Supreme Court of India
M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 676
- Decided
- 10 May 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Court held that mining activities must be prohibited within a 2‑km radius of Badkhal Lake and Surajkund, with green‑belt development, a 5‑km construction ban, and conditional renewal of leases beyond 2 km requiring no‑objection certificates from pollution control authorities.
Summary
M.C. Mehta filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking control of air and noise pollution from stone‑crushers, pulverisers and mining operations near the tourist resorts of Badkhal Lake and Surajkund in Haryana. The Haryana Pollution Control Board and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) reported that mining activities caused significant dust, noise, and ecological damage, and recommended stoppage of mining within a 5 km radius and the creation of green belts. The State of Haryana argued that the mines had already been closed within 5 km and that the pollution did not extend beyond 1 km, contesting the Board’s recommendation. The Court, after considering the expert reports, directed that mining be prohibited within a 2 km radius of the resorts, green‑belt plantations be established, construction be barred within 5 km, and that renewal of mining leases between 2 km and 5 km require no‑objection certificates from both the State and Central Pollution Control Boards. The petition was ultimately disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether mining operations near Badkhal Lake and Surajkund should be stopped to protect the environment and tourism.
- What radius around the tourist resorts is appropriate for prohibiting mining activities.
- Whether the State can close mines without hearing the lease‑holders.
- What additional measures (green belts, construction bans, lease renewal conditions) are required to mitigate pollution.
Legislation cited
Subjects
environmental lawpollution controlmininggreen belttourist resortsair pollutionnoise pollutionpublic interest litigationArticle 32environmental management planclosure of mines
Judgment
A M.C. MEHTA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
MAY 10, 1996
B [KULDIP SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.]
Environmental Law:
Pollution control and preservation of environment-Tourist resorts of
C Badkal Lake and Surajkund in State of Haryanrr-Enviro111nent effected by
air and noise pollution caused by stone cursher, pulven·sers and n1ining
operations in the sun-ounding area-Writ petition filed seeking a direction to
the H111yana Pollution Control Board to control the pollution-Supreme
Court obtaining reports from Haiyana Pollution Control Board and the
National Environmental Enginee1ing Research Institute-Held, in order to
D preserve environment and control pollution within the vicinity of two tourist
reso1ts, it would be reasonable to direct the stoppage of mining activity within
two km. radius of the tourists of Badkal Lake and Surajkund. Directions given
to maintain ecological balance and to create and maintain green belts as
recommended by the NEERI-Renewal of mining leases within the area of 2
E km. to 5 km. radius restricted.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Interlocutory Application
No. 22.
IN
F
Writ Petition (C) No. 4077 of 1985.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Petitioner-in-person and Ms. Seema Mirdha, Arnn Jaitly, Swaraj
G Kaushal, H.N. Salve, Anil B. Diwan, Gopal Subramanian, N.N. Goswami,
S.B. Sanyal, Ms. Shirla Sethi, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Geeta Luthra,
Saharaya & Co., R.K. Maheshwari, R.S. Suri, Ms. Hamantika Wahi, S.
Sulmmaran, R. Khranjwala, Ravindra Narain, Sumeet Kachwaha, Punit
Singh, Bimal Ray, Ramji Srinivasan, J.B. Dadachandji, T.C. Shanna, Sush-
H ma Suri, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ramesh Babu, M.R. for the appearing parties.
796
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 797
The following Order of the Court was delivered : A
Mr. M.C. Mehta - environmentalist lawyer - has filed this public
interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a
direction to the Haryana Pollution Control Board (the Board) to control
the pollution caused by the stone curshers, pulverisers and mine operators
B
in the Faridabad - Balabagarh area. We are in the process of monitoring
the petition. The core question which we propose to deal with in this order
is whether - to preserve environment and control pollution - the mining
operations should be stopped within the radius of five kilometers (km)
from the tourist resorts of Badkal Lake and Surajkund in the State of
Haryana. c
This Court by the order dated November 20, 1995 directed the Board
to inspect and ascertain the impact of mining operations on the ecologically
sensitive area of Badkal lake and Surajkund. The inspection was done by
a team of the Board comprising of Dr. B. Sengupta, Senior Scientist, Shri D
Lalit Kapoor, Senior Environmental Engineer, Shri R.C. Kataria, Environ-
mental Engineer and Dr. J. Moitra, Scientist 'B'. The inspection report of
the Board was placed before this Court along with an affidavit filed by Dr.
S.P. Chakrabarti, Member Secretary of the Board. In the affidavit, regard-
ing the mining activities, it is stated as under :
E
11
For the purpose of mining, explosives are being used for rock
blasting. Because of unscientific mining operation, overburden
materials (top soil and murum remain) were observed to be lying
haphazardly. Deep mining for extracting silica sand lumps is caus-
ing ecological disaster as these mines lie unreclaimed and aban- F
doned. As a matter of fact mining site reveals total lack of
environmental planning!!.
The report contains the following recommendations regarding the mining
activities in the area:
G
Mining:
At present manual as \Vell as sen1i mechanised mining of hard
stone, weathered soft stone and coarse sand in 33 mining area
leased by the State Government of Haryana is operative. Ex-
plosives are used for rock blasting. H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A Reco1nn1endations
(1) Environmental Management Plan (EMP) shall be prepared by
mine lease holders for their mines and actual mining operation
made operative after obtaining approval from the State Depart-
ment of Environmental or Haryana State Pollution Control Board.
The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) Should be imple-
B mented following a time-bound action plan. Land reclamation and
afforestation programmes shall also be included in the EMP and
must be implemented strictly by the implementing authorities.
(2) Mining activities should be stopped \vithin a radius of 5 km
c from Badkhal Lake and Surajkund (tourist place).
(3) At present mining activities are going on \vithout obtaining
consent as required under the Air (Prevention & Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981, from the Haryana State Pollution Control
Board. Mine lease holders shall take appropriate steps to obtain
D consent from the State Pollution Control Board failing which the
State Pollution Board shall take necessary action in this regard.
(4) The mine owners should adhere strictly to Mine Safety Plan
and install all necessary devices.
E
(5) The overburden along with top soil should be properly
preserved for use at the time of reclamation of abandoned mine.
(6) Use of explosives in the mines should be regulated as per the
Explosive Act and after obtaining approval from the Competent
F Authorities."
This Court on March 21, 1996 noticed the statement of Mr. Gopal Snb-
ramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana in the
following words :
G "Mr. Gopal Subramaniam states that the mining work has stopped
within the radius of 5 kms. of Badkhal Lake and Surajkund. We
appreciate the gesture of Haryana Government. Mr. Subramaniam
states that the steps to provide green belt in that area are also in
progress. He shall place on record the positive steps which are in
H the contemplation."
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 799
Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Mr. G.L. Sanghi & Mr. R.S. Suri, learned counsel A
appearing for the mine operators vehemently contended before this Court
• on March 29, 1.996 that the mining operation were closed without affording
any opportunity to the lessees of the mines. After hearing learned counsel,
this Court passed the following order :
11
There is no order by this Court directing the ciosure of the mines. B
Mr. Shanti Bhushan, however, states that in view of the observa-
tions made by this Court in the earlier orders, the Haryana Govern-
ment has closed the mines in the area. The main contention raised
is that without hearing the mine owners and without giving them
any opportunity, the mines have been closed. Needless to say that C
action regarding closure of the mines have been taken on the basis
of the report submitted by the Central Pollution Control Board.
Be that as it may, we give opportunity to these mine-owners to
present their case before this Court. 11
The mining operations within the radius of 5 kms from Badkal lake and D
Surajkund were stopped by the Haryana Government on the basis of the
recommendation made by the Board. The mine operators through their
learned counsel raised serious objection to the recommendation of the
Board seeking closure of the mining operations within the radius of 5 kms.
According to learned counsel the pollution generated, if any, by the mining E
activities cannot go beyond a distance of one km. and as such the closure
of the mines· within the area of 5 kms. was wholly unjustified. It was
suggested by the learned counsel that another opinion in this respect may
be obtained from an expert body like the National Environmental En-
gineering Research Institute (NEER!). This Court on April 12, 1996
passed the following order : F
"We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view
that it would be useful to have the expert opinion of the National
Environmental Engineering Research Institute on the point
whether the mining operations in the said area are to be stopped G
in the interest of Environmental Protection, Pollution Control and
Tourism Development. If so whether the limit should be five kms.
or less.
We, therefore, request Dr. Khanna to send an inspection team
to the area concerned preferably within next week lo examine the H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A question of closure of the mines from the environment and pollu-
tion point of view. The team shall also examine the working of the
stone curshers and pulverisers in the area. Initially report regarding
mines may be filed. We request Dr. Khanna to have the report
.'
filed in this Court within ten days."
B The NEER! has filed its inspection report dated April 20, 1996.
We have heard learned counsel for the mine operators at length.
•
The two tourist places, Surajkund and Badkal lake, are located in
Faridabad district of Haryana State and are at a distance of about 18/24
c kms. from New Delhi. Because of their proximity to the capital city of India
these resorts have a great tourist potential. We may refer to the relevant
parts of the NEER! report:
"Air Quality Monitoring was carried out by the Inspection Team
D at one working mine beyond 5 km from Badkal lake and Surajkund
area to ass-:s~ the extent of air pollution from the mining activities,
overburden loading and haulage, and to determine fugitive. emis-
sions of Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM). One monitoring
station was established in upwind direction at a distance of 300 m,
whereas another monitoring station was located in downwind
E direction at 50m distance from the face of the mine. The mining
activity was being carried out in an area of 0.75 x 1.0 km 2. The
air quality monitoring was conducted for four hours during mining
operations. The blasting operation also took place during the air
quality monitoring. Al the upwind and downwind stations, SPM
F concentrations were observed to be 124 and 416 ug/m3 respective-
ly. The contribution from mining activities was 292 ug/m3.
Fugitive air pollutant emission rate of SPM for mining activities
was also estimated using upwind-downwind technique. The fugitive
emission rate was 30.26 gm/sec for production of 4000 tons of
G stones during four hours.
Noise levels were measured by inspection team at the working
mine beyond 5 kms, from Badkal lake. The noise levels were
observed to be in the range of 52-80 dBA. The noise levels were
H also measured at a distance of 500 m away from the working mine,
M.C. MEHTA I'. U.O.l. 801
and it was observed to be equal to the background noise level of A
40-42 dBA. Noise levels were also measured during blasting, when
820 gms of explosive was used in four holes of 1.2 m depth. The
maximum noise level of 59.5 dBA was recorded at a distance of
500 m from the blast site."
The following recommendations have been made by the NEERI in the B
report:
"6.1. Mining
6.1.1 Detailed exploratory operations need to be undertaken to
facilitate the estimation of reserves in the region, and for scientific
management of mining operations.
c
6.1.2. The mine lease owners need to undertake the mining opera-
tions in series, i.e. mining activities must be completed to full
potential in a block before moving to the next. This will help in
reclamation of land in the block in which mining operations have D
been completed.
6.1.3. All the mine lease holders need to prepare detailed mining
plans, and obtain approvals before the actual mining operations
are initiated. The implementation of approved mining plans by the
mine lease holders needs to be ensured by a designated authority E
\vith specilization in environment.
6.1.4. The mine lease holders should also prepare mine safety
plans, and ensure installation of necessary devices for protection
of mine \Vorkers.
F
6.1.5. In view of the observations made by the Archaeological
Survey of India (ASI) on the availability of stone age tools and
other historic remains, ASI needs to work in collaboration with
the mine lease holders on n1atters relating to excavation operations.
G
6.1.6. Dust suppression measures like sprinkling of water on
haulage roads and overburden dumps and other areas need to be
implemented by mine lease holders.
6.1.7. In order to mininmise the dust pollution caused due to
vehicular traffic, it is necessary to initiate a number of measures, H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A e.g. an alternate bypass road must be laid to ensure that no vehicles
pass through the area within 1 km radial distance from the
periphery of the lakes.
6.1.8. It is necessary to minimise the duration of blasting opera-
tions.
B
6.1.9. Necessary measures inust be initiated by the Haryana
Tourism Department to protect the quality of lake waters, and to
eliminate the non-point sources of pollution.
6.1.10. The Environmental Management Plans (EMP) being for-
c mulated by the mine owners should include land rejuvenation and
ailore&tation programmes, and other measures necessary to
protect the quality of the environment and human health. The
mining operations should commence only after the approval of
EMPs by a designated authority. A time bound action plan needs
D to be initiated for the implementation of the measures delineated
in the Environmental Management Plans.
6.1.11. In order to protect the Surajkund and Badkal Lakes and
the associated tourist complexes, it is necessary to develop and
implement scientifically designed greenbelts around these com-
E
plexes, as also around boundaries of different mining blocks.
6.1.12. Greenbelt should also be developed and implemented on
either side of the roads in the mining area and Surajkund-Badkal
road to minimise the effects of dust and noise pollution.
F
6.1.13. The question of lifting the ban on m'ining operations needs
to be considered in conjunction with the implementation of strin-
gent pollution control, land reclamation, greenbelt, and other
Environmental Management measures so as to facilitate the
availability of construction materials and employment oppor-
G tunities for the workers along with the protection of environment
and public health.
6.1.14. It is considered necessary to prepare a Regional Environ-
mental Management Plan for urgent implementation to enable
H eco-fricndly regional development in the areas."
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.l. 803
Regarding the Green Belt Development NEER! has recommended as A
under:
"Since, plants possess immense capabilities for dust attenuation, it
-. is recommended that greenbelts be developed in following areas :
- At one km radius all around the Surajkund Lake boundary; 200 B
m wide greenbelt.
- At one km radius all around the Badkal Lake boundary; a 200
m wide greenbelt.
- Outside the total mining area lease boundary; a 100 m wide C
greenbelt.
- On open, peripheral areas around the stone crushers zone; a 100
!11 wide greenbelt within the crusher zone boundary (Figure 3)"
The site-wise greenbelt designs have been presented in Table D
4.
Road side plantations are also required. Depending upon the
width of various roads and the land available, there is a need for
two/three rows of trees on either side of each road. The spacing E
between the rows may be 5 m, and that between trees in each row
as 6 m. The requirements of plants for road side plantation has
been indicated in Table 4.
The greenbelt development involves use of several plant species
m hundreds and, therefore, it is desirable that the work be F
entrusted to the District Forest Department that will be able to
maintain and generate the required number of seedlings of all the
recommended plant species. 11
The two expert opinions - by the Board and by the NEER! - leave
no doubt in our mind that the mining activities in the vicinity of tourist G
resorts are bound to cause severe impact on the local ecology. The mining
brings extensive alteration in the national land profile of the area. Mined
pits and unattended dumps of overburdened, left behind during the mining
operations, are the irreversible consequences of the mining operations.
Rock blasting, movement of heavy vehicles, movements and operations of H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A mining equipment and machinery cause consideration pollution in the
shape of noise and vibration. The ambient air in the mining area gets highly
polluted by the dust generated by the blasting operations, vehicular move-
ment; loading/unloading/transportation and the exhaust gases from equip-
ment and machinery used in the mining operations.
B The Board has notified the Ambient Air Quality Standards by the
Notification dated April 11, 1994. The notification fixes limiting standards
of pollutants (Sulphur Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Suspended Particulate
Matter, Respirable Particulate Matter, Lead and Carbon Monoxibe) in
respect of sensitive years, industrial area and residential, rural and other
C areas. The standards for sensitive areas are stringent than the standards
prescribed for industrial and residential areas. The Board has recom-
mended that the area of 5 kms around the periphery of a centre of tourism
be notified as sensitive area.
The Badkhal lake and Surajkund are monsoon-fed water bodies. The
D. natural drainage pattern of the surrounding hill areas feed these water
bodies during rainy season. The mining activities in the vicinity of these
tourist resorts may disturb the rain water drains which in turn may badly
affect the water level as well as the water quality of these water bodies.
The mining may also cause fractures and cracks in the subsurface, rock
E layer causing disturbance to the aquifers which are the source of ground
watet. This may disturb the hydrology of the area.
We are, therefore, of the view that in order to preserve environment
and control pollution within the vicinity of the two tourist resorts it is
necessary to stop mining in the area. The question, hov;ever, for consjdera-
F lion is what should be the extent of the said area? NEER! in its report has
recommended that 200 metres !,'l"Cen belts be developed at 1 km radius all
around the boundaries of the two lakes. It is thus obvious that twelve
hundred meters are required for the green belts. Leaving another 800
meters as a cushion to absorb the air and noise pollution generated by the
G mining operations, we are of the view that it would be reasonable to direct
the stoppage of mining activity within two km radius of the tourist resorts
of Badkhal and Surajkund. We, therefore, order and direct as under :
1. There shall be no mining activity within 2 km radius of the tourist
resorts of Badkhal and Surajkund. All the mines which fall within the said
H radius shall not be reopened.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1 . 805
•
2. The Forest Development of the State of Haryana and in particular A
the Chief Conservator and the District Forest officer, Faridabad shall
.# • undertake to develop the green belts as recommended by NEERJ with
immediate effect. The NEERJ has also suggested the development plan
and the type of trees to be plant_ed. We direct the Chief Conservator of
Forests, Haryana, District Forest Officer, Faridabad and all other con-
B
cerned officers of the Forest Department to start the plantation of trees
for developing the green belts and make all efforts to complete the plan-
tations of trees before the monsoon (1996).
3. We direct the Director, Mining and Geology, Haryana, the
Haryana Pollution Control Board to enforce all the recommendations of C
NEER! contained in para 6.1. of its report (quoted above) so far as the
mining operations in the State of Haryana are concerned. All the mines
operators shall be given notices to implement the said recommendations.
Failing to comply with the recommendations may result the closure of the
mining operations.
D
4. We further direct that no construction of any type shall be per-
mitted now onwards within 5 km radius of the Badkhal Lake and Suraj-
kund. All open areas shall be converted into green belts.
5. The mining leases within the area from 2 km to 5 km radius shall
·not be renewed without obtaining prior "no objection" certificate from the E
Haryana Pollution Control Board as also from the Central Pollution Con-
. trol Board. Unless both the Boards grant no objection certificate the
mining leases in the said area shall not be renewed.
R.P. Petition disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "environmental law"Sign in to search