Holding

The Court ordered the closure of all limestone quarries classified as category C (and certain others) and mandated a high‑powered committee to evaluate schemes for category B quarries, emphasizing the need to balance industrial development with environmental protection.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained two writ petitions filed under Article 32 challenging the operation of limestone quarries in the Dehradun‑Mussoorie area. A court‑appointed Bhargav Committee and a government Working Group had classified the quarries into categories A, B and C based on environmental and social impact. The Court, observing that industrial development must not compromise ecological balance or public health, ordered the permanent closure of all quarries classified as category C and those in the Sahsatdhara block, while directing that category B quarries be closed unless a high‑powered committee, constituted by the Court, approved a viable scheme submitted by the lessees. The judgment emphasized that appropriate safeguards should have been incorporated at the time of lease grant to avoid such drastic measures. By balancing the need for mineral exploitation with environmental protection, the Court sought to prevent loss of life, property, water supply and ecological degradation. The order dated 12 March 1985 effectively disposed of the writ petitions, directing the closure of specified quarries and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism for others.

Issues considered

Whether the operation of limestone quarries in the Dehradun‑Mussoorie area violates the right to life and a healthy environment under the Constitution.
Whether the Court can, under Article 32, direct the closure of mineral extraction activities pending environmental considerations.
What criteria should be applied to balance industrial development against ecological and social impacts in granting mining leases.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

public interest litigationenvironmental lawmineral extractionbalance of development and conservationlithium? limestonecourt‑ordered closureArticle 32high powered committeeecological balance

Judgment

RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT
KENDRA, DEHRADUN A
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

SEPTEMBER 30, 1985
".v

[RANGANATH MISRA AND A.N. SEN, JJ.) B
Ifft: I' •

--+ PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Conflict between development and conservation-Need for recon-
citing the two in the larger interest of the country-Quarrying and exca-
-A vation of lime stone deposits-Directions issued.
These Writ Petitions relate. to the mining of lime stone quarries in
c
Dehradun mining area. Diiriog the pendency of the Writ Petitions, 'the
·~
Court appointed a Committee known as Bhargav Committee for the'·
purpose of inspecting the lime stone quarries mentioned in the Writ
Petitions. The Government of India had also appointed a working '
Group headed by the same, Shri D.N. Bhargav, who was a member of D
the Bhargav Committee appointed by the Court, on the mining of lime
stone quarries in Dehradun-Mnssoorie area, some time in 1983. After
the hearing was over, the Court passed a detailed order on 12th March,
1985 (1985) 3 SCR 169] giving various directions and observing that the ·
.,._ reasons for the order wiU be set out in the judgment to follow later.
E
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Sen, one of the members of the Bench

-
who heard these petitions before his retirement, speaking for himself,

OBSERVED: I. It is not necessary to give any further reasons
than those which are already stated in the order made by the Court on
12th March, 1985 becatise the broad reasons have been adequately set F
out in that order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to elaborate
~ them. [639C I

2. Industrial development is necessary for economic growth of
the country. If, however, industrial growth is sought to be achieved by
haphazard and reckless working of the mines resulting in loss of life, G
loss of property, loss of basic amenities like supply of water'aod crea-
lion of ecological imbalance, there may ultimately be DO real economic

J
• ' growth and no real prosperity. It is necessary to strike a proper
balance. Appropriate authorities at the time of granting leases should
take all these facts into consideration llDd also provide for adequate
H
safeguards. (6400-F]
637
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

A ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 8209 & 8821 ·~.
of 1983.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

M.A. Krishnamoorthy, Pramod Dayal, Rishi Kesh, R.B.
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, I. Makwana, A. Subba Rao, Harjinder Singh,
B.P. 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, Miss A. Subhashini for the Appearing Parties and
C Devi Ditta Mal, Petitioner-in-person.
-
The Judgment was delivered by

AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J: We disposed of these two writ
petitions by an order made on 12th March, 1985 by which we directed
D that the lime stone quarries classified in category C in the Bhargava
Committee Report should not be allowed to be operated and the same
direction of closing down the lime stone quarries should also apply to
the lime stone quarries in the Sahsatdhara Block even though they are
placed in category B by the Bhargava Committel'. We also directed by
our order that so far as the other lime stone quarries classified as
E category B in the Bhargava Committee Report and category 2 in the
Working Group Report are concerned, they should not be allowed to
continue nor should they be closed down permanently without further
inquiry and we accordingly appointed a high powered committee con-
sisting of several officers to examine any scheme or schemes which
may be submitted by the lessees of these lime stone quarries and
-
F submit report to this Court on the·question whether in its opinion a
particular lime stone quarry can be allowed to be operated in. accord-
ance with the scheme and if so, subject to what conditions and if it
cannot be allowed to be operated, the reasons for taking that view.
We gave the same directions also in regard to the lime stone quarries
classified as eategory A in Bhargava Committee Report and for cate-
G gory 1 in the Working Group Report and falling within the city limits of
Mussoorie. We also directed by our order that the lime stone quarries
placed in category 2 by the Working Group other than those which are
placed in categories B and C by the Bhargava Committee should also
not be allowed to be operated and should be closed down save and
except for the lime stone quarries covered by Mining Leases Nos. 31,
H 36 and 37 for which we gave the same direction as in the case of lime
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A cemed, but have instead given an opportunity to the lessees of those
lime stone quarries to submit a scheme or schemes to the high powered
committee constituted by us, so that if the high powered committee
thinks that any particular lime stone quarry out of these can be allowed
to be operated in accordance with such scheme or schemes, the court
may allow such lime stone quarry to be operated subject to conditions
B
which may be thought fit to be imposed. These are the reasons which
have prevailed with me in making the order dated 12th March, l985.

I wish to observe that though exploitation of mineral resources in
the interest of industrial growth.of the country is necessary, yet such
mines should be so worked as not to disturb the ecology and not to
c affect the livelihood and the living conditions of a very large number of
-
people. Advantage gained by working the mines for industrial growth
and national development in a manner which may seriously prejudice
the interests of a large number of human beings and disturb the
ecological balance, may very much be out-weighed by the serious con-
sequences Which are likely to follow. Industrial development is neces-
D
sary for economic growth of the country .in the larger interests of the
nation. If, however, industrial growth is sought to be achieved by
haphazard and reckless working of the mines resulting in loss of life,
loss of properly; loss of basic amenities.like supply of water and crea-
tion of ecological imbalance, there may ultimately be RO real economic
growth and no real prosperity. It is necessary to strike a proper ..lo( .
E
balance. In my opinion the appropriate authorities at the time of
granting leases should take all these facts and factors into considera-
tion and should while granting lease of mines for exploitation of
mineral provide for adequate safeguards. Had appropriate safeguards
been provided at the time of granting of leases, it would not, indeed,
r have been necessary for us to direct the closure of so many mines and
·to good deal of sufferings of the people of the locality would have been
avoided.
A.P.J.