that several expert Committeesappointed by this Court have opined generally againstcontinuing the mining activity in the Valley. The SecondWorking Group found in as late as 1987 that limited miningin the on-going mines was not congenial to ecological andenvironmental discipline. This Court by its order on October19, 1987, (AlR 1987 SC 2426) called the Union of India:
"..... to place before the Court on affidavit theminimum total requirement of this grade of lime stone formanufacture of quality steel and defence armaments. Theaffidavit should also specify as to how much of high gradeore is being imported into the country and as to whetherother indigenous sources are available to meet suchrequirement. This Court would also require an affidavit fromresponsible authorities of the Union of lndia as to whetherkeeping the principles of ecology, environmental protectionand safeguards and anti-pollution measures, it is in theinterest of the Society that the requirements should be metby import or by taking other alternate indigenous sources ormining activity in this area should be permitted to alimited extent. The Court expects the Union of lndia tobalance these two aspects and place on record its stand notas a party to the litigation but as a protector of thePG NO 710environment in discharge of its statutory and socialobligation for the purpose of consideration of the Court . .The two affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of Indiahave been dealt with elsewhere in the judgment and it wouldbe sufficient for the instant aspect to extract from theaffidavit of Mr. Seshan, Secretary to the Government in theMinistry of Environment and Forests, where he has stated :"5.1 Union of India submits that from the point of viewof protection of the environment in the unique Doon Valley,it would be desirable that lime stone mining operations inthe Valley are stopped completely."
Nariman questioned the value of this statement in viewof the indication in the affidavit that it was thedepartment's submission to the Court. We do not think thatthe Ministry Secretary's affidavit can be brushed aside thatway. Read in the background of the directions in the Orderof 19th October, 1987, and in the sequence of the firstaffidavit not having been accepted by the Court ascompliance, we must assume that Mr. Seshan has disclosed thestand of the Union of India with full authority and with theintention of binding the Union of India by his statement.We are separately dealing with the Forest (Conservation)Act and its bearing and effect on this aspect. It issufficient to note that the Act does not permit mining inthe forest area. We are also satisfied that if miningactivity even to a limited extent is permitted in future, itwould be not congenial to ecology and environment and thenatural calm and peace which is a special feature of thisarea in its normal condition shall not be restored. Thistourist zone in its natural setting would certainly be atits best if its serenity is restored in the fullest way. Weare of the considered opinion that mining activity in thisValley must be completely stopped but as indicated inanother part of this judgment such a situation will beavailable only after the original leases of the workingmines are over.
It is time to turn to the contention relating toforests. Air and water are the most indispensable gifts ofNature for preservation of life. Abundant sun-shine togetherwith adequate rain keeps Nature's generating force at work.Human habitations all through the Ages have thrived on riverbanks and in close proximity of water sources. Forests havenatural growth of herbs which provide cure for diseases.
PG NO 711Our ancestors knew that trees were friends of mankind andforests were necessary for human existence and civilizationto thrive. It is these forests that provided shelter for the'Rishies ' and accommodated the ancient 'Gurukulas'. Theytoo provided food and sport for our forefathers living inthe State of Nature. That is why there is copious referenceto forests in the Vedas and the ancient literature of ours.In ancient times trees were worshiped as gods and prayersfor up-keep of forests were offered to the Divine. In theArtharva Veda (5.30.6) it has been said:
"Man's paradise is on earth;
This living world is the beloved place of all ;It has the blessings of Nature's bounties ;Live in a lovely spirit."
In due course civilization developed and men came tolive away from forests. Yet the human community dependedfieavily upon the forests which caused rains and providedtimber, fruits, herbs and sports. With sufficient sun-shineand water there was luxuriant growth of forests in thetropical and semi-tropical zones all over the globe. Thencame the age of science and outburst of human population.Man required more of space for living as also forcultivation as well as more of timber. In that pursuit theforests were cleared and exploitation was arbitrary andexcessive; the deep forests were depleted; consequentlyrainfall got reduced; soil erosion took place. The earthcrust was washed away and places like Cherapunji in Assamwhich used to receive an average annual rainfall of 500inches suffered occasional drought.
Scientists came to realise that forests play a vitalrole in maintaining the balance of the ecological system.They came to know that forests preserve the soil and heavyhumus acts as a porous reservoir for retaining water andgradually releasing it in a sustained flow. The trees in theforests draw water from the bowls of the earth and releasethe same into the atmosphere by the process of transpirationand the same is received back by way of rain as a result ofcondensation of clouds formed out of the atmosphericmoisture. Forests thus help the cycle to be completed. Treesare responsible to purify the air by releasing oxygen intothe atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis. Ithas, therefore, been rightly said that there is a balance onearth between air, water, soil and plant. Forests hold upthe mountains, cushion the rains and they discipline therivers and control the floods. They sustain the springs;they break the winds; they foster the bulks; theyPG NO 712keep the air cool and clean. Forests also prevent erosion bywind and water and preserve the carpet of the soil.In the second half of the 19th Century felling of treescame to be regulated. In 1858, the Department of Forestrywas set up and in 1864 the first Inspector General ofForests was appointed. In the following year the firstIndian Forest Act came into the Statute Book to be followedby another Act in 1878 and yet another in 1927 which isstill in force providing measures of regulation. This Acthas been amended in the various States and presentlyreference shall be made to the relevant amendments in UttarPradesh.
Laying the railway track and providing sleepers thereforrequired clearing of forest areas and cutting down of trees.During the Second World War Indian forests were very badlymauled for various defence purposes. By the time Indiabecame independent it had about 2 per cent of the earth'sland area, 1 per cent of productive forest area 15 per centof world's population and 10 per cent of world's animallife-a situation indicative of the fact that there was acutedeficit of forest area. The Government of lndia declared itsNational Forest Policy in 1452 which laid down that forestsshould occupy 33 per cent of the land surface as against 23per cent then attention was intended to the bestowed forexpansion of forests in each of the Five-Year Plans thatfollowed with a view to rehabilitating the forests. Thedemand occasioned by the growing population and the spreadof economic development and consequent demand of timber asraw material as also feul led a excessive exploitation ofthe forests and consequent clearing of forest areasnotwithstanding the declared of National Forest Policy.It is interesting to note that the national per capitaaverage of forest area works out to 0. 11 hectare as againstan international average of 1.5 hectare. State-wise,Arunachal Pradesh has per capita forest of 8.2.1 hectareswhich is the maximum and Haryana has the minimum being 0.01hectare (figures based on Census Report of 1981 and thereport of the Central Forestry Commission). While some ofthe advanced countries like Australia, Canada, Germany,Japan and United States have forest cover of higher area,on account of want of regulation and appropriate care andattention, this unhappy situation has arisen in India.The Birla Institute of Scientific Research in its Reporton Social Forestry in India: Problems and Prospects [1986]has indicated:
PG NO 713`The treeless expense of land provides an environmentleast conductive to healthy living. Tree leaves recharge theatmosphere with life giving oxygen, take away excesscarbondioxide and transmit moisture to the atmosphere by wayof transpiration. It is estimated that one hectare ofwoodland consumes 3.7 tonnes of carbondioxide and gives out2 tonnes of oxygen per year. Denied these beneficialprocesses, life becomes lead heavy. A tree-coveredenvironment is much healthier to live and work in. Amongstthe immediately perceptible effects of loss of vegetativeprotection are soil erosion, floods and droughts. If treesand other vegetations are present, they bear the burnt ofwinds, heat, cold and rain water, first in their crowns andfoliage. The soil remains covered by humus, decomposinglitter and freshly fallen leaves which protect it fromdirect action of the adverse natural forces. In a woodedarea the flow of rain water gets regulated through theIeaves and the spongy material overlying the soil; but in abarren, unprotected surface the rain drops hit the soildirectly and the water flows torrentially, dislodging andcarrying with it the soil participles which have takenhundreds of years to form. This results in disastrous floodsin lower areas causing damage to life and property. Fastrunning water also causes landslides and other calamities enroute. With all the rain water having run away in the formof floods the land surface losses its resiliance to drierspells and severe droughts are caused. The removal of soilby water produces fertility and the productive capacity ofthe up-lands to a considerable degree.
It is estimated that nearly 6,000 million tonnes of soilis washed away every year in floods. With that go 6.0million tonnes of nutrients-more than the amount that isapplied in the form of fertilisers."
We shall now deal with legislative measures to preservethe forests and impact of such provisions on mining afterbriefly referring to the legislative power in regard toforests.
"Forest" was initially a State subject covered by Entry19 in List II of the Seventh Schedule: In 1976, under the42nd Amendment the entry was deleted and entry 17-A in theConcurrent List was inserted. The change from the State Listto the Concurrent List was brought about following thePG NO 714reallsation of the Central Government that forests were ofnational importance and should be placed in the ConcurrentList to enable the Central Government to deal with thematter. The same amendment of the Constitution brought inArticle 48-A in Part IV providing thus:
"The State shall endeavour to protect and improve theenvironment and to safeguard the forests and wild life ofthe country."
Article 51-A in Part IV-A of the Constitution insertedby the same amendment provided a set of fundamental dutiesand clause (g) runs thus:
"It shall be the duty of every citizen of India-
(g) to protect and improve the natural environmentincluding forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to havecompassion for living creatures."
1972 marks a watershed in the history of environmentalmanagement so far as India is concerned. The NationalCommittee of Environment and Planning and Coordination wasset up and various steps were taken to implement therecOmmendations already made and to be made: thereafter. TheNational Commission on Agricultural in 1976 noticed theinadequate implementation of the 1953 National Forest Policyand proposed the following amendments:
(i) Provision for prior approval of the CentralGovernment before taking steps for dereservation ordiversion of forest lands to non-forest use.
(ii) Preventing and evicting encroachment of forestlands.
(iii) Safeguarding against monoculture practices inraising forest plantations so that preservation of habitatsfor natural flora and fauna is ensured.
(iv) Encouraging large scale industrial plantation tofoster growth of forest industries.
PG NO 715The problem of forest preservation and protection was nomore to be separated from the life style of tribals. Theapproach required a shift from the dependence on law andexecutive implementation to dependence on the conscious andvoluntary participation of the masses. This requirededucating the masses as well as appropriate education of thedepartmental employees. In this background the Forest(Conservation) Act of 1980 was enacted with which we proposepresently to deal after noticing certain provisions of theIndian Forest Act of 1927.
The Forest Act of 1927 deals with four categories offorests, namely-
1. Reserved Forests in Chapter II
2. Village Forests in Chapter 111
3. Protected Forests in Chapter IV
4. Non-Government Forests in Chapter V.The first three categories deal with forests which areGovernment property while the last refers to control overforests and lands which are not Government property. Most ofthe private forests covered under the fourth category wereearlier parts of estates which have now been abolished andthus such forests have also become Government property. InUttar Pradesh there have been several amendments of theForest Act and Chapter V-A has been incorporated whichprovides for control over forests of claimants. Detailedprocedure has been laid in Chapter II in respect of reservedforests. Section 3 vests power in the State Government toreserve forests. The process for reservation of forestsstarts with section 4 and ends up with the final declarationunder section 20. Section 27 vests power in the StateGovernment to declare a forest to be no longer reserved.As noticed earlier, notwithstanding the regulatoryprovisions in the Forest Act of 1927 and the Government'sNational Forest Policy of 1952, forests generally gotrapidly depleted. To meet this alarming situation the Forest(Conservation) Ordinance of 1980 was promulgated by thePresident and the Ordinance was followed by the Forest(Conservation) Act of 1980. The statement of objects andreasons, as far as relevant, point out:
PG NO 716"Deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads toenvironmental deterioration. Deforestation had been takingplace on a large scale in the country and it had causedwidespread concern.
With a view to checking further deforestation thePresident promulgated on the 25th October, 1980, the Forest(Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Ordinance made the priorapproval of the Central Government necessary fordereservation of forests and for use of forest land for non-forest purposes. The Ordinance also provided for theconstitution of an advisory committee to advice the CentralGovernment with regard to grant of such approval."Section 2 of the Act which is relevant provides:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law forthe time being in force in a State, no State Government orother authority shall make, except with the prior approvalof the Central Government. any order directing-
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of theexpression reserved forest) in any law for the time being inforce in that State or any portion thereof, shall cease tobe reserved ;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may beused for any non-forest purpose.
Explanation- For the purposes of this section non-forestpurpose means breaking up or clearing of any forest land orportion thereof for any purpose other than reafforestation."Thus the power which was vested in the State Governmentunder section 27 of the Indian Forest Act of 1927 or anyother law containing a similar provision is now exercisablesubject to prior approval of the a Central Government.This Court dealt with the provisions of the 1980 Act inthe case of Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat andOrs., [1987] 1 SCC 213. The question of renewal of miningleases in Gujarat came for consideration in this case beforePG NO 717the Court. At page 219 of the Reports, it was stated:
"The rules dealt with a situation prior to the cominginto operation of 1980 Act. '1980 Act' was an act inrecognition of the awareness that deforestation andecological imbalances as a result of deforestation havebecome social menaces and further deforestation andecological imbalances should be prevented. That was theprimary purpose writ large in the Act of 1980. Therefore,the concept that power coupled with the duty enjoined uponthe respondents to renew the lease stands eroded by themandate of the legislation as manifest in 1980 Act in thefacts and circumstances of these cases. The primary duty wasto the community and that duty took precedence, in ouropinion, in these cases. The obligation to the society mustpredominate over the obligation to the individuals."
Again in paragraph 19, this Court observed:
"In the instant appeals the situation is entirelydifferent. The appellants are asking for a renewal of thequarry leases. It will lead to further deforestation or atleast it will not help reclaiming back the areas wheredeforestations have taken place. In that view of the matter,in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion,the ratio of the said decision State of Bihar v. Banshi RamModi, [ 1985] 3 SCC 643 cannot be made applicable to supportthe appellants' demands in these cases because the facts areentirely different here. The primary purpose of the Actwhich must subserve the interpretation in order to implementthe Act is to prevent further deforestation. The CentralGovernment has not granted approval. ......"
The ratio of the decision of this Court in Stare ofRajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajindra Pal, [l965] 3 SCR 402has obviously no application to the facts of this case. InBanshi Ram Modi' case (supra) what was being considered wasextension of the leases for another mineral which was foundwhile exploitation, under the existing mining lease wasundertaken. We agree with the view expressed by BrotherMukharji that the Conservation Act of 1980 applies torenewal as well and even if there was a provision forrenewal in the lease agreement on exercise of lessee'soption, the requirements of 1980 Act had to be satisfiedbefore such renewal could be granted.
Many of these leases, as already indicated by us,expired in 1982. Renewal had been applied for and in many ofPG NO 718these cases the request for renewal was rejected. On theplea that the State had no right to reject the request forfirst renewal, the aggrieved lessees went before differentcourts and obtained decrees or interim orders. We havealready pointed out that in the order of 12th March, 1985,this Court vacated such orders or decrees regarding all Ccategory and some B category mines. It is clear from thedirections contained in the order of 12th March, 1985, asalso the ratio of the judgment in the Ambica Quarry Workscase (supra) that even if there has been an order of theCourt and no challenge is raised against such order thisCourt could invoke its jurisdiction to nullify the directionor order and if any order, direction or decree has beenpassed ignoring the provisions of the Conservation Act of1980 the same would not be binding. We have been given tounderstand during the hearing of these cases that appealshave been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh wheredecrees have been passed directing renewal. When this Courtleft the litigations to be continued, the Conservation Actof 1980 had not been noticed. Therefore, liberty had beengranted to agitate the disputes arising out of refusal torenew. In view of the provisions in the Conservation Act andthe opinion expressed in Ambica Quarry Works case (supra),with which we are in agreement, the decrees also would notbe sustainable where prior approval of the CentralGovernment has not been obtained. We agree with BrotherMukharji that whether it is a case of first grant or renewalfollowing exercise of option by the lessee, the complianceof section 2 of the Conservation Act is necessary as acondition precedent. No useful purpose would be served byallowing the litigations to be continued in differentcourts, particularly when keeping the broad interest ofsociety with reference to ecology and environment, we havecome to the conclusion that mining in this area has to bestopped. Notice has to be taken of the situation that theentire dispute has been before this Court and the scope ofthe dispute is comprehensive. All parties are before thisCourt. Parties have also been heard on various aspects atdifferent times. An order made by this Court to nullify thedecrees in such circumstances would not be violative of theprinciples of natural justice. Apart from the noticecontained in the Court's Order of 19th October, 1987, whereit had been specifically stated that this Court was of theview that mining in the Doon Valley area should be totallystopped. the position was also made clear to differentparties in course of the hearing which continued for severalweeks. We, therefore, hold that if any decree or order hasalready been obtained from any court relating to renewal ofthese Ieases, the same shall stand vacated and similarly anyappeal or other proceeding taken to obtain a renewal oragainst orders/decrees renewal shall also become nonest.
PG NO 719We shall now turn our attention to the consideration asto whether mining should be totally stopped outright or in aphrased manner.
In our order dated 14th October, 1987, we hadcategorically indicated that mining in this area has to bestopped but instead of outright closing down total miningoperations we were of the view that mining activity mayhave to be permitted to the extent it was necessary in theinterest of defence of the country as also by way of thesafe-guarding of the foreign exchange position. Pursuant toour direction in the said order (AIR 1987 SC 2426) the Unionof lndia filed an affidavit on 18th November, 1987, throughDr. S. Maudgal, Director in the Department of Environment,Forests & Wildlife in the Ministry of Environment andForests. That affidavit inter alia stated:
"3.l The Ministry of Defence do not require any high-grade low silica limestone over and above what is needed forproduction of steel. Therefore, the limestone requirement ofthe Defence Ministry are fully covered in the requirement ofthe steel industry in the country.
3.2 High-grade limestone with low silica content isrequired in steel production only in the units which areoperating on the LD process. As of today, only Bhilai,Rourkela, Bokaro and TISCO, Jarnshedpur are operating on theLD process. The requirement of low-silica limestone in 1986-87 as provided by the Steel Authority of lndia Ltd. for itsplants at 2,20,550 tonnes with the break-up given in Table-
I.TABLE ISource Quantity received Planned1986-87 1987-88UPSMDC, Dehradun 18,300 100.000RSMDC 183,000 200,000(Gotann/Jaisalmerlmported 19,250 100,000
__________________________________________________________________ 220,550 400,000 ___________________________________________________________________ PG NO 720 3.3 In addition to these steel plants, Durgapur Steel Plant & IISCO, Burnpur Plant is also expected to switch over tO the LD Process by 1994-95. The requirement of low silica limestone for the steel plants as projected in the report of the Steel and Mines, Department of Steel in March, 1987 is given in Table-Il.
Plant 1989-90 1994-95 1999-2000 Bhilai Steel 600 800 1,700 Plant Durgapur Steel - 540 890 Plant Rourkela Steel 340 580 920 Plant Bokaro Steel 1,360 1,530 1,800 Plant Indian Iron & - 330 610 Steel Co. Ltd.
_____________________________________________________________________ SAIL TOTAL 2,300 3.780 5,990 Tata Iron & 480 810 810 Steel Co. Ltd.
Vizag Steel 300 550 750 Plant Mini Steel 50 100 200 Plants TOTAL 3,130 5,240 7,750 REQUIREMENTS
______________________________________________________________________ 3.4 The occurrence of LD grade limestone deposits has been identified at Lambidhar. Barkot (Distt. DehraDun) in U.p.. Gotan and Jaisalmer in Rajasthan, Solan in Himachal Pradesh and Khorram in Meghalaya. The deposits outside U.P. have not, however, been prospected/explored in detail. Detailed exploration of these deposits is necessary for the preparation of mining and environmental manageement plants before definite assessment of the extent of production of LD-grade from these deposits can be determined. Jaisalmer being the most favoured deposit should be explored on PG NO 721 priority. All the same. prima facie availability pattern of the LD-grade limestone from various deposits is in given in Table III.
TABLE III (ooo tonnes) Location 1989-90 1994-95 1999-2000
_________________________________________________________________________ Gotan 400 800 800 Jaisalmer'r 200 800 1, 000 Lambidhar 240 450 450 Barkot _ - 1.000 Solan - 500 1,000 Meghalya - 200 500 Katni/Satna 2,000 2,500 3,000 ______________________________________________________________________ Total 3 , 840 5,250 7,750 Requirement 3,130 5,240 7.750 Surplus, Deficit (-)290 - -
__________________________________________________________________ (Subject to broad gauge link with Jaisalmer) 3.5 Data furnished by the six mine owners whose quarries are operating shows that a total of 1,73.768 tonnes has been supplied to the steel plants from Dehradun-Mussoorie area during 1986 which is approximately 25% of their limestone production. In this context, the State Government of U.P. have brought the following facts to our notice:
"It has to be pointed out that the Dehradun Mussoorie limestone belt also meets the requirement of our sugar industry, and paper. The following Table indicates the approximate short and long term requirements of industries that are dependent upon limestone from this belt| H PG NO 722 (In tonnes) Short term Long term Sugar Industry 1,50, 000 2,00,000 Chemicals &r Paper 3,00,000 4,00,000 Industry There are over 90 sugar factories in the State which are traditionally dependent on limestone from Dehradun for use in the process of manufacture. Sugar industry in our State is a key agriculture based industry on which the economy of farmers of nearly 40 out of 57 districts depends. The limestone needs of this industry are, therefore, important for its survival. The chemical and paper industry further set up in Western and Northern U.P. with large investments, is also dependent upon Dehradun limestone for their existence. Mini cement plants located in Western U.P. and in the Doon Valley (M/s Venus Cements) utilise offgrade limestone generated from the mines consequent to their operations. This, in effect, helps with the control of pollution that would have occurred from mine wastes if dumped or allowed to roll into depressions, Valleys or stream beds; it also helps with conservation and maximum utilisation of the resource mined. '' Adverting to the question as to whether mining activity in this area should be permitted to a limited extent, keeping the principles of ecology in view, the affidavit stated:
"The Union Government has all along taken the stand that the Doon Valley is a fragile eco-system and is endowed by nature with perennial water streams, lush green forests and scenic beauty. All these factors have contributed to Mussoorie being called the queen of hill stations and Dehradun becoming an important place of tourist attraction as well as centre of education. The unscientific and uncontrolled limestone quarrying operations spread over the entire 40 km. belt on the Mussoorie slopes however, endangered the delicate ecological balance resulting in ugly scars, excessive debris flow, drying up of water streams and perennial streams and rivulets and deforestation. Taking note of the disastrous ecological consequences, PG NO 723 the technical group constituted by the State and Union Governments since 1979 have consistently recommended only controlled mining in this area. The Technical Expert Committee constituted by the Honourable Supreme Court under the Chairmanship of Shri D.N. Bhargav examined all the operating quarries and came to the conclusion that all of them, to a larger of smaller extent, have violated the statutory provisions relating to mines. Conditions in some of the mines were considered to be so bad that 20 of these were closed immediately in 1983. The Committee, under the Chairmanship of Shri D. Bandy-opadhyaya examined the Mining and Environmental Management Plans prepared by parties and came to the unanimous conclusions that none of there plans are satisfactory. Therefore, the Bandyopadhyaya Committee strongly recommended that none of the mines reviewed by it should be allowed to operate. It is relevant to reiterate here that closure of these mines has been recommended by the Bandyopadhyaya Committee not just on the ground that they are located within the Mussoorie city limits but after due consideration of the environmentaI implications, status of preparedness of mining and Environmental Management Plans and capability of the lessee to under-take mining operations on a scientific basis so that the damage to life and property, apart from environmental degradation. is avoided. None of the mines already closed is, therefore, fit to be considered for operation.
It is the view of Government that to prevent any further degradation of the ecology and environment in the area and to allow for rejuvenation. it is essential that limestone mining operations, if they are to continue, should be on a limited scale and completely regulated to ensure that they are done in an entirely scientific manner consistent with the imperatives of preservation and restoration of the ecology and environment in this area. In order to meet the essential requirements of steel industry, it would be necessary to maintain supply of low silica limestone from the Dehradun Mussoorie area. The State Government of U.P. also has brought to our notice that certain other vital industrial and agricultural operations are dependent on limestone supplies from this area. In view of these considerations, it is felt that limestone mining on a limited scale may have to continue under strict regulation."
PG NO 724 This affidavit of Dr. Maudgal was not accepted by this Court as it did not fulfil the requirement of the directions given in the Court's order dated 19th October, 1987. Then came another affidavit dated 24th February, 1988, by Shri T.N. Seshan, Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests. This affidavit indicated that 90 per cent of the low silica high grade limestone was supplied by the Rajasthan mines to the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and 10 per cent of supplies came from the Dehradun quarries. Tata Iron and Steel Company at Jamshedpur, however, received a sizeable supply from the Dehradun quarries. According to this affidavit, in 1986, the total production of high grade limestone in the Dehradun-Mussoorie area was 6.02 lakh tonnes. The affidavit indicated availability of such limestone in several other parts of the country. In regard to import of limestone and foreign exchange components, this affidavit indicated that as low silica high grade limestone is available from indigenous sources, import thereof could be dispensed with. In paragraph 5 of this affidavit, the question as to whether keeping in view the principles of ecology, mining activity in the Dehradun-Mussoorie area could be permitted to a limited extent, perhaps as pleaded in the earlier affidavit, has been dealt with. This affidavit stated| "5.2 Now that high grade low silica limestone is also available in the extensive deposits covering large areas in the State of Rajasthan which can meet the requirements of the steel industry which also includes Defence requirements, there is justification for disconstinuance of the existing mining operation in the Dehradun-Mussoorie area and, in fact, complete closure of the said mines in this area." It is fact that while in the first affidavit, controlled and limited mining was suggested, in the second affidavit filed after a gap of about three months total stoppage of mining activity in this area has been stressed. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh and UPSMDC offered serious criticism against this changed stance and we were called upon to reject the second affidavit also. We do not find any justification in this plea for rejection of the affidavit. This Court in its order of 19th October, 1987, had in clear terms indicated what aspects were exactly required to be answered by the affidavit of the Union of India. Since the first affidavit did not answer those points it was rejected and a further affidavit was directed to be filed. There can be no two opinions that both the affidavits pleaded for banning of mining; but the first affidavit suggested controlled and limited mining in view PG NO 725 of the demands while the second affidavit, on consideration of the fact that alternate sources were available for supply of the limestone of the desired quality, asked for total stoppage of mining operations. As we have already indicated in another part of this judgment. awareness of the environmental problem has been gradually increasing and though in the first affidavit, the Union of India had expressed its view that limited and controlled mining could be permitted, on a reconsideration of the matter and taking into account the relevant aspects for reaching its conclusion, the Union of India has come to adopt the view that there should be no mining in this area. We can well gather why the UPSMDC would feel aggrieved by the second affidavit but so far as the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, we do not see any justification in its critical stand against the second affidavit on the plea that the stand accepted in the first affidavit has been given a go by. Maintenance of the environment and ecological balance is the obligation of the State and the Central Governments and unless there was any real objection to the opinion of the Union of India as to continuing or closing down of mining activity, it should have been taken in the proper light and the little modified stand adopted in the second affidavit should have been welcomed.
In another part of our judgment we have found that the entire area is more or less forest. Many portions are reserved while others constitute forest land. It is indisputable that mining operations are detrimental to forest growth. In fact the Union Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forest have on 31st May, 1988, informed the Secretaries of all the State Governments in the Department of Forest that even mining area below the forests would affect the forests.
The variation of the stand in the second affidavit that mining activity should be totally stopped is certainly an improvement on the stand taken in the first affidavit but we do not think there is any inconsistency in the stand inasmuch as the justification in support of the plea of total closure has been indicated.
Even before any of these two affidavits was filed this Court in its order of 19th of October, 1987, had clearly indicated that mining activity in this area should he totally stopped. The view expressed in the second affidavit is in accord with what this Court has stated. On assessment of the factual position, we do not think there is any substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh Government, UPSMDC or any other mine owner which would Justify our rejecting the second affidavit. We would PG NO 726 like to add that this is not a case of a somersault as contended on behalf of the State Government of 'Uttar Pradesh nor has it been occasioned by any illegitimate consideration.
The point which still remains to be dealt with is whether mining activity should be totally stopped immediately.
It is the accepted-position by all parties that low silica content limestone is necessary for manufacturing class steel. The earlier LD process is being abandoned by new factories and even some are switching over to new methods but for quite some time there would be demand for low cilica content limestone for manufacture of steel by the LD process. The alternate source which has been indicated in these two affidavits of the Union of India is not readily available to the fullest extent. The Gotan-Jaisalmer belt has to be worked out in full swing and that would take some time. The main difficulty for the Jaisalmer production to reach the consumers is the location of the mining area. It has no broad-gauge rail connection and admittedly the location is in the interior. The consumer would immediately face transport difficulty until there is conversion of the railway track to broad-gauge and surface transport facility improves. Even if these facilities are made available, the distant location is bound to reflect itself in the cost factor.
The question of foreign exchange component does not seem to be very material as the required type of mineral is indigenously available and import may not be necessary when the production in Rajasthan area increases. The fact that in the recent past the Tata Iron and Steel Company has made some import has indeed no real bearing on the question as that import has been necessitated on account of the closure of the mines in this area and non-availability of the material from the alternate indigenous source. We have already recorded a finding elsewhere in this judgment that most of these mines are either within reserved forests or in forest lands, as covered by the U.P. Amendment of the Forest Act. To 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 and as a matter of national policy and in the interests of the community, preservation of forests is accepted as the goal, nothing which would detract from that PG NO 727 end should be permitted. In such circumstances we reiterate our conclusion that mining in this area has to be totally stopped.
There was some controversy as to whether some of the mines were located in the reserved forests. We have not made any attempt to resolve that controversy here as, in our opinion, whether the mines are within the reserved forests or, in other forest area, the provisions of the Conservation Act apply.
We do not agree with the submission advanced by Mr. Nariman for the intervener, Mr. Sibbal for the Uttar Pradesh Government, Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad for the UPSMDC, Dr. Singhvi for some of the mine owners and similar contentions advanced by other counsel of different mine lessees that there would be a total stalemate in the manufacture of drugs and sugar, as also steel, in case mining activity is stopped; yet we would accept this position that these would 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. We are, however, of the view that 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.
We have already taken note of the fact that for different reasons several mines are closed down and only six, as indicated in another part of this judgment. are working. Now that we have found that some mining activity for some more time in this area may be permitted under strict regulation, we have now to decide which of the mines may be permitted to work and for what period as also subject to what conditions.
Majority of the mining leases was granted in 1962. The lease period being 20 years. the original period of lease has expired in all such cases where the leases commenced from 1962. But following are the mines where the original grant is still valid and their date of expiry is separately indicated :
PG NO 728 S.No. Name of the lessee Lease No. Valid up-to
1. U .P. S.M .D . C. 94 10.3. 1996
2. Sh. R.K. Oberai 72 10.4. 1994
3. Punjab Lime & 96 12.12.1989 Lime-stone Co.
__________________________________________________________________________ _ Apart from these three, there are four other mines which are also operating under decrees/orders of Courts as per the details below :
__________________________________________________________________________ ____ S. No. Name of the lessee Lease No. Lease expired
1. Punjab Lime & l4(ii) 2. 12. 82 Stone Co.
2. Ch. Ved Pal Singh 16 2. l2.82
3. Seth Ram Avtar 17 2. 12. 82
4. Sh. C. C;. Gujaral 76 15. 12. 82 In all these cases, the leases have expired and the lessor Government refused to renew them. The lessees have obtained orders from the Court and are working continuously.
In view of what we have held, the orders or decrees become inoperative and are deemed to have been set aside by this judgment. Mining in these four leases must stop within one month from today.
Apart from the three working mines specified above where the Original Lease period is yet to expire, there are six other A category mines with valid leases which are not working now as per the particulars below :
__________________________________________________________________________ __ S.No. Name of the lessee Lease No. Valid up-to __________________________________________________________________________ __
1. New Era Minerals 4 25.2.1990
2. U. P. Minerals 8 10.4.1994
3. Rajgiri Minerals 9 24.11.1992
4. Anand Brothers 67 15.2.1992
5. Uttrakhand Minerals98 12. 12 1989
6. Vijayashree Minerals99 20.3. 1990 __________________________________________________________________________ _ PG NO 729 These mines are not operating at present for one reason or the other. On the 12th of May, 1985, the mines within the municipal limits of Mussoorie were directed to close down until they were cleared by the Bandyopadhyay Committee and that Committee did not clear any. So far as the first five mines are concerned, they are either within the municipal limits or within the forest area. We do not think it appropriate to allow them to operate until their lease periods lapse particularly when we have reached the conclusion that mining operation in this area should close down. An exception has to be made in the case of the mine being lease No. 99 where the lease period has to expire in 1990. The lease is of 15 acres of land and another 100 acres are from some private source. Mr. Jain appearing for the lessee had undertaken before us that over the 100 acres, there would be no mining operation and the lessee would immediately restore vegetation over the area and full forest growth will be available in regard to the 100 acres. The mine is neither within forest nor municipal area and minerals from this area would be removed not through the city limits. He has also assured us that immediately after the lease period is over, which would be about a year and half from now, the 15 acres would also be subject to real forestation by the lessee. He has agreed to file a undertaking in this Court which we direct him to, do within four weeks hence. On the undertaking being filed this mine, as a special case, shall be permitted to operate until the expiry of the lease. The Committee appointed under this order shall supervise the reafforestatian programme under-
taken by the lessee of lease No. 99 and in case it is of the view that the undertaking is not being properly worked out. on the report of the Committee to that effect, permission to work the lessee may be varied.
Mr. jain appearng for another lessee and Mr. Pramod Dayal appearing for the lessee in respect of lease No. 67 had tried to make out specific cases. During the hearing of these cases we had felt impressed by what had been placed before us but since we have now taken a decision to close down mining activity in the area we do not think fresh mining operations where mining has already been stopped- whatever be the ground-should on principle be permitted. To make out a special case for a few lesses from amongst similarly placed mine owners of small differences for being permitted to work out stopped mines, in our opinion, would not be appropriate at this stage. On the other hand to treat them all as a class and subject them to a common order would be just and proper. We reiterate that the exception in the case of lease No 99 is for testing the genuineness of the representation of the lessee and in consideration of the smallness of the area.
PG NO 730 We would like to notice at this place the contention of Dr. Singvi that A Category mine owners should not suffer on account of this Court's order and similar treatment to all A category mine owners should be given. There can be no two opinions about the Court extending equal treatment to all equally placed parties before it. It is, however, not correct that the A category mines which are operating and those that are closed down are similarly situate. In fact, when the Court made the earlier order asking for closing down, the distinction was noticed and on that basis orders involving different treatments had been made. It may be that we have not found the distinction to be a tenable one at a later stage. But in the peculiar situation emerging in this case we do not accept the submission of Dr. Singhvi that those A category mines which had stopped working should be permitted to run. There are certain situations where in the interest of general benefit to the community, interests of individual citizens may be over-looked. We are satisfied that this situation attracts that principle to operate and even if some of the mine owners are worse affected than some others, permission to reopen the mines located in the forests and within municipal limits cannot be granted with a view to compensating them for being placed at par with the less affected group.
It is perhaps necessary to indicate why these three on- going mines whose original lease period has not lapsed are being permitted to continue mining. We have already taken note of the position that UPSMDC is a public sector undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh and there has been a huge investment by the State in this establishment. It gives sizeable output. Though certain defects have been pointed out in its activities by the Working Group, we are of the opinion that if appropriately controlled, mining activities can be regulated and simultaneously reafforestation can be activised. So far as R.K. Oberai is concerned, the Working Group has found least objection against it. The lease of Punjab Lime & Limestone Company shall have life of a little more than one year. All these three mines are running their initial lease period. No additional exercises are necessary to make them operative. If any of these mines is closed down there would be problem of unemployment. In regard to the mines closed for more than three years, we do not think the labour is sitting idle and the mine owner is paying them. They must have got employed elsewhere of they have lost their service and have taken to alternate engagement. In our opinion, therefore, allowing these three on-going mines to operate for their initial period of lease is the most appropriate direction that can be given during the switch over from the present position to one of complete closing down of mining operation. We, therefore permit these three mines to continue mining PG NO 731 operation subject to compliance with all legal requirements and the additional conditions which we shall hereafter indicate.
The next aspect to be considered is as to under what conditions mining operation by these three lessees should be permitted. The objections raised by the Working Group against the UPSMDC are germane and legitimate. We shall require this lessee to meet all these objections within a period of four months from now. If by the end of December, 1988, the lessee fails to comply with this direction to the satisfaction of the Monitoring Committee which is being setup by this Judgment, the Monitoring Committee is empowered to direct closing down of the mine subject to any other direction of this Court. So far as the other two mines are concerned, whatever objections have been raised by the Working Committee shall also be removed within the same time limit and on failure of compliance, they too shall be visited with the same consequences.
There is no dispute that continuance of mining operations affects environment and ecology adversely and at the same time creates a prejudicial situation against conservation of forests. It is, therefore, necessary that each of these working mines shall have to work with an undertaking given to the Monitoring Committee that all care and attention shall be bestowed to preserve ecological and environmental balance while carrying on mining operations. 25% of the gross profits of these three mines shall be credited to the Fund Incharge of the Monitoring Committee in such manner as the Committee may direct and the Committee shall ensure maintenance of ecology and environment as also reafforestation in the area of mining by expending money from the fund. In the event of expenses exceeding the contribution by these three respective lessees, the Committee shall report to this Court for directions. On the expiry of their respective leases, they shall not be entitled to carry mining operation and by operation of this judgment shall have to wind up. No application for renewal shall be entertained from them. These three lessees as also any other lessee shall not be entitled to any compensation for closing down of the mines under orders of this Court. In the Order of 12th March, 1985, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had indicated that the mine owners who had been displaced should be rehabilitated. There is no material on record if any alternate provision has been made either by the State of Uttar Pradesh or the Union of India. On-going leases have been terminated under orders of this Court PG NO 732 without provision for compensation. Indisputably displacement has been suffered by these lessees and the sudden displacement must have up-set their activities and brought about substantial inconvenience to them. The Court has no other option but to close down the mining activity in the broad interests of the community. This, however, does not mean that the displaced mine owners should not be provided with alternative occupation. Pious observation or even a direction in that regard may not be adequate, what is necessary is a time frame functioning if rehabilitation is to be made effective. It is therefore, necessary that a Committee should be set up to over-see the rehabilitation of the displaced mine owners. The Uttar Pradesh Government, as apprehended by many of these mine owners, by itself may not be able to meet the requirements of the situation. It may be that all the displaced mine owners may not find suitable placement within the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is, therefore, necessary to associate of some other States in the programme. Unless a High Powered Committee is set up wherein Union of India is also represented, the Committee to be constituted may not be effective and there may be lack of coordination. There is material that lime stone quarries are available in Rajasthan and Gujarat. It is, therefore, necessary that representatives of these State Governments are also on the Committee. We accordingly direct a Committee to be set up with representatives of the Union of India, the State Governments of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat. While effecting rehabilitation by giving alternate mining sites, ecology and environment will have to be considered. It is, therefore, necessary that that such Committee the Ministry of Environment should also be represented. Apart from them there should at least be two experts. We direct constitution of a Rehabilitation Committee with the following members:
1. Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of lndia- Chairman.
2. Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest. Government of India-Member.
3. Secretaries, Department of Mining of the States of Uttar Pradesh. Rajasthan and Gujarat-Members. Mr. Anil Aparwal of Centre for Science and Environment, G-92, Kalkaji, New Delhi, and Mr. Subrata Sinha, Senior Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, 27, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta, are nominated as the expert members of this Committee. The Committee shall have an officer of the grade of Under Secretary to the Government of India as its Secretary and the minimum skelton staff for carrying its PG NO 733 activities. For convenience, the office may be located for the time being in the Ministry of Steel and Mines at New Delhi. The Ministry of Environment and Forest is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3 Lacs in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today to be transferred to the Committee for the purpose of the Committee subject to appropriate accounts to be rendered to the Ministry concerned. The Committee is directed to make an initial report on the problem and the manner it proposes to tackle it within eight weeks from today. On the basis of such report, further directions shall be made. The laws in force shall have to be kept in view and the above-named members are directed to extend full cooperation with zeal and a sense of under-standing of the problems so that rehabilitation can be done as a part of the environmental programme.
The Court is of the view that a Monitoring Committee is necessary for reafforestation of the areas as also for over- seeing the running of the three mines. The State- of Uttar Pradesh has already undertaken a reafforestation programme in the area. The record, however, does not indicate much of improvement yet. We have taken note of the position that the Uttar Pradesh Government has a Master Plan for the Doon Valley spread over a quarter of century beginning with 1986. Since the Court has stepped in to close down mining operation in this area except to a very limited extent, we are of the view that a High Powered Committee should be set up to look after reafforestation, mining, activities and all other aspects necessary to bring about natural normalcy in the Doon Valley. Mr. K.P. Geetakrishnan, a Member of the Indian Administrative Service, now Secretary, Forest, Wild Life and Environment in the Central Government, in our opinion, should be made the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee. Mr. D. Bandy-opadhyay, a member of the Indian Administrative Service. now Secretary, Department of Revenue in the Central Government. who, had headed a Committee set up by this Court is aware of the problems of this area. We are of the opinion that he should be made a Member of the Monitoring Committee. The Head of the Indian Defence Academy, the Head of the Indian Forest lnstitute, the Head ot the establishment of ONGC (all located at Dehradun), the secretary, Forest Department of the Uttar Pradesh and the Chairmen of the Mussoorie and Dehradun municipalities, and two public spirited citizens-one belonging to Mussoorie and another to Dehradun area are to be the members of this Committee. The two non-official members shall be co-opted by the Committee. The Committee shall have its office at Dehradun in the accommodation to be provided either by the ONGC or the Forest Staff College. The PG NO 734 Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5 Lacs for creating the initial fund of the Monitoring Committee. The amount should be deposited in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from now. It shall be open to the Monitoring Committee to appoint a skelton staff with the suitable officers to run the establishment. We hope and expect that the concerned Governments will permit their officers to undertake the respective assignments in public interest and we expect the officers also to extend their whole-hearted support to work out the trust reposed in them. The Monitoring Committee shall have powers to over-see reafforestation in the area by the State of Uttar Pradesh and undertake an appropriate scheme of reafforestation. It shall ensure that mining activity by the three on-going mines is carried out in accordance with law and with appropriate safeguards from environment and ecology point of view. It shall also ensure that the scree is removed from the natural streams and the flow of water is maintained. After the Committee makes its initial report within eight weeks from now to the Registry further directions as necessary shall be given.
It is not our intention to continue control over these matters. Once this Court is satisfied that the Committees are operating on the right lines we shall consider whether it is any longer necessary for the Court to supervise their activity.
Before we part with the case, we must indicate our appreciation of services rendered by the petitioners and their counsel to the cause, the cooperation and understanding extended by the mine owners, their counsel, the Members of the several Committees constituted by the Court but for which these proceedings could not have come to terminate in the present manner. The records of the case have become unusually bulky and but for the continued assistance of Mr. Pramod Dayal, a member of the bar of this Court, it would indeed have been difficult for us as also parties and their advocates to handle the matter with ease. Mr. Parmod Dayal deserves our commendation for the labour he has put in. He was appearing for some of the lessees but the assisted the Court very willingly as and when called upon. We are of the view that he should be paid a total sum of Rs.5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) for the services rendered. We direct the Union of India to deposit the said amount with the Registry of this Court within two weeks from now. This amount when deposited shall be paid to Mr. Parmod Dayal.
PG NO 735 The writ petitions are disposed of. There would be no order for A costs. We direct that the reports of the two Committees, as and when received, shall be placed before this Court for directions.
R.S.S. Petitions disposed of.
