Holding

The Supreme Court held that the mining schemes were not acceptable, the quarries classified as environmentally hazardous must remain closed, and the March 12, 1985 order directing closure and dismissal of continuation suits stands as law.

Summary

The Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra filed a writ petition alleging that illegal limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie hills and Dehradun area was causing severe ecological damage. The Supreme Court appointed several committees (Bhargava, Working Group, Valdia Expert Committee, Bandopadhyay) to assess safety, environmental impact and the validity of mining leases. The Court classified the quarries into groups and, through its March 12, 1985 order, directed closure of all quarries deemed environmentally hazardous, allowing only a few under strict conditions, and rejected the schemes submitted by lessees for continued operation. It emphasized that preservation of the environment is a fundamental duty under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution and that policy decisions on mineral exploitation must balance development with ecological protection. The Court upheld the earlier orders, dismissed pending suits for continuation of mining, and awarded costs to the petitioner.

Issues considered

The legality of continued limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie‑Dehradun region under the Minerals Regulations Act, 1948 and Mines Act, 1952.
Whether the schemes submitted by mining lessees to the Bandopadhyay Committee satisfy legal and environmental requirements.
Whether the closure orders issued in the March 12, 1985 judgment are sustainable in view of constitutional duties under Article 51A(g).
The extent of the Court's jurisdiction to direct environmental protection versus policy decisions of the executive.

Legislation cited

Subjects

environmental protectionecological balancelimestone quarryingfundamental dutypublic interest litigationmineral regulationSupreme Court of Indiaclosure ordersMines ActMinerals Regulations Act

Judgment

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT
KENDRA & ORS. E'fC. A
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.
DECEMBER 18, 1986
[RANGANATH MISRA AND A.J.N. SEN, JJ.)
B
·...f. Constitution of India, 1950:-
Artic/e 5 I A (g)--Environment-Preservation of-Ecological
balance keeping unaffected-Task-Government as also every citizen

- undertake.

Mineral Regulations Act, 1948/ Minerals Concession Rules, 1949: c
...., Limestone-Quarrying of-Grant of mining /eases-Deposits not to
be exploited at cost of ecology and environmental consideration.
A letter received from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra Dehradun was treated as a Writ fetition and notices issued. D
The main allegations therein related to unauthorised and illegal mining
operations carried on in the Mussoorie Hills and the area around
adversely affecting the ecology orthe area and leading to, environmental
disturbances. In July, 1983 this Court directed all fresh quarrying to he
stopped.
~ E
On ll .8.1983 this Court "ppointed Bhargav Committee for
inspecting all the mines except those belonging to the State of Uttar

-
?radesh and the Union of India for determining whether the safety
standards laid down in the Mines Act 1952 and the. Mines Rules were
being observed or not and whether there was any danger of landslides
or was any hazard to individuals, cattle or agricultural lands by carry- F
ing on of mining operatioiis. Blasting operations in tbe area were also
_-;<(
I ,
directed to he stopped. On the basis of the main report of the said
Committee this Court on August 24, 1983 permitted removal of
li~estone already quarried. The Committee directed closure of some of
the mines and reported the defects appearing in other mines and called
upon the mine owne..S to carry out rectifications. G

The Bhargav Committee classified the mines in A, B and C
groups. So far as the mines in Group <.: were concerned, the Committee·
recommended that they should he closed down. As regards the mines in
Group A, the Committee opined that the quarrying could he carried on
without any environmental or ecole>gical hazard. The Committee also H

641
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A recommended closure of B Group mines parmanently. The Union
Government had also appointed a Working Group on mining of
...
limestone quarries in Dehradun and Mussoorie area some time in, 1983
which was also headed by Shri Bhargav who was heading the Commit-
tee appointed by this Court. The Working Group submitted its report

B
in September, 1983. After a comparative analysis of the two reports,
the Court found that the Working Group had taken these very mines
for their study and had divided the mines into two categories, namely,
,..
Class I and Class II. AU the mines then categorised as Class I were now
included by the Bhargav Committee in Group A and the remaining

c
mines now classified as Group B and C were in Class II.

This Court had also appointed an Expert Committee headed by ).._ -
Professor Valdia to consider the problems .of ecology and environment
with reference to mining. Professor Valdia gave a separate report while ·-f
the other two members gave a joint report. In its order of March 12,
1985, this Court observed that it does not propose to rely on the report
of Professor Valdia and it would not be safe to direct continuance or
D discontinuance of mining operations in limestone quarries on the basis
of Main Boundary Thrust. In 12th March, 1985 order this Court
directed that the limestone quarries located in Sahasradhara Block and
placed in Category II by the Working Group should be closed down, that
the limestone quarries placed in Category II by the Working Group
other than those which are placed in Category B and C by the Bhargav
~
E Committee should also be closed down save and except for the limestone
quarries covered by the mining leases numbers 31, 36 and 37 for which
the same direction should be given as would be given in regard to the

F
limestone quarries classified as Category B in the Bhargav Committee
Report, and that if there are any subsisting leases in respect of any of
these limestone quarries they will forthwith come to an end and if any
suits or writ petitions for continuance expire on unexpired leases in
-
respect of any of these limestone quarries are pending, they too will ')..,,
stand dismissed. I

This Court also directed closing down of the mines in A Category
located within the municipal limits of Mussoorie.

.
G
In regard to B Class quarries of the Bhargav Committee Report
which featured in Cate?,ory II of the Working Group Report, as also of
the A Category quarries wi~n;,. tlte municipal limits, this Court set up a
Committee headed by Shri Bandopadi1yay, then . Secretary in the
Ministry of Rural Development and called upon the mine owners to
H submit a fuU and detailed scheme to that Committee for its examination
RU.RAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. 643

.... and report to the Court about the same. It was directed 'that until
further orders from this Court on the basis of the Bandopadhyay
A
Committee Report these mines shall not be worked. Bandopadhyay
Committee submitted its report rejecting the schemes put forward by
various lessees of the mines which have been closed down.

On 20th November, 1986 this Court granted time to the erstwhile B
--+- lessees of mines to file objections to Bandopadhyay Committee Report
within six weeks and reply, if any, to be filed by the petitioners and the
State within four weeks thereafter. The petitions were to come up for
hearing in February, 1987.
- .A By order dated March 12, 1985 the Court made a detailed order c;
containing various directions reported in [(1985) 3 SCR 169] and the
....,.. reasons therefor were to foUow later .

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Sen one of the members of the Bench
who heard these petitions before his retirement delivered judgment on
30th September 1985 expressing.his views that it is not necessary to give D
any further reasons than those which are already stated in the order
made on 12th March, I 985 because the broad reasons have been ade-
quately set out in the order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to
"'" elaborate them.
)t
Giving the reasons the Court, E

-
HELD: !.'On a perusal of order dated 12th March, 1985 the
other members of the Bench are inclined to agree with the view taken by
· Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Sen that the said order covered almost aU the
relevant aseects and touched upon every issue germane to the matter. [646E]
F
2. The question whether the schemes submitted by the mine les-
sees to Bandopadhyay Committee have been rightly rejected or not and
whether under those schemes, the mine lessees can be allowed to carry
on mining operations without iii any way adversely affecting environ-
ment or ecological balance or causing hazard to individuals, cattle or
agricultural lands still remain to be considered and would have to be G
decided in the light of the view taken by this Court in the order dated
12th March, 1985 and the instant judgment. [650C-E]

3. Preservation of the environment and keeping ·the ecological
balance unaffected is Ii task which not only Governments but also every
citizen must undertake. It is a social oblig:>tion and every Indian citizen H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987) I S.C.R.

is reminded that it is bis fundamental duty as enshrined in Article .....
A
51A(g) of the Constitution. (6531>-E)

4. Consciousness for environmental protection is of recent origin.
Scientific development have made it possible and convenient for man to
· approach the places which are beyond his ken. The consequences of
B such interference with ecology and environment have now come to he
realised. [652F-H)

5. Government hoth at the Centre and in the State-must realize
and remain cognizent of the fact that the stake involved in the matter is
large and far reaching. The evil consequences would last long. Once
that unwanted situation sets in, amends or repairs would not he possi-
c ble. The greenery of India may perish and the Thar desert may expand
its limits. [652E-F]

6. It has been commended earlier to the State of Uttar Pradesh as
also to the Union of India that afforestation activity may he carried out
D in the whole valley and the hills. Such activity has been undertaken.
This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the n~tural resources have to
he tapped for the purposes of social development but one cannot forget
of the same time that tapping of resources have to he done with requisite
attention and care so that ecology and environment may not he affected
in any serious way; there may not he any depletion of water resources
E and long term planning most be undertaken to keep up the national
wealth. [653B-C)

7. It is for the .Government and the Nation-and not for the
Court-to decide whether the deposits should he exploited at the cost of
ecology and environmental considerations or the industrial requirement
-
F should he otherwise satisfied. It may he perhaps possible to exercise
greater control and vigil over the operation and strike a balance het- ~-.
ween preservation and utilisation and that would indeed he a matter for
an expert body to examine and on the basis of appropriate advice,
Government should take a policy decision and firmly implement the
same. [652D-E)
G
8. In .the .instant case, the limestone quarries in the area are
estimated to satisfy roughly three per cent of the country's demand. At
the present rate of mining, the deposits are likely to last some 50 years.
Digging of limestone and allowing the waste to roll down or carried
down by rain water to the lower levels has affected the villages as also
H the agricultural lands located helow the hills. For .removing tlie
RURALLITIGATIONv. STATEOFU.P. IMISRA,J.] 645
•
j..· limestones quarried from the mines, roads have been laid and for that A
purpose the hills have been interfered with; traffic hazard for the local
population both animals and men-has increased. [652Bl
'
9. In 1949 the Minerals Concession Rules made by the Central
Government under the Minerals Regulations Act, 1948 authorised
....l grant of mining leases and several applicants came forward for quarry- B
. I'" ing of high grade limestone. Until 1962, extraction of limestone was permit~
ted on temporary permits by the State Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. [651F-G]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 8209 & 8821of1983.
c
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
M.A. Krishnamoorthy, Pramod Dayal, Rishi Kesh, R.B.
Mehrotra, M.G. Ramachandran, C.M. Nayyar, M. Karanjawala, S.A.
Sayed, Sushi! Kumar Jain, S. Dikshit, P.P. Juneja, P.K. Jain, K.N.
Bhatt, D.N. Misra, l.Makwana, A. Subba Rao, Harjinder Singh, B.P. D
'Singh, Parijat Sinha, C.P. Lal, Shri Narain, S.K. Gupta, K.R.
Nambiar, S.S. Khanduja, K.K. Jain, C.M. Nargolkar, Kapil Sibal, R.
Ramachandran and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appearing Parties and
Devi Ditta Mal Petitioner in person. •
)l. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,
E
RANGANATH MISRA, J. On March 12, 1985, after hearing
counsel an~ parties appearing in person at great length this Court
made a detailed order wherein it was said;
•
'
"This case has been argued at great length before us not :
only because a large number of lessees of limestone quar- F
ries are involved al)d each of them has painstakingly and
exhaustively canvassed his factual as well as legal points of
view but also because this is the first case of its kind in the
country involving issues relating to environment and ec-0-
logical balance and the questions arising for consideration
are of grave moment and significance not only to the G
people residing in the Mussoorie Hill range forming part of
the Himalayas but also in their implications to the welfare
of the generality of people living in .the country. It brings
into sharp focus the conflict between development and con-
servation and serves to emphasise the need for reconciling
the t~o in the larger interest of the country. But since H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.
r
A. having regard to the voluminous material placed before us
and the momentous. issues raised for decision, it is not.
possible for us to prepare a full and detailed judgment
immediately and at the same time, on account of interim
order made byus, mining operations carried out through
bias.ting have been stopped and the ends of justice require
B that the lessees of limestone quarries should know, without
any unnecessary delay, as to where they stand in regard to
their limestone quarries, we propose to pass our order on
the writ petitions. The reasons for the order will be set out
in the judgment to follow later."

C In the meantime, one of us our kamed Brother Sen, J., has _.+--.
retired from the Court. Before that event h_appened, on 30th.
September, 1985, he delivered a judgment expressing his views on the f
matter. He indicated:
"I do not think it necessary to give any further reasons than
D those which are already stated in the order made by us on
12th March, 1985. Speaking personally for myself, I think
that the broad reasons have been adequately set out in the
order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to elaborate
them."

E On a perusal of our order of the 12th March, 1985, we are inclined to -lo(
agree with his view that the detailed order covered almost all the
relevant aspects and touched upon every issue germane to the matter.

As this was the first case of its type with wide and serious ramifi- •
cations, we would like to give a brief account of the manner in which
F ihe proceedings commenced, were carried on and are to be concluded.

By an order dated 14. 7 .1983, this Court directed a letter received
from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Debra Dun dated
h'·
2. 7 .1983 along with accompanying affidavits to be treated as a writ
petition and issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Col-
G lector of Debra Dun. The main allegation therein related to unau-
thorised and illegal mining operations carried on in the Mussoorie
Hills and the area around adversely affecting the ecology of the area
and leading to environmental disturbances. Later on, another applica- r
tion was directed to be tagged on and both the applications were dealt
with together. Several parties, mainly, mining lessees numbering more
H than 100, got impleaded either at the instance of the petitioners or on
their own seeking. By a later order made in the month of July 1983,
RURALLITIGATIONv. STATEOFU.P. {MISRA.1.J 647

this Court directed all fresh quarrying to be stopped and called upon A
the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of Dehra Dun
District to strictly enforce that order.

On 11.8.1983, after hearing the counsel for parties then appear-
ing, this Court appointed a Committee for the purpose of inspecting all
B
the mines other than those belonging to the State of Uttar Pradesh and
the Union of India, with a view to determining whether the safety
standards laid down in the Mines Act, 1952, and the Mines Rules made
thereunder were being observed or not and whether there was any
danger of landslides on account of the quarrying operations particu-
larly during the monsoon in any of the mines and if there was any other
hazard to individuals, cattle or agricultural lands by reason of the c
carrying on of mining operations. Blasting operations in the area were
also directed to be stopped. This Committee came to be known as the
Bhargava Committee and its members were authorised to inspect the
mines and give suitable directions. The Committee made its main
report on the. basis whereof this Court on August 24, 1983 permitte4
D
removal of limestone already quarried. The. Committee directed
closure of some of the mines and reported the defects appearing in the
other mines and called upon the mine owners to carry out recti-
fications.

The Bhargava Committee classified the mines in the area into
E
three groups being A, B and C. So far as the mines in Group (C) were
concerned. the Committee was of the view that.they were not suitable
for continuance and should, therefore, be closed down. So far as the
.. question related lo the mines in Group A the Committee was of the
opinion that the quarrying could be carried on without any environ-
mental or ecological hazard. In regard to the B group mines, the
F
Bhargava Committee opined that those may not be closed down
permanently though it did notice the adverse impact of their mining
activities. In its order of 12th March, 1985, this Court took note of the
.fact,that the Union Government had appointed a Working Group on
mining of limestone quarries in Debra Dun and Mussoorie area some
time in 1983 and the Working Group was also headed by Shri
G
Bhargava who was heading the Committee appointed by this Court.
The other members of the Working Group were experts in the field
and the Working Group had submitted the report in September !983.
A comparative analysis was made by this Court in regard to the mines
by referring to both the reports. The Court found that the Working
Group had taken these very mines for their study arid had divided the
H
mines into two categories-namely, Class I and Class II. It transryires
'
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

that all the mines then categorised as Class I were now included by the
A
Bhargava Committee in Group A and the remaining mines now clas-
sified as Group Band C by the Bhargava Committee were in Class II.

This Court had also appointed an Expert Committee with Pro-
fessor Valdia and two Members mainly to consider the problems of
B ecology and environment with reference to mining. Professor Valdia
gave a separate report while the other two members gave a joint re-
port. Dealing with the separate report furnished by Professor Valdia,
this Court in its order of March 12. 1985 stated:

"We may observe straightaway that we do not propose to
rely on the report of Professor Valdia who was one of the
c Members of the Expert Committee appointed by our order
dated 2.9.1983 as modified by the order dated 23rd
October, 1983. This Committee consisted of Professor
Valdia, Shri Hukum Singh and Shri D.N. Kaul and it was
appointed to enquire and investigate into the question of
D dist11rbance of ecology and pollution and affectation of air,
water and environment by reason of quarrying operations
or working of stone crushers or limestone kilns. Shri
Hukum Singh sub!llitted a joint report in regard to various
aspects while Professor Valdia submitted a separate report.
Professor Valdia's report was confined shortly to the
E geological aspect and in his report he placed considerable
reliance on the Main Boundary Thrust (shortly referred to
as M.B.T.) and he took the view that limestone quarries
which were pangerously close to M.B.T. should be closed
down, because they were in the sensitive and vulnerable •
belt. We shall examine this report in detail when we ~ve
F our reasons but we may straightaway point out that w do
not think it safe to direct continuance or discontinuance of
mining operations in limestone .quarries on the basis of >:--
\

M.B.T." '

At the further hearings after the said order, parties did not address
G arguments with reference to M.B.T. and we are of the view that this
topic need not be dealt with by us. In 12th March 1985 order we
directed that the limestone. quarries located in Sahasradhara Block and
placed in Category II by the Working Group should be closed down. '>r ·
We further said:

H "We would also direct, agreeing with the Report made by
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.) 649

the Working Group that the limestone quarries placed in A
Category II by the Working Group other than those which
are placed in Categories B and C by the Bhargava Commit-
tee should also not be allowed to be operated and shoud be
closed down save and except for the limestone quarries
covered by the mining leases nuinbers 31, 36 and 37 for
which we will give the same direction as we are giving in the 13
succeeding paragraphs in regard to the limestone quarries
classified as Category B in the Bhargava Committee
Report. If there are any subsisting leases in respect of any
of these limestone quarries they will forthwith come to an
erid and if any suits or writ petitions for continuance expire
or unexpired leases in respect of any of these limestone
quarries are pending, they too will stand dismissed." c
This Court directed closing down of the mines in A Category
located withif! the municipal limits of Mussoorie.

In regard to B Class quarries of the Bhargavjl _Committee Report D
which featured in Category II of the Working Group Report, as also of
the A Category quarries within the municipal limits, we set up a Com-
mittee under the chairmanship of Shri D. Bandyopadhyay, then Sec-
retary in the Ministry of Rural Development and called upon the mine
owners to submit a full and detailed scheme to that Committee which
would examine the said scheme keeping in view the provisions of the E
law as also the expediency of allowing mining operations in the are'a
.. and report to the Court about the same. We have directed that until
further orders from this Court on the basis of Bandopadhyay Commit-
tee report these mines shall not be worked. It may be pointed out that
the Bandopadhyay Committe.e has submitted its report rejecting the
schemes put forward by various lessees of the mines which have been F
·closed down and on 20th November, 1986, this Court .has directed:
I
"We are informed that Bandopadhyay Committee has &Ub-
mitted its report rejectig the schemes put forward by vari-
ous erstwhile lessees of the mines which have been closed
down now. This Report was made as far back as in April' G
!986 and those who wanted to raise objections, ought to
have done so within a reasonable time after the report was
submitted ·and those who have failed to do so, we cannot
shut them out and prevent them from raising their objec-
tions; and ·in any event delay in filing cannot prejudice
public interest since stone quarrying had already closed H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] I S.C.R.

A down. We would, therefore, grant time to the erstwhile
lessees of mines, who wish to raise objections, to file their
objections within six weeks from to-day and reply, if any,
to those objections may be filed on behalf of the petitioners
and the State of Uttar Pradesh within four weeks there-
after.
B
The old record of the case may also be kept in Court
at the time of the hearing of this Writ Petition.

Writ.Petition will come up for hearing on 3rd Tues-
day in February 1987 before a Bench of which Hon'ble Mr. ,t-,.
c Justice Ranganath Misra is a member."

From the aforesaid order it is clear that in view of the directions
given by this Co.urt the question still remains to be considered whether
the schemes submitted by the mine lessees to the Bandopadhyaya
Committee under our Order dated 12th March 1985 have been rightly
D rejected or not and whether under those schemes, the mine lessees can
be allowed to carry on mining operations without in any way adversely
affecting environment or ecological balance or causing hazard to indi-
viduals, cattle and agricultural lands. This question would, of course,
have to be decided in the light of the view taken by us in our Order
dated 12th March 1985 and the present judgment. ·
E
The Himalayan range on the Northern Boundary of India is the
most recent mountain range and yet it is the tallest. It has fonned the
Northern boundary of the country and until recent times provided an
impregnable protection to the Indian sub-continent from the Northern
direction .. This mountain range has been responsible to regulate the
F monsoons and consequently the rainfall in the Indo-gangetic belt. The .),._
Himalayas are the source for perennial rivers-the Ganges, Yamuna \
and Brahmputra as also several other tributaries which have joined
these main rivers. For thousands of years nature has displaced its
splendour through the lush green trees, innumerable springs and
beautiful flowers. The Himalayas has been th·e store house of herbs,
G shurbs and plants. Deep forests on the lower hills have helped to
generate congenial conditions for good rain.

The Doon Valley has been an exquisite region bounded by the
Himalayan and the Shivalik ranges and the Ganga and Yamuna rivers.
The perennial water streams and the fertile soil have contributed not
H only to the growth of dense lush green forests but have helped the yield
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OFU.P. [MISRA, J.] 651

of basmati rice and leechis. Mussoorie, known as the queen of Indian A
hill stations situated at a height of 5000 ft. above sea level and Debra
Doon located below the heights have turned out to be important places
of tourist attraction, centres of education, research and defence
c_omplex.

At present the Valley is in danger. because of erratic, irrational B
and uncontrolled quarrying of limestone. The landscape has been
stripped bare' of its verdant cover. Green cover today is about IO per
cent of the area while from decades ago it was almost 70 per cent.

The limestone belt has acted as the aquifer-to hold and release
water perennially. All the important streams-Song, Baldi, Rispana, c
Kairuli and Bhitarli originate from this area. Reckless mining, careless
disposal of the mine-debris and random blasting operations have dis-
turbed the natural· water system and the supply of water both for
drinking and irrigation has substantially gone down. There is a_ growing
apprehension that if mining is carried on in this process, a stage will
come when there would be dearth of water in the entire belt. D

About a hundred years. back around the middle of the last
century, Britishers ·penetrated into the area and developed Mussoorie
as a Hill Resort. The existence of huge limestone deposits came to be
discovered by the beginning of this century. Quarrying operations on
small scale began. Direct human interference in limestone quarrying E
seems to have begun in 1900. Around 1904 all the quarries were
declared as property of the Government and as appears from the
Bandopadhyay Report, in the year 1911 there existed only four
limestone quarries. It had been working in the Debra Dun area. Around
1947, limestone quarrying took a new tum and a number of persons who
had migrated from Pakistan started working on limestone deposits by F
quarrying in private lands. In 1949, the Minerals Concession Rules
made by the Central Government under the Minerals Regulations
Act, !948, authorised grant of mining leases and several applicants
came forward for quarrying of high grade limestone. Until 1962, ex- ·
traction of limestone was permitted on temporary permits by the State
Government of Uttar Pradesh. G

In these proceedings we came across 105 mmmg leases and
these, as the various reports have indicated, had direct environmental
impact on the area. It is said that the limestone deposits in this area are
of high grade having upto 99.8 calcium carbonate. Mining operations
H
in _these areas have led to cutting down of the forest. Digging of
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A limestone and allowing the waste to roll down or carried down by rain
water to the lower levels has affected the villages as also the
agricultural lands located below the hills. The naturally formed
streams have been blocked. Blasting has disturbed the natural quiet,
has shaken the soil, loosened the rocky structures and disturbed the
entire ecology of the area. For removing the limestones quarried from
B
the mines, roads have been laid and for that purpose the hills have. ~
been interfered with; traffic hazard. for the local population-both
animals and men-has increased.

The limestone quarries in this area are estimated to satisfy
roughly three per cent of the country's demand for such raw material
c and we. were told during the hearing that the Tata Iron and Steel
Company is the largest consumer of this limestone for manufacturer of
a special kind of steel. At the present rate of mining, the deposits are
likely to last some 50 years. It is for the Government and the Nation-
and not for the Court-to decide whether the deposits sliould be ex-
D ploited as the cost of ecology and environmental considerations or the
industrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied.· It may be
perhaps possible to exercise greater control and vigil over the opera-
tion and strike a balance between preservation and utilisation that
would indeed be a matter for an expert body to examine and on the
basis of appropriate advice, Government should take a policy decision -'(_
and firmly implement the same.
E
Governments-both at the Centre and in the State-must realize
· and remain cognizant of the fact that the stake involved in the matter is
large and far-reaching. The evil consequences would last long. Once
that unwanted situation sets in, amends or repairs would not be possi-
-
ble. The greenery of India, as some doubt, may perish and the Thar
F
desert may expand its limits. '>-.,.
Consciousness for environmental protection is of recent origin.
The United Nations Conference on World Environment held in Stock-
holm in June 1972 and the follow-up action thereafter is spreading the
awareness. Over thousands of years men had been successfully ex-
G ploitiag the ecological system for his sustenance but with the growth of
population the demand for land has increased and forest growth has
been and is being cut down and man has started encroaching upon
Nature and its assets. Scientific developments have made it possible
and convenient for man to approach the places which were hitherto
H beyond his ken. The consequences of such interference with ecology
and environment have now came to be realised. It is necessary that the
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATEOFU.P. [MISRA,J.l 653
:> Himalayas and the forest growth on the mountain range should be left A
uninterfered with so that there may be sufficient quantity of rain. The
top soil may be preserved withoutbeing eroded and the natural setting
of the area may remain intact. We had commended earlier to the State
of Uttar Pradesh as also to the Union of India I.hat afforestation acti-
vity may be carried out in the whole valley and the hills. We have been
--t told that such activity ,has been undertaken. We are not oblivious of
B
the fact that natural resoun;es·have got to be tapped for the purposes
of social development but one cannot forget at the same time that
tapping of resources have to be done with requisite attention and care
so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious
4 way; there may not be any depletion of water resources and long-term
planning must be undertaken to keep up the national wealth. It has c
-y· always to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind
and are not intended to be exhausted in one ~eneration.

We must pla.ce on record our appreciation of the steps taken by
the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra. But for this move, all
D
that. has happened perhaps may not have _come. Preservation of the
environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected is a task
which not only Governments but also every citizen must undertake. It
is a social obligation and let us remind every Indian citizen that it is his
•)o fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 5 lA(g) of the Constitution .
E
We are of the view that the Kendra should be entitled to the costs

-
of this proceeding. We assess the same at Rs.10.000 and direct the
State of Uttar Prad!!sh to pay the same either directly or through Court
within one month.

A.P.J.

~