Holding

Mining in the Doon Valley must be stopped completely, with only three mines holding valid leases permitted to continue under strict monitoring, and all orders granting renewal of expired leases are vacated.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra alleging illegal limestone mining in the Mussoorie‑Dehradun belt that was harming the ecology and forest cover. Several expert committees (Bhargava, Working Group, Bandyopadhyay) classified the mines into categories A, B and C and the Court ordered permanent closure of C‑category mines and certain B‑category mines, while allowing A‑category mines outside Mussoorie to continue. The petitioners argued that the 1985 order was final, that the later Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 should take over, and that renewal of expired leases should be permitted. The Court held that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 bars mining in forest areas, that the Court retains jurisdiction despite the 1986 Act, and that procedural technicalities cannot defeat a matter of grave public importance. It ordered the complete stoppage of mining in the Doon Valley, except for three mines with valid leases which may operate under strict conditions and monitoring, vacated all orders granting renewal of expired leases, and directed the creation of rehabilitation and monitoring committees. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

The applicability of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to existing mining leases.
Whether the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 supersedes the Court's earlier orders.
The effect of the 12 March 1985 order – whether it is final and res judicata.
The legality of renewal of mining leases that had expired before the 1980 Act.
Balancing industrial demand for limestone with environmental protection in a public‑interest litigation.
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a matter where special statutes exist.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.32, s. Art.48A, s. Art.51A(g)
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980s. Sec.2, s. Sec.27, s. Sec.3
Indian Forest Act, 1927s. Sec.20, s. Sec.3, s. Sec.4
Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961
Mines Act, 1952

Subjects

public interest litigationenvironmental lawforest conservationmining leasesres judicataprocedural lawenvironmental protectionrehabilitationmonitoring committeeforest (conservation) act

Judgment

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

AUGUST 30, 1988

B [RANGANATH MISRA AND.MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Limestone quarries-
Dehradun Mussoorie belt-Public interest litigation against pollution-
High Powered Committee to. be set up to look after re-afforestation,
mining activities and bring about natural normalcy in the Doon Valley.
c Forest (Conservation) Act 1980: Limestone quarries in Doon
Valley-Continuance of mining activity-lmpermissibitity of.

Public Interest Litigation·: Procedural laws apply but every
technicality. in procedural laws not available in matters of grave public
D importance.

A letter-petition, and an application, containing allegations of
unauthorised and illegal mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt,
affecting adversely the ecology and envlronmental order of the area,
were directed to be registrered as writ petitions under public interest
IE litigation. Apart from the Governments of the Union and of Uttar
Pradesh, several governmental agencies and mining lessees appeared in
the proceedings. A number of committees and working groups were set
up both by the Court and the Central Government to look into the
various aspects of the problem, their reports received and several com-
prehensive interlocutory directions issued.
F
One of the Committees, referred to as the Bhargava Committee,
classified the mines into three groups, being A, B, C. On the basis of the
recommendations of the Bhargava Committee" Report and other mate-
rial, the Court directed, by its order dated-12th March, 1985, that C
category mines of the Bhargava Committee Report should be closed
G down permanently. Similar order was made in regard to B category
mines situated in the shasradhara block. The Court further directed A
category mines located within the Mussoorie municipal limits and the
remaining B category mines to submit their mining scheme for scrutiny
of the Bandyopadhyay Committee. The Court, however, allowed A
category mines located outside the city limits to operate.
H
690
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. 69!

Some of the mlnes which were ordered to be closed down had A
earlier been refused renewal of their mlning licences. These mines,
however, continued to operate under the orders of various courts which
had granted extensio.n of their leases pending the final. orders of the
courts. This Court, in its order dated 12th March, 1985 had therefore,
directed that if any mining lessee of a mine, which had been ordered to
be closed down, was running under the first grant or under Court's B,
orders after its expiry, it would not be entitled to take advantage of that
position.

In its order dated 16th December, 1986 this Court recognised the
need to strike a balance between preservation and utilisation of de·
posits, and urged the Government to take a policy decision in the mat· C
ter. The Government thereupon set up another committee to examine
the working of the limestone mining operations in the Doon valley. This
Committee inspected six mines which were operating. Three of these
mines were operating under valid mining leases and the other three,
whose leases had expired in December 1982, were operating under or·
ders of different courts. D

Keeping in view the reports of the committee and the submissions
at the Bar, the Court passed further orders.

On behalf of the lessees it was contended: (1) decision of this
Court dated 12th March, 1985 was final in certain aspects including the E
release of the A category mines outside the city limits from ihe proceed·
ings, and in view of such finality it is not open to this Court in the same
proceedings at a later stage to direct differently in regard to what has
been decided earlier; (2) during the pendency of these writ petitions,
the Environment Protection Act of 1986 has come into force and since
that Statute and the Rules made thereunder provide detailed procedure F
to deal with the situations that arise ii) these cases, this Could should no
more deal with the matter and leave it to be looked into by the au•
thorities under the Act, and (3) there would be a total stalemate in the
manufacture of drugs and sugar, as also steel, in case mining activity is
stopped.
G
Disposing of the writ petition, this Court,

HELD: (1) "Forest" was initially a State subject covered by En·
try 19 in List II of the Seventh Schedule. In 1976, under the 42nd ~mend·
ment the Entry was deleted and Entry 17'A in the concurrent List was
inserted. The change from the State List to-the Concurrent List was H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

brought about· following the realisation of the Central Government that
A
'forests' were of national importance and should be placed in the Con-
current List to enable the Central Governmentto deal with the matter.
The same amendment of the Constitution brought in Article 48-A and
Article 51A(g) in Part IVA. [713H; 7I4A-B]

.B (2) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 does not permit mining
in the forest area. If mining activity even to a limited extent is permitted
in future, it would be not congenial to ecology and environment, and the
natural calm and peace which is a special feature of this area in its
normal condition shall not be restored. This tourist zone in its m1tural
setting· would certainly be at its best if its serenity is restored in the
fullest way. [710E-F]
c
(3) By the Court's order of 12th March, 1985, the A category
mining leases outside the city limits were only exempted from further
scrutiny and not released from the proceedings. If the court really
intended to release the A category mines outside the city limits, it could
D very well pronounce that in clear terms. l706E-HJ

(4) The examination by this Court when it made the order of
12th March, 1985, omitted to considerthe impact of the Forest (Conser-
vation) Act, 1980 which was then a statu'te in force. If the provision of
the Conservation Act had been noticed and impact thereof for the con-
1! tinuance of mining activity had been considered, perhaps the Court
would have made no exemptions and no mining may have been
permitted, l706G]

(5) The writ petitions are not inter-party disputes and have been
raised by way of public interest litigation, and the controve1'Sy before
F the Court is as to whether for safety and for creating a hazardless
environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be
permitted or stopped. The Court may not be taken to have said that for
public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same
time, it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural
law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public impor-
G tance is for consideration before the Court. Even if it is said that there
was a final order, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult to
entertain the plea of res judicata. Leaving the question open for exami-
nation in future would lead to unnecessary multipiicity of proceedings
and would be against the interest of~ociety. [707B-D]

H (6) These writ petitions were filed more than three years before
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. 693

the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 came into force. This Court A
appointed several expert commitees, received their reports and made
directions. The several parties and their counsel have been heard for
days together on different issues during the three and a quarter years of
the pendency of the proceedings. The Environment (Protection) Act
does not purport to-and perhaps could not-take away the jurisdic-
tion of this Court to deal with a case of this type. In consideration of B
these facts,. there is no justification to decline the exercise of jurisdiction
at this stage. [707E-G I

(7) Ordinarily, the Court would not entertain a dispute for the
adjudication of which a special provision has been made by law bot that
rule is not attracted· in the present situation in these cases .. Besides it is a C
rule of practice and prudence and not one of jurisdiction. [707H]

(8) The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applies to renewals as
well and even if there was a provision for renewal in the lease agreement
on exercise of lessee's option, the requiremen.ts of 1980 Act had to be
satisfied.before suc.h renewal·could be granted. [7l7G-H] D

Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1987] l SCC
2l3;State of Rajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajindra Pal, [1965] 3 SCR 402·
and State of Biharv. Banshi Ram Modi, [1985] 3 sec 643, referred to.

(9) It is ~ear from the directions contained iii the order of 12th E
March, 1985, as also the ratio of the judgment in the Ambica Quarry
Works case, that even if there has been an order of the Court and no
challenge is raised against such order, this Court could invoke its
jurisdiction to nullify the direction or order, and if any order, direction
or decree has been passed ignoring the provisions of the Conservation
Act of 1980 the same would not be binding. [7l8B-C] F
J (10) Parties have been heard on various aspects. An order made
by this Court to nullify the decrees in such· circumstances would not be
violative of the principles of natural justice. [7l8F]

(ll) lf any decree or order bas already been obtained from any G
court relating to renewal of these leases, the same· shall stand vacated,

I and similarly any appeal or other proceeding taken to obtain a renewal
or against ordersidecrees granting renewal shall also become nones!. [718G-HJ

(12) Most of. these mines are either within reserved forests or in.
forest lands, as covered by the U.P. Amendment of ~he Forest Act. To H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 aud as a
matter of national policy and in the interests of tbe community,
B preservation of forests is accepted as the goal, nothing which would
detract from that end should be permitted. In such circumstances,
mining activity in this valley must be completely stopped. But such a
situation will be available only after the original leases of the working
mines are over. [726G-H; 727 A]

C (13) The court accepts the position that manufacture of drugs and
sugar, .as also steel, \Vould 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.
D However, 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. [7270-E]

(14) In the circumstances, allowing the three on-going mines to
operate for their initial period of lease is the most appropriate direction
E that can be given during the switch over from the present position to
one of complete closing down of mining operation. [730G-H]

(15) There is no dispute that continuance of mining operations
effects environment and ecology adversely and at the same time creates
a prejudicial situation against conservation of forests. It is, therefore,
F necessary that each of these working mines shall have to work with an
undertaking given to the Monitoring Committee that all care and atteit·
lion shall be bestowed to preserve ecological and environmental balance
while carrying on mining operations. [7310-E]

(16) The Court ordered the setting up of the Monitoring Commit-
G tee to look after reafforestation, mining activities and all other aspects
necessary to bring about natural normalcy in the Doon Valley. The
Court also issued directions regarding the finances, powers and duties
of the Monitoring Committee. t7.i3E]

(17) The Court has no other option hut to close down the mining
H activity in the broad Interests of the community. This, however, does
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, l.I 695

not mean that the displaced mine owners should not be provided with A
alternative occupation. Pious observation or even a direction in that
regard may not be adequate. What is necessary is a time frame func-
tioning if rehabilitatiou is to be made effective. It is, therefore, neces•
sary that a Committee should be set up to oversee the rehabilitation of
the displaced mine owners. {732B·Ci
B
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: \\frit Petiiion (Civil) Nos. 8209
and 8821 of 1983.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

M.K. Banerjee, Solicitor General, M.K. Ramalllurthy, A.K. C
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, V.C. Mahajan, G.A.
Shah, M.A. Krishnamurthy, R.P. Srivastava, Ms. A. Sul:ihashini, Ravi
Prakash Gupta, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Badri Dass Sharma, Arunesh·
war Gupta, Inderbir Singh, Arnn Jaitley, Ms. Bina Gupta, Atuf D
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. Katanjawala, S.A. Syed, P.P.
Juneja, P.K. Jain, K.N. Bhatt, D.N. Mishra, Ms. Indra Makwana, A.
Sobba Rao, Harjinder Singh, Parijat Sinha, C.P. Lal, Shri Narain. E
S.K. Gupta, K.R. Nambiar, S.S. Khanduja, K.K. Jain, D.M.
Nargolkar, Devi Ditta Mal-In-person, A.K. Panda, Ranjit Kumar,
A.K. Shrivastava, A.K.. Jain, A.D. Sanger, Pramod Dayal, R.S.
Hedge, K.R. Nagaraja, P.K. Rao, M.N. Shroff, N.N. Keshwani,
R.N. Keshwani, Prashant Bhushan and Ms. Neeva Gupta Advocates
for the appearing parties. F

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RANGANATH MISRA, J. On Jilly 14, 1983, a letter received
from the R11ral Litigation and Entitlement Kendera, Dehradlin, bear-
ing the date July 2, 1983, was directed to be registered as a writ peti- G
tion under Article 32 of the Constitution and notice was ordered to the
State of Uttar Pradesh and the Collector of Dehradun. Allegations of
unauthorised and illegal mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt
which adversely affected the ecology of the area and led to environ-
mental disorder were made. Later on another application with sim)lar
allegations was directed to be tagged with the earlier one. That is how H
696 SUPREME CQURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A these two writ petitions were both in the registry of this Court in a very
innocuous manner as public interest litigation. The number of parties
· inflated both under the orders of the Court and on application to be
added. Apart from the Governments of the Union and of Uttar
Pradesh, several governmental agencies and mining lessees appeared
in the proceedings. What initially appeared to be two simple applica-
B lions for limited relief got expanded into a comprehensive litigation
requiring appointment of committees, inspection and reports in them
from time to time, serious exercises on the part of the mine owners
before the committees, filing of affidavits both original and further,
and lengthy arguments at the Bar. These also necessitated several
comprehensive interlocutory directions and orders. These two writ
C petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
On August 11, 1983, this Court appointed a Committee for
inspection of the mines with a view to securing assistance in the de-
termination as to whether safety standards laid down in the Mines Act
of 1952 and the Rules made thereunder have been followed and
0 whether there was any danger of land"slide on account of quarrying
operations particularly during the rainy season, and if there was any
other hazard to any individual, cattle or agricultural lands on account
of carrying of the mining operations. At the preliminary stage this
Court directed total stopping of blasting operations which, however,
was modified later. The said Committee, referred to as the Bhargava
E 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 an Expert Committee known as the Working Group had been
set up by the Union Government which had also inspected these
mines. The Bhargava Committee was of the view that the C Group
mines should be totally stopped; in the A Group mines, quarrying
F could be carried on after ensuring that there was no ecological or
environmental hazard; and in regard to the B Group mines, the Com-
mittee opined that those may not be closed down permanently but the
matter should be probed further.

A three-Judge Bench of this Court by an order dated March 12,
G 1985 ( 1985 3 SCR 169) directed closure of the C category mines as also
certain B category mines on permanent basis and gave directions in
regard to further action to be taken by the Bhargava Committee.
While making the order the Court specifically stated that the reasons
for the order would follow. One of the learned Judges constituting the
three-Judge Bench retired from the Court on September 30, 1985, and
H the said learned Judge (A.N. Sen, J.) expressed his views in a short
RURAL LITIGATION v. STAIB OF U.P. [MISRA, J.I 697

order dated 30th September, 1985. The working Group appointed by A
the Union Government was also headed by the ·same·Mr. Bhargava
and had five other members. The examination by the two Committees
appeared to be with the same object, namely, as to whether the mining
was being properly done and whether.such activity should be carried
on in this area. The Working Group and classified the mines into two
categories being I and II. They put those mines which according to B
them were suitable for continuing operation under Category I and the
mines which in their opinion were unsuitable for further mining under
Category II. An interesting feature in these two Reports seems to be
that almost the same lime stone quarries which have been put by the
Bhargava Committee under Category A feature in Category I of the
Working Group. This Court in its order of March 12, 1985, referred to c
those aspects and pointed out:

"It will thus be seen that both the Bhargav Commit-
tee and the Working Group were unanimous in their view
that the lime stone quarries classified in category A by the
Bhargav Committee Report and category I by the Working D
Group were suitable for continuance of mining operations.
So far as the lime stone quarries in category C of the
Bhargav Committee Report are concerned, they were re-
garded by both the Bhargav Committee and the Working
Group as unsuitable for continuance of mining operations
· and both were of the view that they should be closed down. E
The only difference between the Bhargav Committee and
the Working·Group was in regard to lime stone quarries
classified in category B."
-"
This Court had also appointed an Expert Committee consisting of
Prof. K.S. Valdia, Mr. Hukum Singh and Mr. l'r.N. Kaul to enquire F
and investigate into the question of disturbance-of ecology and pollu-
tion and affectation of air, water and environment by reason of quarry-
ing operations or stone crushers and setting up of lime stone kilns. Mr.
Kaul and Mr. Hukum Singh submitted a joint report with reference to
various aspects indicated in their order of appointment while Prof.
Valdia submitted a separate report. In the order of March 12, 1985,' :G
this Court took note of the position that Prof. Valdia's report was
confined largely to the. geological-aspect and consideFable..reliance on
the Main Boundary Thrust (MBT) had been placed by him in making
of the report and he had taken·the view that the· lime stone quarries
which were dangerously close to. the MBT should be closed down
inasmuch as that was a sensitive and vulnerable belt. This Court tllen H
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A, took the view that not much importance could be placed to Dr.
Valdia's report for this litigation. The joint report submitted by Mr.
Kaul and Mr. Hukum Singh had been taken into. account by this
Court in making interim directions and for the making of the final
order no specific reference is ~ailed for.

B In the order of March 12, 1985, this Court directed that the C
Category mines of the Bhargav Committee Report should be closed
down permanently and if any mining lessee of such a mine was running
under the first grant or under Court.'s orders after its expiry, it would
not be entitled to take advantage of the position. Similar order was
made in regard to the B category mines situated in the Shasradhara
c block. This Court directed A category mines located within the Mus-
soorie municipal limits and the remaining B category mines to submit
schemes.sµbJected to further enquiry and ordered:

"We accordingly appoint a high powered Committee
consisting of Mr. D. Bandyopadhyay, Secretary, Ministry
D of Rural Development as Chairman, and Shri H.S. Ahuja,
Director General, Mines Safety, Dhanbad, Bihar, Shri ·
D.N. Bhargav, Controller General, Indian Bureau of
Mines, New Secretariat Building, Nagpur and two experts
to be nominated by the Department of Environment,
Government of India within four weeks from the date of
E this Order. The lessees of the lime stone quarries classified
as category A in Bhargav Committee Report and for
Category I in the Working Group Report and falling within
the city limits of Mussoorie as also the lessees of the lime
stone quarries classified as category Bin the Bha'!l!tav Com-
mittee Report will be at liberty to submit a full and detailed
F scheme for mining their lime stone quarries to this. Com-
mittee (hereinafter called the Bandyopadhyay Committee)
and if any such scheme or schemes are submitted the
Bandyopadhyay Committee will proceed to examine the
same without'l!ny unnecessary delay and submit a report to
this Court whether in its opinion the particular lime stone
G quarry can be allowed to be operated in accordance with
the scheme and if so, subject to what conditions and if if
cannot be allowed to be operated, the reasons for taking
that view. The Bandyopadhyay Committee in making its
report will take into account the various aspects which we
had directed the Bhargav Committee and the Kaul Com-
mittee to consider while making their reports including the
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. (MISRA, l.] 699

circumstances that the particular lime stone quarry may or A
may not be within the city limits of Mussoorie and also give
an opportunity to the concerned lessee to be heard, even
though it be briefly."

Several mining lessees submitted their schemes which were examined
by the Committee but none of them was cleared. Objections against B
rejection of the schemes had been filed before this Court by many of
the aggrieved lessees. It was directed in the aforesaid order of 12th
March, 1985, that until the Bandyopadhyay Committee cleared the
particular mines for operation, mining activity in regard to all mines
covered within the purview of examination by that Committee would
stop. This Court, however, allowed A.category mines located outside C
the city limits to operate. While.directing closure of the Shasradhara
area B category mines and all the C category mines, as also A a_nd B
category mines within the municipal limits, this Court made it clear
that the ban indicated by it would supersede any order of any other
court. The Court observed:
D
"The consequence of this Order made by us would be
that the lessees of lime stone quarries which have been
directed to be closed down permanently under this Order
or which may be directed to be closed down permanently
after consideration of the report of the Bandyopadhyay
Committee, would be thrown out of business in which they E
have invested large sums of money and expanded consider-
able time and effort. This would undoubtedly cause hard,
ship to them but it is a price that has to be paid for protect-
ing and safeguarding the right of the people'-Jo live in
healthy environment with minimal disturbance of~~ologi-
cal balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to F 1
their cattle, homes and agriculturalland and undue affec-
tation of air, water and environment."

The Order of 12th March, 1985, did not refer to the Forest (Conserva-
tion) Act of 1980 when it permitted the A category lime stone quarries
locat.ed outside the city limits to operate. G

This Court made several orders relating to specific aspects after
the order of 12th March, 1985. One such order was made on 30th May,
1985, (1985 (3) SCC 614), another on ·18th December, 1986, (1986
Suppl. SCC 517) where reasons for _the order of 12th March, 1985,
w,ere given, and yet another order was made on 19th October, 1987 H
700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A (AIR 1987 SC 2426). We shall refer to the last of these orders in a later
part of this Judgment. Ill the order of 16th December, 1986, when the
reasonings for the order dated 12th March, 1985 were given, this Court
had stated:

"It is for the Government and the NatiJ)n-and not
for the Court to-decide whether the deposits should be
exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental consi- .
derations or the industrial requirement should be otherwise
satisfied. It may be perhaps possible to exercise greater
control and vigil over the operation 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
c: appropriate advice, Government should take a policy deci-. ~
sion and firmly implement the same."

The Court had also indicated in its earlier order that it should be
ensured that the l_ow grade cilica content lime stone is specifically
D utilised only iri special industries having regard to its quality and
should not be wasted by being utilised for purposes for which this
special grade lime stone is not required.

Keeping these aspects in view, the Government of India in the - ·
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Department of Environme!!.t,
E Forests and wildlife, constituted a Committee to examine the working
of the lime· stone mining operations in the Doon Valley by its ·
memorandum No. J-20012/48/86-1A, dated 30th of December, 1986,
which was also called the Working Group. Shri D.N. Bhargava was
nominated as Chairman and the Committee had three other members,
namely, Shri V.C. Verma, Director General, Mines Safety, Dhanbad;
F Prof. B.B. Dhar, Department of Mining Engineering of the Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi; and Shri R. Mehta, Principal Scientific
Officer, Department of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, New Delhi.
Shri Verma was substituted by Shri N. Mishra, Deputy Director Gen-
eral, Northern Zone. The terms of reference of the Committee were:

G (i). Whether the operations are being carried out on scien-
tific lines?

(ii) Whether the limestone quarried is being supplied to
end-users as stipulated by the Supreme Court?; and .

H (iii) The extent to which the mining operations are con-
tributing to environmental damage?
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 701

This Committee visited the six mines which are operating and A
indicated:

"The limestone deposits of Dehradun-Mussoorie
area are highly valuable mineral resource now essentially
required by the steel industry and it would be necessary to
exploit them, of course, in a very planned and systematic B
manner.'

The Committee addressed itself to two aspects, namely,-

(i) those which were considered suitable for mining opera-
tions, and ·
c
(ii ) those which were considered unsuitable for furtner
mining.

The Committee whose entire report has. been made available to us
came to the following conclusions in regard to each of the six operating D
mines.

(i) Lambidhar Limestone Mine of M/s Uttar Pradesh State Min-
eral Development Corporation Ltd. (UPSMDC) is a ·state Undertak-
ing and holds a mining lease of 97 hectares covering the Lambidhar
Hills and the lease is valid up to 10th March, 1996. The Committee E
found that 36% of its production~was supplied to steel and chemical
industries, 12% to sugar, 6% to cement and other miscellaneous in-
dustries and 46% to chips and lime kilns industries and disapproved
this position. It further found that while colour limestone which is a
metamarphose is being recorded as a minor mineral whereas--it was
learnt.. that it was being used for despatch as. major mineral. The F
arrangement for classification of the lime stone also was not acceptable
to the Committee. It further found:

"The hill slopes and the river/nallah base are covered
by scree generated both during road construction as well as
subsequent mining operations. This is the result of allowing G
the excavated material to roll down the slopes. The Com-
mittee is of the opinion that road making may be done
with front-end loader instead of bulldozer as with latter
equipment excavated materials roll down the hill slope
uncontrolably. The vegetation cover along the slopes has
been damaged by the rolling material as well as the excava- H
702 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

tion made for the road making and the hills present an ugly
look. Hydro-seeding may be done to improve looks of hill
slopes. Deposition of debris/scree in the nullahs specially in
Betarli is the cause of concern because it happens to be one
of the main steams which is source of water supply to the
villages as well as Dehradun city. The approach road has
B reached the top and mining operations have been started
but not work on reclamation of mined out area has yet
commenced. A proper disposal yard for stocking. debris
must be provided so that the present practice of disposing it
near the camp office on the bank of the rivulet is pre-
vented. Details of arrangements for controlling dust both
in mining and crushing operations are not available."
q
UPSMDC is the largest of the wo.rking mines and apart from the fact
that it belongs to the Go~emment of Uttar Pradesh, it has also the
largest of investment. It has been claimed before us on its behalf that it
operates most scientifically and satisfies all the requirements appro-
D priate for ecolo,gical and environmental safeguards. The Report of the
Committee, extracted above, negatives all these claims.

(ii) We shall now refer to M/S Punjab Lime and Limestone
Company which has two mines both of which are working. Lease No.
14 covers 44.5 hectares and is a Ie;ise for 20 years from 1966; as such it
E has already expired. Lease No. 96 is for 28.92 hectares and would
expire in December, 1989. Lease No. 14 had two areas and this Court
disallowed mining in the Northern block. The Committee found tha.t
16.4 hectares equal to 41 acres, out of lease No. 96 ·comprised of thick
forest and the lessee had surrendered the forest area. The mining
operation is being carried on in lease No. 14 under orders of the Court
F and the residual portion of lease No. 96. The Committee found that
the scheme which had been offered to the Bandyopadhyay Committee
was in regard to the mining in the northern block of lease No. 14 which.
has since been abandoneo. It further transpires t-hat about 27% of its
·output during 1986 was supplied for the steel industry. The report
indicates that there is little generation of scree. As there is sparse
d growth of trees in the area covered by the mines, no significant
deforestation is involved. Disposal of overburden is not significant.
Check dams have been set up in the lower reaches which are on the
right bank of Bhitarli river and no significant fall of the scree into the
river was apprehended.

H (iii) Next is lease No. 72 of Shri R.K. Oberai which would expire
RURAL LITIGATION'"'. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 703

on 10th of April, 1994. It has an area of 15.91 hectares. The Commit-
A
tee found that this mine lies in the upper reaches of the Song river.
Thick forest growth is seen close to the mine and the Committee
gathered that the forest authorities have declined permission to extend
the mine workings beyond RL 1280. The Committee found that the
_J'
Jessee has undertaken to carry out afforestation and has also started
:ompensatory forestory in the adjacent areas. There was no appre- B
Jension -0f spreading of scree and future mining operations are not
likely to involve any significant deforestation. The Committee also has
opined that there is no apprehension of choking of the water-ways due
to mining operations as the Song river flows about 400 mts. away.

Apart from these three mines which are operating under valid
mining leases, the Committee inspected the mines corresponding to
c
lease Nos. 16, 17 and 76, belonging to Ved Pal Singh Chaudhary, Seth
Ram Avtar and Shri C.G, Gujral respectively. All these leases have
expired in December, 1982, and under orders of different courts mining
is being carried on.
D
Bhitarli Kalan Limestone Mines of Shri Ved Pal Singh Chau-
dhary was a lease for 38.8 hectares and expired on 29th December,
1982. This Court has already directed closure of mining operation in a
small area on the left bank of Bhitarli river.

Seth Ram Avtar has a lease of 14.18 hectares on the left bank of E
Bhitarli-river and the lease expired on 2nd December, 1982. The
Committee found that he had no environment management plan. The
~·., working plan submitted by the lessee did not show any plantation area.

The last of the working _mines which the Committee .visited is
that of Shri C.G. Gujaral. The lease was for 24.16 hectares and F
expired on 17th December, 1982. The Committee found that the lease
area contained very good forest. The rolling of scree/debris along the
slopes had left not only ugly scars but also resulted in destruction of the
green cover. The debris flow has also choked.the Sansaru nullah which
once used to be a perennial stream: There was no environmental 1
management plan. In fact the Committee came to the conclusion that G
the working of this mine was not conducive to the environnierttal
conservation.

We have in another part of this judgment indicated our conclu-
sion that mining activity as a whole should be stopped in the Doon
Valley area but for the reasons indicated therein, we have also come to H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A the conclusion that the three mining lessees who have been operating
under valid lease may be permitted to work subject to such conditions
as have been indicated. Keeping the report of the Working Group in
view and for the reasons we have elsewhere indicated, we direct that
mining operations in lease Nos. 16, 17 and 76 where the respective
leases have expired and mining operation is being carried on under
B Court's Orders, shall stop and the several orders of the courts enabling
mining activity shall stand superseded.

This Court in its order dated 19th of October, 1987, (AIR 1987
SC 2426) came to the clear conclusion:

c "We are of the view that the stone quarrying in the
Doon Valley area should generally be stopped and reasons
therefor we shall provide in due course."

In another part of this judgment, reasons in support of that con-
clusion have been provided. The direction to close down the three
D operating mines where the period of lease has expired is to bring the
position in accord with that conclusion.

One of the submissions advanced at the Bar is that the decision
?f thdis Cohurt d ated 12fthh MAarch, 1985, was fina~dinhcertain .aspectsf [
me1u mg t e re 1ease o t e category mmes outs1 e t e city 11m1ts o
E Mussoorie from the proceedings and in view of such finality it is not
open to this Court in the same proceedings at a latter stage to direct
differently in regard to what has been decided earlier. Connected with r.;_:
this submission is the contention that durihg the pendency of these writ
petitions, the Environmental (Protection) Act of 1986 has come into
force and since that Statute and the Rules made thereunder provide
f detailed procedure to deal with the situations that arise in these cases,
this Court should no more deal with the matter and leave it to be
looked into by the authorities under the Act. Counsel have relied upon
what was stated by this Court while giving reasons in support of the·
order of March 12, 1985, namely, "it is for the Government and the
Nation-and not for the Court-to decide whether the deposits should
G be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental consideratiofis."
In the order of 12th March, 1985, this Court had pointed out:

"So far as the lime stone quarries classified as cate-
gory A in the Bhargav Committee Report and/or category
1 in the Working Group Report are concerned, we would
H divide them into two classes, one class consisting of those
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. !MISRA, J.] 705·

lime stone quarries which are within the city limits of A
.' Mussoorie and the other consisting of those which are out-
side the city limits. We take the view that the lime stone
quarries falling within category A of the Bhargav Commit-
tee Report and/or category 1 of the Working Group Report
and falling outside the city limits of Mussoorie, should be
allowed to be operated subject, of course, to the obser- B
vance of the requirements of the Mines Act, 1952, the
Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and other relevant
statutes, rules and regulations. Of course when we say this,
we must make it clear that we are not holding that if the
leases in respect of these lime stone quarries have expired
and suits or writ petitions for renewal of the leases are C
pending in the courts, such leases should be automatically
renewed. It will be for the appropriate courts to decide
whether such leases should be renewed or not having
regard to the law and facts of each case. So far as the lime
stone quarries classified in category A in the Bhargav
Committee Report and category 1 in the Working Group D
Report and falling within the city limits of Mussoorie are
concerned, we would give the same direction which we are
giving in the next succeeding paragraph in regard to the
lime stone quarries classified as category B in the Bhargav
Committee Report."
E
The argument that A category mines outside the city limits had been
cleared is based upon what has been indicated above. Dealing with this
part of the direction, this Court in its order of 19th October, 1987,
stated:

'.'Consciousness regarding environmental upkeep is F
of recent origin. Cognizance of ecological importance has
entered into governmental activity only in this decade.
Everyday that consciousness as"also the sens< of social obli-
gation in this regard aie on the increase. It has been
pointed out to us in course of hearing of the objections that
the classification of the A category lime stone quarries on G
,< the basis of their location-within the municipal limits and
outside-was indeed not a real one. We have been shown
and it seems to be factually true that some of the lime stone
quarries said to be outside the city limits are closer to the
heart of the city of Mussoorie that others located within the
city limits. If the real purpose of the order made by this H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supr. 2 S.C.R.

Court was not to permit mining within the city limits with·
A
out further scrutiny as in the case of B category stone q uar·
ries, we really do not see any justification as to why these
stone quarries located outside the city limits but close to
the heart of the city should not have been subjected to such
scrutiny.. .Since the writ petitions have not been finally dis·
B posed of and the order made in regard to the A category
quarries located outside the city limits by the judgment
referred to abovt. only exempted them from further
scrutiny as was directed in respect of the other quarries, we
se.e no impediment in the matter of giving a re-look at the
matter even with reference to the A category quarries
l()cated outside the city limits.
c
In this connection it is relevant to take note of the fact
that the State Government has already formed an improve·
ment programme of the area by constituting a combined
body for Mussoorie and Dehradun. The considerations
D which had weighed with the Court on the basis of municipal
limits has indeed to be extended not to the entire area
covered by the new scheme. We are, therefore, of the view
that the A category stone quarries in this area irrespective
of location within or outside city limits should be subjected
to further order of this Court and there is no legal impedi-
E ment 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 limits were only exempted
from further scrutiny and not released from the proceedings. Our
order of 18th.December, 1986, left certain aspects to be considered by
F the State and immediately the Central Government responded by
appointing the second Working Group. We would like to reiterate
what we have already said in the order of 19th of October, 1987, that
the examination by this Court when it made the order of 12th March,
1985, omitted to consider the impact of the Forest (Conservation) Act
of 1980 which was then a statute in force. If the provisions of the
G Conservation Act had been noticed and impact thereof for the
continuance of mining activity had been considered, perhaps the Court
would have made no exemptions and no mining may have been permit·
ted. Besides, if the Court really intended to release the A category
mines outside the city limits, it could very well pronounce that i!! clear
terms.

(
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 707

In view of what we have indicated above, it is difficult to accept A
the stand taken t>y some of the lessees and by Mr. Nariman appearing
for the intervener that a final order has been by this Court in regard to
the A category mines outside the city limits of Mussoorie.

The writ petitions before us are not inter-party disputes and have
been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy B
before the Court is as to whether the social safety and for creating a
. hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area
should be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to have said that
for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the
same time it has to be remembered that every technicality in the pro-
cedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public C
importance is for consideration before the Court. Even if it is said that
there was a final order, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult to
entertain the plea of res judicata. As we have already pointed out when
the order of 12th March, 1985, was made, no. reference to the Forest
(Conservation) Act of 1980 had been done. We are of the view that
leaving the question open for examination in, future would lead to D
unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings and would be against the
interests of society. It is mete and proper as aJso in the interest of the
parties that the entire question is taken into account at this stage.

Undoubtedly, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of
1986) has come into force with effect from 19th November, 1986. E
Under this Act power is vested in the Central Government to take
measures to protect and improve the environment. These writ peti-
tions were filed as early as 1983-more than three years before the Act
came into force. This Court appointed several expert Committees,
received their reports and on the basis of materials placed before it,
made directions, partly final and partly interlocntory, in regard to F
certain mines in the area. Several directions from time to time have
been made by this Court. As many as four reportable orders have been
given. The several parties and their counserhave been heard for days
together on different issues during the three and a quarter years of the
pendency ·of the proceedings. The Act does not purport to-and
perhaps could not-take away the jurisdiction of this Court to deal G
with a case of this type. In consideration of these facts, we do not think
there is any justification to decline the exercise of jurisdiction at this
stage. Ordinarily the Court would not entertain a dispute for the
adjudication of which a special provision has been made by law but
that rule is not attracted in the present situation in these cases. Besides
it is a rule of practice and prudence and not one of jurisdiction. The H
708 'SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A contention against exercise of jurisdiction advanced by Mr. Nariman
for the intervener and reiterated by some of the lessees before this
Court must stand overruled.

We shall now briefly indi9ate reasons in support of our conclusion
mentioned in the order of October 19, 1987, that mining in this area
B should be stopped.

Kalidas, the greatest of the Indian poets, sang the praises of the
Himalayas in 'Meghadoot' by describing it as the loftiest mountain.on
earth surface located on the north of the country. The Himalayan
ranges apart from operating as a natural seal on the northern border
C against intruders, have influenced the climate, culture, ecology and
environment of the sub continent. These are the ranges from where
originate several perennial rivers like the Ganges and the Yamuna.
These two rivers which mingle at Allahabad and later flow into the.Bay
of Bengal as one river have built up what is known as the gangetic
belt-the most fertile part of India. The legendary tradition of our
D culture is deeply associated with these two rivers. Apart from provid-
ing succour to millions of people who inhabit this belt, Yamuna is said
to have provided the backdrop of Krishna Leela. The catchment area
of this river is spread over the Mussoorie Hills-otherwise known as
the Doon Valley with which we are concerned. Before a quarter of a
century, Yamuna was having adequate water flow through-out the
E year. Unlike the Ganges which has her main tributaries originating
from the snow-clad regions of the mountain range and melting snow in
summer helping the tributaries to be perennial, the Yamuna used to ·
receive the bulk of her water from the streams joining her in the lower
regions. The Doon Valley used to receive sumptuous rains·during the
season; the tree roots helped the water to be stored; the lime stone
F mines operated as aquifers. The stored water was released in a con-
tinuous process and the streams even without the support of melting
snow, provided perennial supply to. the Yamuna. Assured of such
supply, the twin cities of Mussoorie and Dehradun grew up. Lower
down, hundreds of villages and small towns had also sprung up.

G Lime stone mining operations in the Doon Valley became wide-
spread during the decade between 1955 and 1965 and many of the
leases were granted in 1962. In the decade after 1965, the depredations
of mining began to be felt. Peace and tranquillity of the Valley was
gone. Trees were felled at random and lush green forests disappeared.
Blasting affected and shook up the hills. Rocks and scree rolled down
H and killed or injured the cattle, damaged the cultivable lands and
RCRAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 709

adversely affected the villagers. The natural beauty of the Queen of A
the hill stations was no more to be seen. With the felling of the forests,
rains became less, with the trees gone and the lime stone dug out, the
aquifers ceased to exist. The streams got blocked by scree and stones
and the flow of water was substantially reduced. Tourist traffic was
adversely affected. Irrigation was no more possible. The tributaries no
longer fed the Yamuna sufficiently. Dehradun experienced scarcity of B
even drinking water. These led to the despatch of the letter in July,
1983, to this Court.

The Doon Valley lime stone deposits are a gift of Nature to
mankind. Underneath the soil cover there is an unseen store house of
bountry almost everywhere. Similarly forests provide the green belt C
and are a bequest of the past generations to the present. Lime stone
deposits if excavated and utilised get exhausted while if forests are
exploited, there can be regeneration provided reafforestation is under- -
taken. Trees, however, take time to grow and ordinarily a 15 to 25 year
period is necessary for such purpose.
D
We have already indicated that several expert Committees
appointed by this Court have opined generally against continuing the
mining activity 'in the Valley. The Second Working Group found in as
late as 1987 that limited mining in the on-going mines was not conge-
nial to ecological and environmental discipline. This Court by its order
on October 19, 1987, (AIR 1987 SC 2426) called upon the Union of E
India:

" to place before· the Court on affidavit the
minimum total requirement of this grade of lime stone for
manufacture of quality steel and defence armaments. The
affidavit should also specify as to how much of high grade F
ore is being imported into the country and as to whether
other indigenous sources are available to meet such
requirement. This Court would also require an affidavit
from responsible authorities of the Union of India as to
whether keeping the principles of ecology, environmental
protection and safeguards and anti-pollution measures, it is G
in the interest of the Society that the requirements should
·be met by import or by taking other alternate indigenous
sources or mining activity in this area should be permitted
to a limited extent. The Court expects the Union of India to
balance these two aspects and place on record its stand not
as a party to the litigation but as a protector of the environ- H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

ment in discharge of its statutory and social obligation for
A
the purpose ohonsideration of the Court ..... ·.. "

The two affidavits filed on behalf of the Union of India have been dealt
with elsewhere in the judgment and it would be sufficient for the
instant aspect to extract from the affidavit of Mr. Seshan, Secretary to
B the Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, where he
has stated:

"5.1 Union of India submits that from the point of
view of protection of the environment in the unique Doon
Valley, it would be desirable that lime stone mining opera-
tions in the Valley are stopped completely."
c
Mr. Nariman questioned the vafoe of this statement in view of the
indication in the affidavit that it was the department's submission to
the Court. We do not think that the Ministry Secretary's affidavit can
be brushed aside that way. Read in the background of the directions in
b ' the Order of 19th October, 1987, and in the sequence of the first
affidavit not having been accepted by the Court as compliance, we
must assume that Mr. Seshan has disclosed the stand of the Union of
India with full authority and with the intention of binding the Union of
India by his statement.

E We.are separately dealing with the Forest (Conservation) Act
and its bearing and effect on this aspect. It is sufficient to note that the
Act does not permit mining in the forest area. We are also satisfied
that if mining activity even to a limited extent is permitted in future, it
would be not congenial to ecology and environment and the natural
calm and peace which is a special feature .of this area in its normal
F condition shall not be restored. This tourist zone in its natural setting
would certainly be at its best if its serenity is restored in the fullest way.
We are of the considered opinion that mining activity in this Valley
must be completely stopped but as indicated in another part of this
judgment such a situation will be available only after the original leases
of the working mines are over.
G
It is time to tum to the contention relating to forests. Air and
water are the most indispensable gifts of Nature for preservation of
life. Abundant sun-shine together with adequate rain keeps Nature's
generating force at work. Human habitations all through the Ages
have thrived on river banks and in close proximity of water sources.
H Forests have natural growth of herbs which provide cure for diseases.
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. (MISRA, J.) 711

Our ancestors knew that trees were friends of mankind a11d forests
A
were necessary for human existence and civilization to thrive. It is
these forests that provided shelter for the 'Rishies' and accommodated
the ancient 'Gurukulas'. They too provided food and sport for our
forefathers living in the State of Nature. That is why there is copious
reference to forests in the Vedas and the ancient literature of ours. In
'ancient times trees were worshiped as gods and prayers for up-keep of B
forests were offered to the Divine. In the Artharva 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."
c
In due course civilization developed and l\len came to Jive away
from forests. Yet the human community depended heavily upon the
forests which caused rains and provided timber, fruits, herbs and
sports. With sufficient sun-shine and water there was luxuriant growth D
of forests in the tropical and semi-tropical zones all over the globe.
Then came the age of science and outburst of human population. Man
required more of space for Jiving as also for cultivation as well as more
of timber. In that pursuit the forests were cleared and exploitation· was
arbitrary and excessive; the deep forests were depleted; consequently
rainfall got reduced; soil erosion took place. The earth crust was E
washed away and places like Cherapunji in Assam which used to
receive an average annual rainfall of 500 inches suffered occasional
drought.

Scientists came to realise that forests play a vital role in main-
taining the. balance of the..ecological system. They came to know that F
forests preserve the soil and heavy humus acts as a porous reservoir for
retaining water and gradually releasing it in a sustained flow. The trees
in the forests draw water from the bowls of the earth and release the
same into the atmosphere by the process of transpiration and the same
is received. bacl~ by way of rain as a resulr of condensation of clouds
formed out of tlie atmospheric moisture. Forests thus help the cycle to G
be completed. Trees are responsible to purify the air by releasing
oxygen into the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis. It
has, therefore, been rightly said that there is a balance on earth bet-
ween air, water, soil and plant. Forests hold up the mountains, cushion
the rains .and they discipline the rivers and control the floods. They
sustain the spriniis; they break the winds; they foster the bulks;· they H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

keep the air cool and clean. Forests also prevent erosion by wind and
A
water and preserve the carpet of the soil.

In the second half of the 19th Century felling of trees came to be
regulated. In 1858, the Department of Forestry was set up and in 1864
the first Inspector General of Forests was appointed. In the following
B year the first Indian Forest Act came into the Statute Book to be
followed by another Act in 1878 and yet another in 1927 which is still in
force providing measures of regulation. This Act has been amended in
the various States and presently reference shall be made to the rele-
vant amendments in Uttar Pradesh.

Laying the railway track and providing sleepers therefor re-
c quired clearing of forest areas and cutting down of trees. During the
Second World War Indian forests were very badly mauled for various
defence purposes. By the time India became independent it had about
2 per cent of the earth's land area, 1 per cent of productive forest area,
15 per cent of world's population and 10 per cent of world's animal
D life-a situation indicative of the fact that there was acute deficit of
forest area. The Government of India declared its National Forest
Policy in 1952 which laid down that forests should occupy 33 per cent
of the land surface as against 23 per cent then attention was intended
to be bestowed for expansion of forests in each of the Five-Year Plans
that followed with a view to rehabilitating the forests. The demand
E occasioned by the growing population and the spread of economic
development and consequent demand of timber as raw material as also
feul led to excessive exploitatiOn of the forests and consequent clearing
of'forest areas notwithstanding the declared of National Forest Policy.

It is interesting to note that the national per capita average of
F forest area works out to 0.11 hectare as against an international aver-
age of 1.5 hei;tare. State-wise, Arunachal Pradesh has per capita forest
of 8.21 hectares which is the maximum and Haryana has the minimum
being 0.01 hectare (figures based on Census Report of 1981 and the
report of the Central Forestry Commission). While some of the
advanced countries like Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan and
0 United States have forest cover of higher area, on account of want of
regulation and appropriate care and attention, this unhappy situation
has arisen in India.

The Birla Institute of Scientific Research in its Report on Social
Forestry in India: Problems and Prospects ( 1986) has indicated:
RULAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF l.J.P. [MISRA, J.] 713

'The treeless expense of land provides an environ- A
men! least conductive to healthy living. Tree leaves
recharge the atmosphere with life givipg oxygen, take away
excess carbondioxide and transmit moisture to· the atmos-
phere by way of transpiration. It is estimated that one
hectare of woodland consumes 3.7tonnes of carbondioxide
and gives out 2 tonnes of oxygen per year. Denied these B
beneficial processes, life becomes lead heavy. A tree-
covered environment is much healthier to live and work in.
Amongst the immediately perceptible effects of loss of
vegetative protection are soil erosion, floods and droughts.
If trees an:d otlier vegetations are present, they bear the
burnt of winds, heat; cold and rain water, first in their · C
crowns and foliage. The soil remains covered by humus,
decomposing litter and freshly fallen leaves which protect it
from direct action of the adverse natural forces. In a
wooded area the flow of rain water gets regulated through
the leaves and the spongy material overlying the soil; but in
a· barren, unprotected surface the rain drops hit the soil D
directly and the water flows. torrentially, dislodging and
carrying with it the soil participles which have taken
hundreds of years to form. This results in disastrous floods
in lower areas causing damage to life and property. Fast
running water also causes landslides and other calamities
en route. With all the rain water having run away in the E
form of floods the land surface losses its resiliance to drier
spells and severe droughts ate caused. The removal of soil
by water produces fertility and the productive capacity of
the up-lands to a considerable degree. ·

It is estimated that nearly 6,000 million tonnes of soil F
is washed away every year in floods. With that go 6.0
million tonnes of nutrients-more than ·the amount that is
applied in the form of fertilisers."

We shall now deal with legislative measures to preserve the
forests and impact of such provisions on mining after briefly referring G
to the legislative power in regard to forests.

"Forest" was initially a State subject covered by 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 inserted.
The change from the State List to the Concurrent List was brought H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R.

about following the realisation of the Central Government that forests
A
were of national importance and should be placed in the Concurrent
List to enable the Central Government to deal with the matter. The
same amendment of the Constitution brought in Article 48-A in Part
IV providing thus:

B "The State shall endeavour to protect and improve
the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life
of the country."

Article 51-A in Part IV-A of the Constitution inserted by the same
amendment provided a set of fundamental duties and clause (g) runs
thus:
c
"It shall be the duty of every citizen of India-

D (g) to protect and improve the natural environment
including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have
compassion fot living creatures."

1972 marks a watershed in the history of environmental management
so far as India is concerned. The National Committee of Environment
E and Planning and Coordination was set up and various steps were
taken to implement the recommendations already made and to be
made thereafter. The National Commission on Agricultural in 1976
noticed the inadequate implementation of the 1952 National Forest
Policy and proposed the following amendments:

p (i) Provision for prior approval of the Central Government
before taking steps for dereservation or diversion of forest lands
to non-forest use.

(ii) Preventing and evicting encroachment of forest lands.

G (iii) Safeguarding against monoculture practices in raising
forest plantations so that preservation of habitats for natural
flora and fauna is ensured.

(iv) Encouraging large scale industrial plantation to foster
growth of forest industries.
H
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. !MISRA, J.J 715

The problem of forest preservation and protection was no more A
to be separated from the life style of tribals. The approach required a
shift from the dependence on law and executive implementation to
dependence on the conscious and voluntary participation of the
masses. This required educating tire masses as well as appropriate
education ·of the departmental employees. In this background the
Forest (c;onservation) Act of 1980 was e_nacted with which we propose B
presently to deal after noticinz certain provisions of the Indian Forest
Act of 1927.

The Forest Act of 1927 deals with four categories of forests,
namely-

1. Reserved Forests in Chapter II
c
2. Village Forests in Chapter III

3. Protected Forests in Chapter IV
D
4. Non-Government Forests in Chapter V.

The first three categories deal with forests which are Government
property while the last refers to control over forests and lands which
are not Government property. Most of the private forests covered
under the fourth category were earlier parts of estates which have now E
been abolished and thus such forests have also become Government
property. Jn Uttar Pradesh there have been.several amendments of the
Forest Act and Chapter V-A has been incorporated which provides for
control over forests of claimants. Detailed procedure has been laid ill
Chapter II in respect of reserved forests. Section 3 vests power in the
State Government to reserve forests. The process for reservation of F
forests starts with section 4 and ends up with the final declaration
under section 20. Section 27 vests power in the State Government to
declare a forest to be no longer reserved.

As noticed earlier, l)Otwithstanding the regulatory provisions in
the Forest Act of 1927 and the Government's National Forest Policy of G
1952, forests gene,rally got rapidly depleted. To meet this alarming
situation the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance of 1980 was promul-
gated by the President and the Ordinance was followed by the Forest
(Conservation) Act of 1980. The statement of objects and reasons, as
far as relevant, point out:
H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R.

"Deforestaiion causes ecological imbalance and leads
A
to environmental deterioration. Deforestation had been
taking place on ·a large scale in the country and it had
caused widespread concern.

With a view to checking further deforestation the
B President promulgated on the 25th October, 1980, the
Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Ordinance
made the prior approval of the Central Government neces-
sary for dereservation of forests and for use of forest land
for non-forest purposes. The Ordinance also provided for
the constitution of an advisory committee to advice the
Central Government with regard to grant of such
0 approval."

Sec.tion 2 of the Act which is relevant provides:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
D law for the time being in force in a State, no State Govern-
ment or other authority shall make, except with the prior
approval of the Central Government, any order directing-

(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of
the expression reserved forest) in any law for the time
8 being in force in that State or any portion thereof,
shall cease to be reserved;

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may
be used for any non-forest purpose.

F Explanation- For the purposes of this section non-
forest purpose means breaking up or clearing of any
forest land or portion thereof for any purpose other
than reafforestation."

Thus the power which was vested in the State Government under
G section 27 of tht: Indian Forest Act of 1927 or any other law containing
a s·imilar provision is now exercisable subject to prior approval of the
Central Government.

This Court dealt with the provisions of the 1980 Act in the case of
Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat & Ors., [1987) 1 SCC 213.
H The question of renewal of mining leases in Gujarat came for consi-
'
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. !MISRA. J.] 717

deration in this case before the Court. At page 219 of the Reports, it A
was stated:
"The rules dealt with a situation prior to the coming into
operation of 1980 Act. '1980 Act' was an act in recognition
of the awareness that deforestation and ecological
imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social B
menaces and further deforestation and ecological imba-
lances should be prevented. That was the primary purpose
writ large in the Act of 1980. Therefore, the concept_ that
power coupled with the duty enjoined upon the respon-
dents to renew the lease stands eroded by the mandate of
the legislation as manifest in 1980 Act in the facts and
circumstances of these cases. The primary duty was to the C
community and that duty took precedence, in our opinion,
in these cases. The obligation to the society must predomi-
nate over the obligation to the individuals."
Again in paragraph 19, this Court observed:
0
"In the instant appeals the situation is entirely diffe-
rent. The appellants are asking for a renewal of the quarry
leases. It will lead to further deforestation or at least it will
not help reclaiming back the areas where deforestations
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 Ram Modi, (1985] E
3 sec 643 cannot be made applicable to support the appel-
lants' demands in these cases because the facts are entirely
different here. The primary purpose of the Act which must
subserve the interpretation in order to implement the Act
is to prevent further deforestation. The Central Govern- F
ment has not granted approval ....... "
The ratio of the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan-v. Hari
Shankar Rajindra Pal, (1965] 3 SCR 402 has obviously no application
to the facts of this case. In Banshi Ram Modi' case (supra) what was
being considered was extension of the leases for another mineral which
was found while exploitation, under the existing mining lease was G
undertaken. We agree with the view expressed by Brother Mukh .. rji
that the Conservation Act of 1980 applies to renewal,"' well and c• en
if there was a provision for renewal in the lease agreement on exerfrc
of lessee's option, the requirements of 1980 Act had to be satisfied
before such renewal could be granted.
H
Many of these leases, as already indicated by us, expired in 1982.
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

Renewal had been applied for and in many of these cases the request
A
for renewal was rejected. On the plea that the State had no right to
reject the request for first renewal, the aggrieved lessees went before
different courts and obtained decrees or interim orders. We have al-
ready pointed out that in the order of i2th March, 1985, this Court
vacated such orders or decrees regarding all C category and some B
B category mines. It is clear from the directions contained in the order of
12th March, 1985, as also the ratio of the judgment in the Ambica
Quarry Works case (supra) that even if there has been an order of the
Court and no challenge is raised against such order this Court could
invoke its jurisdiction to nullify the direction or order and if any order,
direction or decree has been passed ignoring the provisions of the
c Conservation Act of 1980 the same would not be binding. We have
been given to understand during the hearing of these cases that appe-
als have been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh where decrees
have been passed directing renewal. When this Court left the litiga-.
tions to be continued, the Conservation Act of 1980 had not been
noticed. Therefore, liberty had been granted to agitate the disputes
D arising out of refusal to renew. In view of the provisions in the Conser-
vation Act and the opinion expressed in Ambica Quarry Works case
(supra), with which we are in agreement, the decrees also would not be
sustainable where prior approval of'the Central Government has not
been obtained. We agree with Brother Mukharji that whether it is a
case of first grant or renewal following exercise of option by the lessee,
E the compliance of section 2 of the Conservation Act is necessary as a
condition precedent. No useful purpose would be served by allowing
the litigations to be continued in different courts, particularly when
keeping the broad interest of society with reference to ecology and
environment, ~have come to the conclusion that mining in this area
has to be stopped. Notice nas to be taken of the situation that the
F entire dispute has been before this Court and the scope of the dispute
is comprehensive. All parties are before this Court. Parties have also
been heard on various aspects at different times. An order made by
this Court to nullify the decrees in such circumstances would not be
violative of the principles of natural justice. Apart from the notice
contained in the Court's Order of 19th October, 1987, where it had
G been specifically stated that this Court was of the view that mining in
the Doon Valley area should be totally stopped, the position was also
made clear to different parties in course of the hearing which con-
tinued for several weeks. We, therefore, hold that if any decree or
order has already been obtained from any court relating to renewal of
these leases, the same shall stand vacated and similarly any appeal or
H other proceeding taken to obtain a renewal or against orders/decrees
granting renewal shall also become nones!.
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. (MISRA, J.] 719

We shall now turn our attention to the consideration as to
whether mining should be totally stopped outright or in a phrased A
manner.

In our order dated 19th October, 1987, we had categorically
indicated that mining in this area has to be stopped but instead of
outright closing down total mining operations we were of the view that B
·min_ing activity may have to be permitted to the extent it was necessary
1 in the interest of defence of the country as also by way of the safe-
guarding of t'ie foreign exchange position. Pursuant to our direction in
the said order (AIR 1987 SC 2426) the Union of India filed an affidavit
on 18th November, 1987, through Dr. S. Maudgal, Director in the
Department of Environment, Forests & Wildlife in the Ministry of
Environment and Forests. That affidavit inter alia stated: c
"3. 1 The Ministry of Defence do not require any high-
grade low silica limestone over and above what is needed
for production of steel. Therefore, the limestone require-
ment of the Defence Ministry are fully covered in the D
requirement of the steel industry in the country.

3 .2 High-grade limestone with low silica content is
required in steel production only in the units which are
operating on the LD process. As of today, only Bhilai,
Rourkela, Bokaro and TISCO, Jamshedpur are operating E
on the LD process. The requirement of low-silica limestone
in 1986-87 as provided by the Steel Authority of India.Ltd.
for its plants at 2,20,550 tonnes with the break-up given in
Table-I.

TABLE I
F
Source Quantity received Planned
1986-87 1987-88
UPSMDC, Dehradun 18,300 100,000
RS MDC 183,000 200,000
(Gotann/Jaisalmer \ G

Imported 19,250 100,000

220,550 400,000

H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

3.3 In addition to these steel plants, Durgapur Steel
A Plant & USCO, 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-II.
B
Plant 1989-90 1994-95 1999-2000

·Bhilai Steel 600 800 1,700
Plant
Ourgapur Steel 540 890
c Plant
Rourkela Steel 340 580 920
Plant
Bokaro Steel 1,360 1,530 1,800
Plant
D
Indian Iron & 330 610
Steel Co. Ltd.

SAIL TOTAL 2,300 3,780 5,990

Tata Iron & 480 810 810
E Steel Co. Ltd.
Vizag Steel 300 550 750
Plant
Mini Steel 50 100 200
Plants
F TOTAL 3,130 5,240 7,750
REQUIREMENTS

3.4 The occurrence of LO grade limestone deposits
has been identified at Lambidhar, Barkot (Distt. Debra
Dun) in U.P., Gotan and Jaisalmer in Rajasthan, Solan in
G Himachal Pradesh and Khorram in Meghalaya. The
deposits outside IJ.P. have not, however, been prospected/
explored in detail. Detailed exploration of these deposits is
necessary for the preparation of mining and environmental
manageemnt plants before definite assessment of the
extent of production of LO-grade from these deposits can
H be determined. Jaisalmer being the most favoured deposit
. RURAvLITIGATION v: STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, l.l 721

should be explored on priority. All the same, prima facie
A
availability pattern of the LD-grade limestone from various
deposits is as given in Table-III.

TABLE III (ooo tonnes)
B
Location 1989-90 1994-95 1999-2000

Go tan 400 800 800
Jaisalmer' 200 800 1,000
Lambidhar 240 450 450
c
Barko! 1,000
Solan 500 1,000
Meghalya 200 500
Katni/Satna 2,000 2,500 3,000 D
Total 2,840 5,250 7,750
Requirement 3, 130 5,240 7,750
SurplusiDeficit (-)290

E
'(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 ihe steel plants from Dehradun-
Mussoorie area during-1986 which is approximately 25% of F
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 requirements of our G
sugar industry, and the units set up for the manu·
facture of chemicals and paper. The following Table
indicates the approximate short and long term
reg uirements of industries that are dependent upon
limestone from this belt:
H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A (In tonnes)
Short term Longterm)
Sugar Industry 1,50,000 2,00,000
Chemicals & Paper 3,00,000 4,00,000
Industry
B
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, there-
c fore, 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 (Mis Venus
D 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."
E
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
F endowed by nature with perennial water streams, lush
green forests and scenic beauty. All these factors have con-
tributed to Mussoorie being called the queen of hill stations
and Dehradun becoming an important place of tourist
atraction as well as centre of education. The unscientific
and uncontrolled limestone quarrying operations spread
G over the entire 40 km. belt on the Mussoorie slopes how-
ever, endangered the delicate ecological balance resulting
in ugly scars, excessive debris flow, drying up of water
streams and perennial streams and rivulets and defores-
tation.

H Taking note of the disastrous ecological conse-
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. (MISRA, ],] 723

quences, the technical group constituted by the State and
A
Union Governments since 1979 have consistently ·recom-
mended 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 con-
clusion that all of them, to a larger of smaller extent, have B
violated the statutory provisions relating to mines. Condi-
tions 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 these plans are satis- c
factory. Therefore, . tiie Bandyopadhyaya Committee
stronf;ly 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 D
after due consideration of the environmental 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 E
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, F
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 restora-
tion 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 G
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
dependant 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." H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

This affidavit of Dr. Maudgal was not accepted by tliis Court as it did
A
not fulfil the requirements of the directions given in this 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
B mines to the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and JO per cent of supplies
came from the Dehradun quarries. Tata Iron and Steel Company at
J arrished pur, 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
c 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
D 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
E the steel industry which also includes Defence require-
ments, there is justification for discontinuance of the exist-
ing mining operations in the Dehradun-Mussoorie area
and, in fact, complete closure of the said mines in this
area."

F It is a 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 U ttar 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
G 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 re-
jected and a further affidavit was directed to be filed. There can be no
two opinions that both the affidavits pleaded for banning of mining;
H but the first affidavit suggested controlled and limited mining in view ·
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 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 reconsidera- B
tion 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. Mainte-
c
nance of the environment and ecological balance is the obligation of
the State and the Central Governments and unless there was any real
oqjection to the opinion of the Union of India as to continuing or
cfosing down of mining activity, it should have been taken in the
proper light .and the little modified stand adopted in the second D
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 E
Ministry of Environment and Forest have on 31st of May, 1988,
informed the Secretaries of all the State Governments in the Depart-
ment of Forest that even mining area below the forests would affect
the forests.

The variation of the stand in the second affidavit that mining F
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 G
order of 19th of October, 1987, had clearly indicated that mining acti-
vity in this area should be totally si 0pped. The view expressed in the
second affidavit is in accord with what this Court has stated. On assess-
ment of the factual position, we do not think there is any substance .in
the argument advan.ced on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh Government,
UPSMDC or any other mine owner which would justify our rejectmg H

/
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

the second affid~vit. We would like to add that this is not a case of a
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.
B
It is the acceptet:l-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 switch-
ing over to new methods but for quite some time ther~ would be
demand for low cilica content limestone for manufacture of steel by
c 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
D location is in the interior. The consumer would immediately face trans-
port 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.

.E The question of foreign exchange component does not seem to
be very material as the required type of mineral is indigenously avail-
able 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
F 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
G 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, preser-
H vation of forests is accepted as the goal, nothing which would detract
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 727

from that end should be permitted. In such circumstances we reiterate A
our conclusion that mining in this area has to be totally stopped.

There was some controversy as to whether some of the mines
were locatei:I in the reserved forests. We have not made any attempt to
resolve that controversy here as, in our opinion, whether the mines are B
within the reserved forests or, in other forest area, the provisions of
the Conservation Act apply.

We cio not agree with the submission advanced by Mr. N ariman
for the intervener, Mr. Sibbal for the Uttar Pradesh Government, Mr.
Yogeshwar Prasad for the UPSMDC, Dr. Singhvi for some of the mine
c
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 D
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 E
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 F
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.

G
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 co~menced from 1962. But following are
the mines where the original grant is still valid and their date of expiry
is separately indicated:
H
(

!)
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B
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
c
1. Punjab Lime & 14(ii) 2.12.82
Stone Co.
2. Ch. Ved Pal Singh 16 2.12.82
3. Seth Ram Avtar 17 2.12.82
D
4. Sh. C.G. 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
E 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
F mines with valid leases which are not working now as per the particu-
lars below:

S.No. Name ofthe lessee Lease No. Valid up-to

1. New Era Minerals 4 25.2.1990
G 8 10.4.1994
2. U.P. Minerals
3. Rajgiri Minerals 9 24.11.1992

4. Anand Brothers 67 15.2.1992

5. Uttrakhand Minerals 98 12.12.1989
H
6. Vijayashree Minerals 99 20.3.1990

\.
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 729

These mines are not operating at present for one reason or the A
other. On the 12th of May, 1985, the mines within the municipal limits
of Mussoorie were directed to close down until they were clea~ed 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 appro;
priate to allow them to operate until their lease periods lapse particu-. B
larly when we have reached the conclusion that mining operation in·
this area should close down. An exception has to be ma~e 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 h.ad undertaken
before us that over the 100 acres, there would be no mining operation c
and the lessee would immediately restore vegetation over the area and
full forest growth will be available in regard to the.100 acr_es. 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 reaf- D
forestation by the lessee. He has agreed to file a undertaking in this
Court which we direct him to do within four wee~s 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 reafforestation programme under-
taken by the lessee of lease No. 99 and in case it is of the view that the E
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 impre- F
ssed 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 spe-
cial case for a few lessees from amongst similarly placed mine owners
on small differences for being permitted to work out stopped mines, in G
our opinion, would not be appropriate atthis stage. On the other hand
to treat them all as a class and subject them to a commo11 order would
be just and proper. We. reiterate that tl)e 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.
H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198S] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
c 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
D 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
E UPSMDC is a public sector undertaking of the State of Uttar Pradesh
and there has been a huge investment by the State in this establish-
ment. 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
F · as ·ll.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
G 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
or 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 direc-
tion that can be given during the switch over from the present position
H to one of complete closing down of mining operation. We, therefore,

l.
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. IMISRA, J.] 731

permit these three mines to continue mining operation subject to com-
pliance with all legal requirements and the additional conditions which A
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 B
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
satisfaciion of the Monitoring Committee which is being set up 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 c
raised by the Working Committee shall also be removed within the
same time limit ang on failure of compliance, they too shall be visited
with the sam.e consequences.

There is no dispute that continuance of mining operacions affects D
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 E
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 environ-
ment 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 F
for directions. On the expiry of their respective leases, they shall not
be entitled to carry mining operation and by operation of this judg-.
ment shall have to wind up. No application for renewal shall be
entertained from them. These tbree·lessees as also any other lessee
shall not be entitled to any compensation for closing-down of the mines
under orders of this Court. G
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 !fas been made either by the State of Uttar Pradesh or the ·
Union of India. On-going leases have been terminated under orders of H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A this Court without provision for compensation. Indisputably displace-
ment has been suffered by these lessees and the sudden displacement
must have up-set their activities and brought about substantial incon-
venience to them. The Court has no other option but to close down the
mining activity in the broad interests of the community. This, how-
ever, does not mean that the displaced mine owners should not be
B 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
c 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
D 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
E giving alternate mining sites, ecology and environment will have to be
considered. It is, therefore, necessary that on 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:

F 1. Secretary, Department of Mines, Government of India-
Chairman.

2. Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Govern-
ment of India-Member.

G 3. Secretaries, Department of Mining of the States of Uttar Pradesh,
Rajasthan and Gujarat-Members. Mr. Arri! Agarwal of Centre for
Science and Environment, G-92, Kalkaji, New Delhi, and Mr. Subrata
Sinha, Senior J?eputy 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
H the grade of Under Secretary to the Government of India as its Secre-
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. (MISRA, J.I 733

tary and the minimum skelton staff for carrying its activities. For
A
convenience, the office may ·be located for the time being in the
Ministry of Steel and Mines at New Delhi. The Ministry -0f Environ'
! ment 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 B
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. c
The Court is of the view that a Monitoring Committee is neces-
sary for reafforesfation 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 D
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, E
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 F
Secretary, Department of Revenue in the Central Government, who
had he·aded 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 Institute, the Head of the
establishment ·of ONGC (all located at Dehradun), the Secretary, G
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 Dehrad1rn area
are to·be the members of this Committee. The two non-official mem-
bers shall be co-opted by the Committee. The Committee shall have its
office at Dehradun fa the accommodation to be provided either by the H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A ONGC or the Forest Staff College. The 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 con·
B cerned Governments will permit their officers to undertake the respec·
tive 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 reaf·
forestation 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
c 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 Com·
mittee makes its initial report within eight weeks from now to the
Registry further directions as necessary shall be given.
D
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 cqnsider whether it is any longer necessary for the
Court to supervise their activity.
E
Before we part with the case, we must indicate our appreciation
of services rendered hy 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 termi·
fl nate in the present manner. The records of the case have become
unusually bulky and but for the continued assistance of Mr. Parmod
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 he
G 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 amountwith the Registry of this Court within
two weeks from now. This amount when deposited shall be paid to Mr.
Parmod Dayal.
H
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 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 befo1c :~;~Court for directions.

J R.S.S.
Petitions disposed of.
B