Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8
PETITIONER:
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRAAND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1990
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
SAWANT, P.B.
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1990 SCR (3) 72 JT 1990 Supl. (2) 391
1990 SCALE (1)97
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32--Doon
Valley--Loss caused to ecology--Mining operations to
stop--No petition to be entertained by Registry.
HEADNOTE:
Disposing of on 30.8.1988 Writ Petitions Nos. 8209 and
8821 of 1983 this Court had come to the conclusion that the
entire mining operation in the Doon Valley should come to a
halt excepting in the case of a selected few, for reasons
indicated in that order. Since then from time to time sever-
al applications had been moved by the ex-lessees seeking
permission for removing the stacked material or extension of
time for appropriating the mined material. In allowing or
rejecting each such application this Court has been express-
ing itself clearly that the Doon Valley should be made
available for afforestation to make good the loss caused to
the ecology.
By today’s order while disposing of all the pending
applications including one fresh Writ Petition in the light
of the report of the Monitoring Committee appointed by this
Court, the Court,
HELD: No application either for original permission or
for extension of time shall hereafter be entertained by this
Court and the Registry is directed by this order not to
entertain such petitions. It may be that such direction may
affect some one who has not been vigilant or has on account
of some other difficulty or hardship not been able to remove
the stacked material within his leasehold area in the Doon
Valley; but taking the broad interest of the entire Valley
into account such individual losses or inconveniences have
to be sacrificed and/or overlooked and equities can no
longer be allowed to be invoked. [76A-B]
A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be
placed by the Monitoring Committee by 30th June, 1990 for
consideration of the Court on 23rd July, 1990. The rehabili-
tation scheme which has already been furnished by the appro-
priate committee should also be
73
placed before the Court for orders on the said date. [80B-C]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 1, 3 and 10 of 1989 and
12 of 1990.
IN
Writ Petition (C) No. 8209 of 1983 etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
V.A. Bobde, V. Gauri Shankar, M.K. Ramamurthy, Prashant
Bhushan, T. Sridharan, Ms. Shobha Dixit and M.A. Krishna-
murthy fox the Petitioners.
Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms. A. Subhashini R.P. Srivastava
(NP), Promod Dayal, R.B. Mehrotra and Raju Ramachandran for
the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. On 30th of August, 1988, while
disposing of two writ petitions being Nos. 8209 and 8821 of
1983, this Court came to the conclusion that the entire
mining operation in the Doon Valley should come to a halt.
With a view to effectuating this conclusion all mining
activity was directed to be stopped excepting in the case of
a few for reasons indicated in that order.
Several applications thereafter came before this Court
for permission to remove stacked material and almost for one
and a half years now, many rounds of such applications have
been filed before this Court which have led to inquiries
being made by executive authorities, a joint inspection by
the District Judge and the District Magistrate as also
separate reports from the Monitoring Committee appointed by
this Court. After hearing parties in some cases the court
has granted permission for removal and extended time for
appropriating the mined material. On the plea that within
the time given by the Court removal was not possible, fresh
extensions of extended dates have also been asked for.
At one stage, the Monitoring Committee reported that
taking advantage of such extensions further mining was being
illegally undertaken. The Monitoring Committee also pointed
out that where the
74
mined material was spread over it had consolidated and grass
as also other vegetations have started growing. In these
circumstances, while either allowing or rejecting the appli-
cations for removal or extension or allowing removal under
restrictions, this Court has been expressing itself clearly
that the Doon Valley should be made available for afforesta-
tion to make good the loss that had been caused to the
ecology and that work should no longer be interfered with.
A fresh set of applications have now been made for
permission to remove the mined material, machinery and/or
extension of time for the same. This Court had called for a
report on the basis of joint inspection by the District
Judge and the District Magistrate of Dehradun and after the
said report was received, the Monitoring Committee has made
its report on the basis of this Court’s direction. A group
of these applications had been heard on 12th of February,
1990, but as some other applications remained to be disposed
of on the basis of the report of the Monitoring Committee
which was yet to be received, no orders had then been made.
The Monitoring Committee sent its report dated 6th of April,
1990, and the other group of applications which were then
pending have in the meantime been heard on 26th of April,
1990. We proceed to dispose of all the pending applications
by this order.
We have considered the submissions with some amount of
anxiety particularly as we are of the definite view that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8
Doon Valley should be left free to the planters for reaffor-
estation and the mine-owners should be put out in every
respect of the same. Two or three aspects have, however, to
be borne in mind while dealing with a case of this type.
Mining was stopped by our order all of a sudden within a
month from 30th of August,/988. Though fresh mining is
stopped, mined material which had been appropriated by the
mine-owner by his own efforts should ordinarily be allowed
to be taken by him. There is no doubt that the mined materi-
al has been loosened from the original place by digging and
even if it is allowed to be stacked, consolidation of such
material is bound to take quite some time and within one
year it is not likely to consolidate appropriately. The
mined material has a market and with the closure of the
mining operation substantially in the Doon Valley, this
material seems to have been fetching good price as there is
demand for the same. When mining was stopped, no compensa-
tion was provided and the only hope our order held out was
rehabilitation.
At this stage, it is appropriate to extract a portion from
the letter
75
Of the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee dated April 6,
1990, addressed to the Registrar of this Court. The Chairman
is no other than the Secretary to the Government of India in
the Ministry of Environment and Forests. He has pointed out:
"The Committee would seek the indulgence of the Court to
submit to the Hon’ble Justices that the areas ravaged by
these mines including the roads leading to the mine areas
are in immediate need of afforestation to consolidate the
soil and prevent soil erosion. Permission granted to the
miners will inevitably delay the process of afforestation
and will destroy any natural vegetation that has come up
along the roads and the mine areas since the last monsoon.
Shri David Paul (Lease No. 99) in fact broke several check
dams in the process of lifting material taking advantage of
this Court’s orders granting him permission to remove quar-
ried material. The process of afforestation of these areas
cannot even be started as long as various applications of
these miners for removal of material are pending before this
Hon’ble Court. It is humbly submitted that this Court must,
therefore, once and for all, put an end to such applica-
tions, in order that the Monitoring Committee may vigorously
take up the task of afforestation of these areas."
We can quite appreciate the anxiety of the Monitoring
Committee that initial permission and extension of time for
removal has disturbed afforestation. The Monitoring Commit-
tee must, however, appreciate that the enthusiasm which it
is prepared to exhibit has to be sobered down in the initial
period by such judicial directions as are called for taking
the cause of equity and justice into consideration.
Even in such of the cases where permission or extension
for removal would be granted now, we are of the view that
the mine-owners should not be permitted to operate and the
District Magistrate should set up a machinery under his
control and subject to the supervision of the Monitoring
Committee to enable removal. We do not propose to allow the
process of removal to continue beyond 15th of June, 1990.
The process of afforestation for the year would begin only
by that time awaiting the onset of the monsoons. The ex-
lessees in whose case original or extended orders permitting
removal would now be made have, therefore, to contact the
District Magistrate within one week of this order and the
District Magistrate would work out removal on appropriate
payment from the respective areas of the ex-lessees of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8
76
the extracted material as mentioned in this Court’s order of
today on or before 15th of June, 1990. We make it clear that
no application either for original permission or for exten-
sion shall hereafter be entertained by this Court and the
Registry is directed by this order not to entertain such
petitions. It may be that such direction may affect some one
who has not been vigilant or has on account of some other
difficulty or hardship been not able to remove the stacked
material within his leasehold area in the Doon Valley; but
taking the broad interests of the entire Valley into account
such individual losses or inconveniences have to be sacri-
ficed and/or overlooked and equities can no longer be al-
lowed to be invoked.
B
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS IN DISPOSED OF WRIT PETTION NO.
8209 OF 1983
1. A. NO. I OF 1989
This application is by the former lessee of lease No.
16--Ved Pal Singh Chaudhary. The mine closed down on 30th of
September, 1988 in terms of this Court’s direction dated
30.8.1988. The first report on the record is dated 18th of
February, 1989, jointly given by the Additional District
Magistrate, Dehradun, D.P. Sharma, Geologist of Dehradun and
the Forest Range Officer, Mussoorie. This report indicated
that limestone extracted was found lying scattered in dif-
ferent marble pits and also heaps of different shapes. The
estimated quantity in the heaps appeared to be 11,500 metric
tons. This Court permitted removal of the mined material and
the report of the Monitoring Committee shows that between
March and May, 1989, with extensions obtained from the
Court, 11,539 metric tons have already been removed.
The joint inspection report of the District Judge and
the District Magistrate has indicated that there was no
fresh mining in the area after 30th of August, 1988, and it
appeared that the scattered material had been collected and
removed while the stack has remained untouched. The present
petition is for removal of the stack which is claimed to be
more than 11,000 metric tons.
The Monitoring Committee on the basis of the fact that
11,539 metric tons had been removed has assumed that there
must have been fresh mining to justify the presence of the
stack. It has also indicated in the report that there is no
danger whatsoever of any scree or stacked
77
material rolling down and affecting and choking the streams.
According to the Committee, giving fresh opportunity for
removal would encourage illicit mining and several mine-
owners are likely to carry on that clandestinely. Keeping
the two reports in view,-we are inclined to hold that there
has been no fresh mining and the stack now found is the old
one; it would not be appropriate to assume that the stack
has consolidated nor is it possible that the vegetation on
such a stack would grow within a year. For the reasons we
have already indicated earlier we think it appropriate that
ex-mine-owner of lease No. 16 should be permitted to have
the existing stacked material of 11,500 metric tons removed
from the leasehold area but the same shall be through the
agency set up by the district Magistrate on terms of payment
and the removal shall be completed on or before the 15th
June, 1990. It is made clear that the removal shall be
supervised by the Monitoring Committee.
1. A. Nos. 3 and 10 of 1989 and 12 of 1990
These are applications made on behalf of Punjab Lime &
Limestone Company for extension of time for lifting the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8
mined material lying in the first two lease areas held by
the aforesaid lessee and for original permission for the
lease No. 96. Under the final order of this Court dated 30th
August, 1988, [1988 3 JT 787] in Paragraph 51 of the deci-
sion three mines including lease No. 96 valid up to 12.12.
1989 were permitted to work. Therefore, mining activity in
respect of lease No. 96 must have stopped after 12th Decem-
ber, 1989. The joint inspection report of the District Judge
and the District Magistrate indicated that 2,269 metric tons
of material were lying at the face of the mine in lease No.
14/ii while in regard to lease No. 14/i there was no materi-
al found and the scattered scree was reported to have total-
ly stabilised. The Monitoring Committee has opposed removal
from lease No. 14/ii by saying that permission to remove had
been given and utilised. We are of the view that the peti-
tion in regards to lease No. 14/i should be rejected in view
of the concurrent reports of the joint inspection and the
Monitoring Committee that the scree has already consolidat-
ed. So far as 2,269 metric tons from lease No. 14/i are
concerned there is no particular reason to take a different
view and we direct that the same shall be removed through
the machinery set up by the District Magistrate upon payment
of the cost by the ex-mineowner. This removal shall also to
be made prior to 15th June, 1990.
Lease No. 96 closed down operations on 12th December,
1989. 5000 metric tons of limestone are claimed to have been
scattered over
78
the area and reliance is placed upon the rule permitting six
months’ time from the date of closing for removal of such
material. ’The Monitoring Committee has reported that there
was no scree lying on the leased area. It found that there
is some scattered material on the surface of the mine which
cannot conveniently be stacked up. Since this is the first
application of the ex-lessee after the mining has been
closed, we would have directed the Monitoring Committee to
make a fresh inspection in the presence of the ex-mine-owner
but in view of the clear report that there was no stacked
material found by the Monitoring Committee and the further
fact stated in the report that the scree has already consol-
idated even during the currency of the mining lease, we do
not think it will be appropriate at this stage to permit any
removal. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989
This petition is by the legal representatives of C.G. Gujral
who as lessee of lease No. 76. The first petition is for
substitution of his legal representatives. It is allowed. So
far as the second one is concerned, the legal representa-
tives of Shri Gujral, ex-mine-owner requests for permission
for removal of the extracted mineral as also some machine
parts from the leasehold area. At the instance of Shri
Gujral this Court on 30.1.89 had made the following order:
"Heard learned counsel in C.M.P. for permission to
remove the mining material already lying at the quarry site.
Subject to the verification by the Collector either person-
ally or by a responsible officer that the allegation is
correct, removal may be permitted. The entire stock either
near the quarry or stocked in the stacking site should be
removed within four weeks from the day permission is
granted ..... ".
It is alleged that soon after on 18th September, 1989,
C.G. Gujral, original mine lessee died and his legal repre-
sentatives had instituted a suit. The suit has now been
dismissed by a separate order of this Court and interim
relief granted has also been vacated. This petition filed in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8
July, 1989, seeks permission for removal of the stacked
material and for permission to remove the machinery which
comprises of compressors and tools said to be lying at the
mine-site. The joint inspection report indicates that the
mine site was not accessible. 16 Kms. pathway had been
damaged and even walking was not possible. If we permit the
roadway to be repaired, there is apprehension of
79
damage to the land in the locality. If the work is left to
the legal representatives of the ex-mine-owner they are
likely to collect material for the purpose of repair which
would definitely affect the ecology. Yet there are valuable
machines apart from the mined material to be collected. We
leave it to the Collector and the Monitoring Committee to
find out if by some convenient path or any other process by
which the machinery and the mined material can be moved out.
The legal representatives of the ex-mine-owner may now
contact the Collector and the Monitoring Committee to find
out the modality of removal and in case some convenient way
is found out the stacked material and the machinery may be
removed with the help of the agency of the Collector subject
to the payment of the cost on or before 15th June, 1990.
C.M.P. No. 18702 of 1989
This application is by the ex lessee of lease No. 31.
The joint inspection report indicates that the mining was
stopped on 12th March, 1985 and there has been no fresh
quarrying. The report indicates:
"Under the mining faces in the slopes and in the river beds
scree and fine material were seen lying and scattered. Natu-
ral vegetation is overgrown. Plants like ..... were grow-
ing. At some spots pine plants and furns were also found
growing indicating that there is existence of humus and the
already quarried material has compacted and settled binding
the soil."
In this view of the matter it becomes difficult to
entertain this petition at this stage; the petition is
accordingly dismissed.
1. A. No. 4 of 1989
This application is by the ex-lessee of mine No. 17
asking for permission for removal of already extracted
mineral lying at the mine site. In the joint inspection
report it has been indicated that this Court had granted
some time for removal. The ex-lessee had also obtained an
order from the Addl. District Judge of Dehradun. The report
indicated that there was no sign of fresh mining. We have
taken all aspects into account and we are of the view that
this application has to be rejected.
80
C.M.P. No. 18703 of 1989
This application is on behalf of the ex-lessee of lease
No. 8 for extension of time for lifting of mined mineral.
The joint inspection report indicates that mining in this
area was stopped as early as 12th March, 1985, and "Natural
vegetation has overgrown in and around the mining faces.
Considerable quarried material was lying scattered in the
slopes, the quantity of which could not be ascertained or
measured. The Monitoring Committee in its report dated
10.8.89 assessed that approximately 7,000 metric tons of the
mining material was lying scattered in the mining area." We
have no intention to permit any meddling to unsettle the
settled situation. As the mining has stopped for more than
five years and the report is that there has been overgrowth
of natural vegetation we do not intend to permit extension
of time as prayed for. The petition is accordingly dis-
missed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8
C.M.P. 11756 of 1988
The two writ petition Nos. 8209 and 8821 of 1983 clearly
relate to the Doon Valley and mining activity falling within
the district of Tehri-Garhwal was not be the subject-matter
of those two writ petitions. The CMP filed by the State of
Uttar Pradesh is dismissed leaving it open to the State to
agitate its contentions in regard to mining activity in
Tehri-Garhwal separately.
W.P. No. 151 of 1990
This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution
asking for grant of leases in respect of five mines falling
within the ’A’ category of the Bhargava Committee Report as
also Category (1) of the Working Group Report to the Calcium
Carbonate Manufacturers Association for carrying out limited
mining activity to meet the essential and captive need of
the Calcium Carbonate Industry. When the main writ petitions
were pending, CMP 30707/87 had been filed for the self-same
relief and it wanted to be impleaded in those two writ
petitions. The application was rejected on 30th of August,
1988, by saying:
"From time to time, Civil Miscellaneous Petitions
had been moved and orders were made. We do not see any
justification to make any further order in such cases. All
CMPs are disposed of."
Thereafter, the petitioner made another application for the
same relief
81
but the Registry did not entertain it in view of the final
order of 30th August, 1988. The present writ petition, in
these circumstances, is not maintainable. That apart, this
Court had come to the conclusion on 30th of August, 1988,
that mining activity in the Doon Valley area must ultimately
stop. The Court has taken into consideration the need for
availability of minimum supply of the mineral in question
and to make available such supply, controlled and regulated
mining activity has been permitted. Mining leases are not
granted by this Court and in view of the conclusion already
reached that no fresh mining activity should be carried on,
we see no justification for entertaining this writ petition.
Contempt Petition No. 25 of 1989
There is already an order that the proceeding for con-
tempt is misconceived. We do not find any justification to
give any further time for lifting or removal. The contempt
petition is accordingly dismissed.
1. A. No. 9 of 1989
This application is by the Monitoring Committee appoint-
ed by this Court and the prayer is to recall the order of
19th October, 1989, and to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh
to sell the material and utilise the proceeds for the pur-
poses of reafforestation and conservation. In view of the
steps we have taken in the connected matters, no particular
directions are necessary.
C
The only other question that is left for consideration
is the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee that the
payment of Rs.5 per metric ton of the extracted material
fixed by this Court in 1988 should be raised to Rs.20 per
metric ton. We have heard counsel for the parties. We have
also perused the report and the papers produced on behalf of
the lessees who are still running. We are inclined, on the
materials placed, to take the view that the rate should be
enhanced to Rs. 10 from Rs.5 with effect from 1st June,
1990. Since this will not have any retrospective effect the
liability for such payment would be only in respect of the
lessees who are running by permission of the Court given in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8
the main judgment of August 30, 1988.
It has been contended by some of the lessees before us
that the money which has been collected on the basis of Rs.5
per metric ton has
82
not yet been utilised for plantation. We hope and trust that
there is no basis for the criticism but would like to advise
the Monitoring Committee to activise its steps in the proper
direction.
A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be
placed by the Monitoring Committee by 30th June, 1990, for
the consideration of the Court on the 23rd July, 1990.
The rehabilitation scheme which has already been fur-
nished by the appropriate Committee should now be placed
before the Court for orders also on 23rd July, 1990
R.N.J. Petition dis-
posed of.
83