Supreme Court of India
TARUN BHARAT SANGH, ALWARversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 1993 INSC 147
- Decided
- 8 April 1993
- Bench
- B P JEEVAN REDDY
Holding
Mining operations in all mines located wholly or partly within the declared protected forest are illegal and must be stopped forthwith, while mining in areas outside the protected forest but within the tiger reserve may continue only for four months pending Central Government permission, and the proposal to delete part of the protected forest shall be examined by the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
Summary
The Supreme Court heard a petition filed under Article 32 by the environmental NGO Tarun Bharat Sangh, seeking to stop illegal mining in the Alwar Tiger Reserve, which is also a sanctuary, national park and protected forest under various statutes. The Court examined whether the mining leases granted by the Rajasthan Government were valid in view of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which require prior central approval for non‑forest activities in protected areas. It held that the 1975 notification under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act validly declared the area as protected forest, bringing it within the ambit of the Forest (Conservation) Act. Consequently, all mining operations within the protected forest (Appendix‑A mines and the portion of Appendix‑B mines inside the forest) are illegal and must cease immediately. Mining outside the protected forest but still within the tiger reserve may continue only for four months, subject to permission from the Central Government. The Court directed that the State’s proposal to delete 5.02 sq km from the protected forest be examined by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and reported back.
Issues considered
- The legality of mining activities in areas declared as protected forest, tiger reserve, sanctuary and national park without prior Central Government approval.
- Whether the 1 January 1975 notification under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act constitutes a valid declaration of protected forest.
- Whether mining leases granted by the State Government after 1980 are void for non‑compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act and Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
- The scope of the petition under Article 32 to enforce environmental statutes against the executive.
- The authority of the State Government to delete or modify the extent of protected forest without Central Government consent.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. Section 3
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980s. Section 2
- Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957
- Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953s. Section 29
- Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986s. Rule 4(6)
- Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
Subjects
environmental lawillegal miningprotected forestforest conservation acttiger reservepublic interest litigationArticle 32central government approvalRajasthan
Judgment
TARUN BHARAT SANGH, AL WAR A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
APRIL 8, 1993
B
[B.P.JEEVAN REDDY AND N. VENKATACHALA,JJ.]
Constitution of lndia, 1950: Article 32.
Forest (Conservation) Act 1980: Section 2.
c
Rajasthan Forest Act: Section 29.
Rajastlian Miner Mineral Concession Rules, .J986: Rule 4(6).
Environment (Protection) Act: 1986, Section 3 and Notification
0
dated May 7, 1992. Environment-Protection of-Illegal mining activ-
ity in area declared as Tiger Reserve in A/war District of Rajastllan-
Diretions by Court.
The petitioner, a voluntaQ' organisation interested in protecting
environment, approached this Court under Article 32 of the Consti- E
tution of India com plaining of the widespread illegal mining activity
. - going on in the area declared as a Tiger Reserve in Alwar District in
the State of Rajasthan. It prayed that in the interest of ecology,
environment and rule of law, the activity should stop. It was alleged
that the area where the mining activity was carried on was declared F
as a tiger reserve under the Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds
Protection Act, 1951; as a sanctuary and a National Park under the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as protected forest under the
Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and that these notifications prohibit all or
any mining activity, and yet the State Government had granted
hundreds of licences for mining marble, dolomite and other materials G
and that such section was contrary to law.
This Court issued notices to the State Government and the
mineowners respondents in the Writ Petition. An inter~ocutory direc-
tion wasalsomadethat no mining operation be carried on in the protected H
21
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.
A area.
The Court also appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship
of a Former Judge of the State High Court to ensure due obsen·ance
of the various Acts and Notifications that had been issued in respect
of the protected area. The Committee was requested in particular to
B
demarcate the area declared as protected forest under the notifica-
tion dated January 1, 1975 issued by the Rajasthan Government
under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act.
The Committee submitted its Report dated September 28, 1992,
C stating that the Committee had verified and cross-checked the tracing
maps furnished by the Forest Department with the maps furnished by
the Revenue Department and found that both of them matched, and ..__
that after looking into the Khasra numbers mentioned in the notifi-
cation dated January 1, 1975 and the other material placed before it
••
D by the parties, the Committee identified the areas declared as pro-
tected forest. It stated that the_}' were not in one contiguous block. hut
were comprised in several blocks or areas. The 215 mines mentioned
in Appendix-A to the Report fall complete!_}' within the areas declared
as protected forest while 47 mines mentioned in Appendix-B to the
Report fall partly inside and partly outside the areas declared as
E protected forest. There was no difference of opinion among the
members of the committee regarding the location of the mines but
only with respect to the question whether they should be directed to
ht- dosed. The Chairman recommended that .the mining operations in ..
all the 215 mines listed in Appendix-A should be stopped forthwith
F and the mining operation in the 47 mines listed in Appendix-B be
stopped forthwith to the extent they fell within the area declared as
proteded forest. The three other Members of the Committee viz.
Colledor, Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden
and Additional Director of Mines differed from the Chairman. They
suggested that this Court should accede to the representation of the
G State Government (Appendix 'C') that th.e area ~overed by the mines
should be allowed to be excluded from the protected forest, in lieu of
which the state Government undertook to provide an equal extent of
the area for being included in the protected forest. The Sate
Government's application to the Court was also to the same effect. It r
H was stated therein that the protected forest area measures about 800
TAR UN BHARAT SANGH v. UNION OF INDIA 23
Sq. kilometers whereas the 262 mines mentioned in Appendixes'~' A
and 'B' co\'er only an area of 2.08 Sq. kilometers and that in the
interest of the economy of the State, industry and workers, an extent
of 5.02 Sq. kilometers including the area covered by the said mines be
allowed to be deleted from the protected forest, the State Government
offering to place an equal extent for the purpose of being declared as
protected forest. B
The mine-owners also filed objections to the Report of the
Committee and requested that they be allowed to continue their
mining operations.
c
The Go,·ernment oflndia which was directed to file an affida\•it,
filed the same and stated that the area declared as project tiger/tiger
reserve was covered by notification issued under the Rajasthan Forest
Act, Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Mines and Minerals
Regulation and Development Act, 1957. It submitted that the Forest D
Consenation Act applies not only to reserve and protected forest but
to all areas recorded as forest in Government records, and that
Mining was non-forestry activity and, therefore, cannot be carried on
in areas to whi.ch the Forest Conservation Act applies, without prior
approval of the Government of India. It was further stated that on
May 7, 1992 the Government oflndia had issued the final notification E
under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 prohibiting
all mining activity, except with the approval of the Government of
India and that since no permission was obtained under any of the said
enactments with respect to the said 262 mines, no mining operations
can be carried on in the area unless and until the permission of the F
Central Government was obtained.
On petitioner's behalf it was submitted that all the mmmg
activity in the areas notified under the notification dated May 7, 1992
should have stopped long ago and continuance of mining activity
amounts to gross contempt and constitutes a clear ,·iolation of orders; G
that the State Government appears to be colluding with the mine-
owners which is evident from the dissent expressed by officers of the
State Government who were Members of the Committee to the
straight forward and logical recommendation of the Chairman, and
that prohibition of mining flows from the provisions.of the Forest ff
....\
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.
A Conservation Act as well as the notification issued under the Environ-
ment Protection Act in May, 1992.
On behalf of the State Go,·ernment it was submitted that the
State Government and its officers were not aware when they granted
-leases/licences in respect of the listed mine that they fell within the area
B declared as protected forest and that the certificate issued by the
Forest Department indicates that they did not fall within the pro-
tected forest· area. It. was thus a bonafule grant. It was further
submitted that the State was prepared to abide fully by the orders of
this Court,-54 mines had been shut down and it was prepared to shut
, C down all the listed mines if this Court so directs. A map prepared by
the State officers showing the areas CO\'ered by tiger reserve, sanctu-
ary, protected forest, and the location of the listed mines was placed
-..
before the Court for consideration.
On behalf of the mine-owners in Mallana village it was submitted
D
that demarcation of protected forest by the Committee was defective,
erroneous and unacceptable for the various reasons set out in the
objections filed to the report, that the map produced by the State
Government delineating the tiger reserve was incorrect besides being
unauthenticated, that the mine-owners do not admit that their mines
E fell within the tiger reserve or within the protected forest areas, and
that closing down of hundreds of mines employing thousands of
workers, wherein a large amount of capital was invested would
disturb the economy of the State besides affecting the supplies of
marble and other minerals, serving no public purpose.
F
On behalf of the some of the other mine owners it was submitted
that it was unsafe to act upon and to pass any orders based up"cm the
map produced by the State Go,·ernment; that the declaration as tiger
reserve by the Government of India was not under any statutory
authority; that the areas declared as protected forest was not co-
G extensive with the area declared as tiger reserve and sanctuary and
national park; that none of the mines fell within the sanctuary or the
National Park-not even within project tiger, and that the mine owners
. are as much interested in protecting the environment and ecology as
H
the petitioner.
·-
,r·
TARUN BHARAT SANGH v. lJNION OF INDIA 25
Declaring that the relevant laws were violated, and passing A
directions, the Court,
HELD: I. This is not a case where the Court is called upon to shut
down an activity being carried on lawfully, in the name of higher
considerations of ecolog)' and em'ironment. It is a simple case to
ensure obsen:ance of ~nacted laws made b)· the State to protect the B
environment and ecology of the area. In such a case, there is no need
to be oppressed by considerationsofbalancingthe interests of economy
and ecology. That has already been done hy the Legislature and
Parliament (37-D-E).
c
..., In the instant case, the petitioner's grie\'ance is against the
executive. Charged with the delegation of implementing the laws of
·the land, the executive is yet failing to do its duty by law and by people,
and that when faced with the might of mone)", respect for law is
dissol\'ing into respect for mammon (37-E-F).
D
2. The State Go\·ernment is empowered not only to declare any
forest land as a protected forest hut also an)' waste land as such. The
idea evidently is not only to protect the existing fo~est but also to bring
waste lands under schemes of afforestation. Once declared as pro-
tected forest, the distinction between forest land and waste land E
disappears. The entire area becomes a protected forest. (38-B)
-- 3. Reading Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act as a whole, it
appears, the normal rule is to make an enquir)' into the rights of the
state Government and of the prirnte parties over the land proposed F
to be declared as protected forest in the first instance, prepare a
record thereof and then declare it as a protected forest. But in case of
urgenC)", it is open to the State Government to issue such notification
forthwith subject, of course, to the existing rights of individuals and
communities in the area concerned. (38-F)
G
In the instant case, the notification dated JanuaQ· 1, 1975 issued
by the Government of Rajasthan appears to be one issued under the
proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 29. (38-G)
4. Section 29 contemplates only one notification declaring an H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.
A area as a protected forest. Whether issued after a normal enquir~· and
record or without enquiry or record, s.ection 29 contemplates only one
.notification and not two in any everft. Therefore, the notification
issued is the valid and effective one. It is not a provisional or p.relimi-
nary notification. It is not also the case of the mine owners that leases
or licences in their favour were granted prior to January 1, 1975. All
B of them were granted in the middle of or in the late eighties. The
sa\'ings clause contained in the proviso to sub-section (3) does not avail
t.hem. (39-A-B)
S. The Committee appointed by this court to demarcate and ~ .
C identify the areas declared as protected forest was composed of high
officials of the Government of Rajasthan. They had undertaken an
elaborate and intensive exercise and have demarcated the areas
declared as protected forest with the help of the official maps and
records. There is no reason not to accept the said report. The sen!ral
D objections submitted by the mine owners cannot pre,·ail O\'er the
official maps and records. They were represented before the commis-
sion at the time of the said exercise. The dissent note appended b)' the
officers of the Government of Rajasthan was not with respect to the
demarcation or identification of areas declared as protected forest,
but onl~· with respect to the closure ;,f the mines operating within those
E · areas. The report of the committee is accepted. (39-D-F)
6. Once an area is declared as a protected forest it coines within
the purview of the Forest (Consenation) Act, 1980. E\·en the State
Government cannot carry on any non-forest activity in the said area
--
F without prior approvalof the Central Government. That the mining
acfrvity amounts to non-forest purpose is be)·ond dispute. Thus the
grant of mining leases/licenses and their renewal b)' the State Govern-
ment, without obtaining the prior apprO\·al of the Central Govern-
ment, in respect oft he mines situated within the protected forest, after
January 1, 1975 is contraQ' to law. (39-G-H, 40-li)
G
7. All the mines listed in Appendix A to the Committee's Report
·do fall within the areas declared as protected forest while the mines
listed in Appendix-B fall partly within and partly out side such areas.
(41-B)
H
)-
TARUN BHARAT SANGH \', UNION OF INDIA
8. According to rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral A
Concession Rules, 1986 no mining lease could have been granted or
renewed within the forest "without clearance from the Central
Government in accordance with the forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
and the Rules made there-under".. Admittedly, no such prior ap-
proval or clearance of central Government was obtained.
B
9. The purpose of Forest Acts and Environmental Protection
Act may not always be the same. Closure of the mines may not serve
the environmental purpose but it may serve the forest purpose.
(40-B)
c
10. It is appropriate that the merits of the proposal of the State
...
Government to delete an extent of 5.02 Sq. kilometers from out of the
protected forest be examined by the l\ilinistry of Environment and .
Forest, forests, and a report submitted to this Court, within three
months. Orders will be passed thereafter on the application filed by D
the State of Rajasthan. (40-E)
11. The notification issued b)' the Central Government under
Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 on Ma)' 7, 1992
expressl)' prohibits the carrying on of mining operations, except with
the Central Government's prior permission, in the "areas covered E
under project tiger". The prohibition extends to existing mining
leases in Sanctuaries/National Park. All mining operations are pro-
hibited therein. (41-C-D)
12. There can be no legitimate dispute with respect to the correct- F
ness of the map produced by Government of Rajasthan or with
respect to the area declared as tiger reserve~Both the State Govern-
ment and Central Government have delineated it. May be that the
declaration as tiger reserve was without any statutory authority and
is relatable to the executh·e power of the Union of India-but the
G
notification issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection)
Act puts the stamp of statutory authority O\'er it. The Central
Government has specifically stated in its affidavits that no ''prior
permission" was obtained with respect to the mines located within the
tiger reserve.·on this ground, the mining operations being carried on
in the tiger reserve, including the listed mines also appears to be H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.
A contrary to law. (42-C-D)
13. The situation is that the mining activity in the listed mines
{mining activities in 54 mines has already been stopped) is illegal and
has to stop. May be that this will have the effect of bringing to halt the
activity involving a good amount of capital and a large number of
B
workers. But in view of the inherent illegality attaching to them, there
is no option but to close them. They cannot be permitted to operate.
If and when the Central Government recommends the plea of the
State Government and any of the areas already declared as protected
forest are deleted with the leave of this Court, can the mining activity
C go on in these areas. (43-D)
14.It is directed that the mining activity in the mines situated
outside the protected forest areas but within the tiger reser,·e may
continue for a period of four months. Within this period it shall be
D open to the concerned mine owners to approach the Department of
Forest and Environment, Government of India for permission to
continue their mining operations. They can continue the mining
operations in these mines only if the Central Go,·ernment permits
them and subject to the orders of the Central Go,·ernment in that
behalf. If no permission is obtained from the Central Government
E within the said period of four months, the mining activity in the entire
area declared as tiger resene shall stop and cease on the expiry of four
months. {44-B-C) -.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: WritPetition(c) No. 509of 1991.
F
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
Dr. Raj iv Dhawan. V.. Akshya Bali and Miss Kamini Jaiswal for
the Petitioner.
G M.C. Bhandare P. Chidambaram, Sushi] Kumar Jain, Ms.
Meenakshi Arora. S.S. Jauhar. Aruneshwar Gupta and E.C. Agrawala
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
TAR UN BHARAT SANGH l'. UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.] 29
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Tarun Bharat Sangh, a voluntary A
Organisation interested inter alia in protection of environment, ap-
proached this court complaining that widespread illegal mining activ-
ity was going on in the area declared as Tiger Reserve in Al war District
of Rajasthan. In the interest of ecology, environment and rule of law,
it said, the activity should stop.
B
The petitioner's case is that the area wherein the illegal mining is
going on has been declared as a tiger reserve under Rajasthan Wild
Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951, as a Sanctuary and a National
Park under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and as protected forest
under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. These various notifications, said C
the petitioner, prohibit all or any mining activity and yet the Govern-
ment of Rajasthan had granted hundred of Licences for mining marble,
dolomite and other minerals in late 1980s, contrary to law.
After issuing notices to the Government of Rajasthan and the 0
mine owners (which expression is used in this order to denote leasees
and licences under the leases and licences granted by the State of
Rajasthan), this court gave certain directions on October 11, 1991. An
interlocutory direction was issued to the effect that "no mining
operation of whatever nature shall be carried on in the protected area".
A Committee under the chairmanship of Shri M.L. Jain, J., former E
Judge of the Rajasthan High Court was appointed to ensure due
observance of the various Acts and Notifications issued there under
with respect to the said protected area. In particular, the committee was
asked to demarcate the area declared as protected forest under the
notification dated January 1. 1975 issued by the Rajasthan Govern- F
ment under section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act. This demarcation
was.felt necessary in view of the ambiguity prevailing with respect to
the precise boundaries of the protected forest declared as such under
the notification aforesaid. Petitioner's case was that no mining lease/
licence can be granted within the protected forest except with the prior
permission of the Government of India - Section 2 of the Forest G
(Conservation) Act, 1980 and Rule 4(6) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral
Concession Rules)-and that no such permission was obtained in fact.
By its order dated November 26, 1991, the court clarified that the
order dated October 11, 1991 was not intended to permit the mine- H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 3 S.C.R.
A owners to carry on their mining activity where such activity was
prohibited by any Act, Rule or Notification having the force of Law.
In effect, the order said, it meant to prohibit-and not to permit-the
mining activity.
In its order dated May 14, 1992, the court clarified the meaning
n of the expressio·n "protected area" used in the order dated October 11,
1991. The expression, it was clarified, was intended to and does refer
to all the areas which have had legal protection against non-forest
activities that devastated the environment including poaching, mining,
felling of trees etc. It was further clarified that once an area is declared
C as protected forest, it becomes a protected forest notwithstanding the
fact that a part of that area is waste. The idea behind declaring an area
as protected forest, it was pointed out, is not merely the protection of
the existing forest but also afforestation.
D
The Committee submitted its report dated September 28, 1992.
The Report states that the Committee verified and cross-checked the
tracing maps furnished by the Forest Department with the maps
furnished by the Revenue Department and found that both of them
matched. After looking into the khasra numbers mentioned in the
notification dated January 1, 1975 and all other material placed before
E it by the parties including the mine-owners, the report states, the
conunittee identified the areas declared as protected forest. The report
indicates that the areas declared as protected forest under the said
...
notification was not in one contiguous block but was comprised in
several blocks or areas, as it may be called.
F
As per the said Report, 215 mines mentioned in appendix-A to the
Report fall completely within the areas declared as protected forest
while 47 mines mentioned in Appendix-B to the Report fall partly
inside and partly outside the areas declared as protected forest. (These
262 mines are referred to hereinafter as "Listed miQes"). To this
G extent, there is no difference of opinion among the members of the
. committee. Differing opinions have, however, been expressed when it
came to making of reconunendations for the consideration of this
court. The Chairman, Shri Justice M.L. Jain recommended that the
mining operations in all the 215 1nines listed in appendix-A should be
H stopped forthwith and that the mining operations in the 47 mines listed
TARUN BHARAT SANGH"· UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.) 31
in appendix-B should be stopped forthwith to the extent they fell within A
the area declared as protected forest. Three other members of the
Committee (Collector, Alwar, the Chief Con~ervator of Forest and
Chief Wild Life Warden, Rajasthan and the Additional Director of
Mines) differed from the Chairman. They suggested that this Court be
pleased to accept the representation of the State Government (ap-
pended as appendix-C .to the Report) wherein it was prayed that the 8
area covered by the mines should be allowed to be excluded from the
protected forest, in lieu of which the Government of Rajasthan will
provide an equal extent of area for being included in the protected
... forest. An application has also been filed by the State of Rajasthan to
the same effect. It is stated therein. that the protected forest area c
measures about 800 sq. km., whereas the 262 mines mentioned in
appendix (A) and (B) cover only an area of 2.08 s9. km. In the interest
of economy of the State, industry and the workers engaged therein, it
is submitted. an extent of 5.02 sq. km. including the area covered by
the said mines be allowed to be deleted from the protected forest. In
D
lieu thereof, the Government of Rajasthan offered to place an equal
extent for the purpose of being declared as protected forest. It is
submitted further that when the mining leases with respect to the said
262 nlines were granted, the Government of Rajasthan was under the
impression that the said mines did not fall within the protected forest
area. Indeed, it was so certified by the Forest Department. ·This E
happened because of want of clarity about the precise boundaries of the
areas declared as protected forest.
The mine owners too have filed objections to the Report of the
Committee, to the recommendation made by the Chairman of the F
Committee and submitted alternately that the proposal of the Govern-
ment of Rajasthan be accepted and they be allowed to continue their
mining operations.
At this stage, we directed the Government of India tO file an
affidavit making their stand clear in the matter. Accordingly, an G
affidavit sworn to by Shri S.P. Singh, Deputy Director in the Ministry
of Environment and Forest, Project Tiger, New Delhi has been filed.
It is stated in the affidavit that the area declared as project tiger/tiger
reserve is covered by notifications issued under the Rajasthan Forest
Act, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Mines and Minerals H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 3 S.C.R.
A (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. It is submitted that the
Forest (Conservation) Act applies not only to reserve and protected
forest but to all areas recorded as forest in Government records.
Mining is non-forestry activity and, therefore cannot be carried on in ·
the areas to which Forest (Conservation) Act applies without the prior
approval of the Government of India. It is stated further that on May
H 7, l 992, the Government oflndia has issued the final n9tification under
Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 prohibiting all
mining activity, except with _the approval of the Government of India,
in the protected forest, Sariska National Park and certain areas of
Alwar District mentioned in the Notification. Since no permission is
c obtained under any of the said enactments with respect to the said 262
mines. it is submitted. no mining operations can be carried on in the
area until and unless they obtain the permission of the Central
Government. Indeed. the prohibition extends not merely to protected
forest areas but to the emire area declared as tiger reserve and as
D Sari ska National Park. A copy of the notification dated May 7. 1992
issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act is ap-
pended to the affidavit. It is necessary to notice the relevation portions
of the said notification. They read:
"Now. therefore. in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section ( 1) and clause ( v) of sub-section (2) of
·section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
(29 of 1986) read with rule 5 of the Environment
(Protection) Rules, 1986. the Central Government
hereby prohibits the carrying on of the following
F processes and operations, except with the prior per-
mission, in the areas specified in the Table appended
to this Notification:
(i) .Location of any new industry including expan
sion/modernisation; ,
G '
(ii) (a) All new mining operations including renewals
of mining lease.
(b) Existing mining leases in sanctuaries National
H Park and areas covered under Project Tiger and; or
I
~
TARUN BHARAT SANGH v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.) 33
(c) Mining is being done without pennission of the A
competent authority;
(iii) Cutting of trees;
(iv) {:onstruction of any clusters of dwelling units.
B
farms houses, sheds, community centres, infor
mation centres and any other activity connected
with such construction (including roads a part of
any infrastructure relating thereto);
( v) Electrification (laying of new transmission lines). c
TABLE
- Areas where carrying on of processes and operations without pennis-
sion is prohibited.
D
(i) all reserved forests, protected forests or any other
area shown as "forest" in the land· records maintained
by the State Government as on the date of this notifi-
cation in relation to Gurgaon District of the State of
Haryana and the Alwar District of the State of E
Rajasthan.
(ii) all areas shown as
(a) Gair Mumkin Pahar, or F
(b) Gain Mumkin Rada, or
(c) Gain Mumkin Behed, or
(d) Banjad Beed, or
G
(e) Rundh
',
In the land records maintained by the State Govern-
ment as on the date of this notification in relation to
- Gurgaon District of the State of Haryana and the
Al war district of the State of Rajasthan. H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11993) 3 S.C.R.
A (iii) all areas covered by notifications issued under
sedions 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act,
1900 as applicable to the State of Haryana in the
district of Gurgaon upto the date of this Notification.
(iv) all areas of Sariska National Park and Sariska
.B
Sanctuary notified under tile Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 (53 of 1972). ··
(emphasis added) --
We have heard Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, counsel for the writ petitioner,
C Shri Amneshwar Gupta, counsel for the State of Rajasthan and S/Shri
M.C. Bhandare and P. Chidambaram, council appearing for the mine-
owners. Certain other mine-owners have intervened. We permitted
them to file their written submissions.
D Dr. Rajiv Dhawan submitted that in view of the earlier orders of
this court and the report of the committee, all the mining activity in all
the areas declared as protected forest and in the areas notified under the
notification dated May 7, 1992 should stop forthwith. Indeed, he says,
it should have stopped long ago. Continuance of mining activity is in
gross contempt of this court and constitutes a clear violation of its
E orders. The Govemmenrof Rajasthan is equally guilty of contempt in
as much as it has come forward with an application for directions
instead of taking stringent action forthwith to stop the mining activity
in all the listed mines. As a matter of fact, he says, the Government of
Rajasthan appears to be colluding with the mine-owners which is
F evident from the diss~nt expressed by the officers of the Rajasthan
'· .
Government (who were members of the Committee appointed by this
Court) to the straight-forward and logical recommendation of the
Chairman of the Committee. The Government of India's affidavit
places the matter beyond doubt. Not only the mining operations in the
listed mines should be injuncted forthwith but the mine owners and the
G Government of Rajasthan should be proceeded against for ~ontempt,
says the counsel. He pointed out further that the mining leases granted .,
by the Government of Rajasthan are ex-facie illegal inasmuch as prior
permission of the Central Government was admittedly not obtained for
the said leases as required by the Forest (Conservation) Act and Rule
H 4 ( 6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules. Prohibition of
TARUN BHARAT SANGH v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.) 35
mining flows from the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act as A
well as the notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act
in May, 1992.
Shri Arunseshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan
submitted that the Rajasthan Government and its officers were not
8
aware, when they granted leases/licences in respect oflisted mines that
- they fell within the area declared as protected forest. Indeed, a
certificate was issue·d by the Forest Department to the effect that they
did not fall within the protected forest area. It was thus a bonafide
grant. The boundaries of the areas declared as protected areas were not
clearly known nor were they demarcated on the spot. Of course, it now C
turns out that the said listed mines fall wholly or partly within the
protected forest but for the reasons mentioned in the application filed
by the Government ofRajasthan, the area of five sq. kilometers should
be allowed to be deleted from out of the protected forest subject to the
conditions offered in the said application. Counsel says that the D
Government of Rajasthan is neither colluding with the mine-owners
nor has it any intention to flout the orders of the court. It is prepared
to abide fully by the orders of this court. It has already shut down 54
mines. It is also prepared to shut down all the other listed mines if this
court so directs. It is. however, making an earnest request that it may
be allowed to exclude the areas covered by these mines from the E
protected forest in public interest. Learned counsel has placed before
us map, said to have been prepared by the officers of the Rajasthan
State, showing the areas covered by tiger reserve, sanctuary, protected
forest and the location of the listed mines.
F
Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned counsel appearing for the mine-
owners in Mallana village submitted that demarcation of protected
..... forest by the committee is defective, erroneous and unacceptable for
' the various reasons set out in the objections filed by his clients. It is
technically imperfect. The very description of the boundaries in the
notification dated January 1, 1975 is vague and misleading. It mentions G
old khasra numbers which were not in vogue in the year 1975. The map
produced by the Government ofRajasthan, for the perusal of this court,
delineating the tiger reserve is equally incorrect besides being
--- -;~
unauthenticated. It is not know who prepared the map and on what
basis. The mine-owners do not admit that their mines fall within the H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1993 I 3 S.C.R.
A tiger reserve or within the protected forest areas. Closing down
hundreds of mines employing t.hou~ands of workers, wherein a large
amount of capital is invested would disturb the economy of the State
besides affecting the supplies of marble and other minerals. No public
purpose would be served by such closure. The mine owners are not
guilty of contempt of this court inasmuch as their mines do not fall
within the protected forest or protected area. Even otherwise, it
appears that the areas declared as protected forest are in disparate
patches away from each other. Mines are located not only within the
areas declared as protected forest but also in the adjacent areas which
are not declared as protected forest. In such a case, no purpose is served
c by closing the mines within the protected forest inasmuch as the
mining activity ir. the mines located outside the protected forest will
continue uninterrupted. The purpose of ecology and· environment
would not be served by such a situation. Moreover, the notification
issued by the Governmen! of Rajasthan on January 1, 1975 declaring
certain areas as protected areas is only a provisional or an interim
D
notification. It is not a final notification. The final notification is yet to
be issued. Since there is no forest in the areas covered by the mines nor
is any afforestation possible in such areas, they should be allowed to
be deleted from the protected forest in the final notification to be
issued.
E
Shri P. Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for some of the
mine-owners submitted that it is unsafe for this court to act upon and/
or to pass any orders based upon the map produced by State of
Rajasthan showing the tiger reserve and identifying the areas declared
F as protected forest. It is not known who prepared the said map and on
what basis and for what purpose. The declaration as tiger reserve by
the Government oflndia is not under any statutory authority. The area
declared as tiger reserve and the area notified as sanctuary under
Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, as also the area declared
as National Park under Section 35 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act are
G not co-extensive with each other. More particularly, the areas declared
as protected forest are not co-extensive with the area declared as tiger
reserve, sanctuary or National Park. It is not known how many areas
declared as protected forest fall within tiger reserve and how many in
the sanctuary and/or National Park. The Government of India has not
H prepared or submitted any map showing these various areas. None of
TAR UN BHARAT SANGH 1•. UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.) 37
the mines fall within the sanctuary or the National Park, not even A
-- .
within project tiger. In
-
such a situation, any orders stopping the mining
operations merely on the basis of the _report of the commission or the
unauthenticated map produced by the Government ofRajasthan would
be wholly unsafe. The proper course would be to appoint a committee,
or to call upon the Government of India, to identify the areas declared
as tiger reserve, sanctuary, National Park and the areas declared as 8
protected forest Indicating at the same time the location of mines, if
any, in the said areas. Only theri will the correct position be known.
Counsel also submitted that ·the proposal of the Government of
Rajasthan merits acceptance by this court. Both the counsel appearing
for the mine-owners affinned that the mine-owners are not acting in c
\ a spirit of adverserial litigation but in a spirit of cooperation. They are
as much interested in protecting the environment and ecology as the
petitioner but, they say, it should not be a one-sided affair.
At the outset, we may be permitted to clarify an aspect. This is not
0
a case where we are called upon to shut down an activity being carried
on lawfully, in the name of higher considerations of ecology and
environment. This is a simple case where we are called upon to ensure
oservance of enacted laws made by the State to protect the environ-
ment and ecology of the area. In such a case, we need not be oppressed
by considerations of balancing the interests of economy and ecology. E
That has already been done by the Legislature and Parliament. The
grievance of the petitioner is against the cxecutiye. Charged with the
delegation of implementing the laws of the land, the executive is yet
failing to do its duty by law and by people, when faced with the might
of money; respect for law is dissolving into respect for mammon. says F
the petitioner. Let us therefore first find out which la\vs are violated,
if any, a~d then decide, what are the proper directions to make.
-- (A) Section 2 of the Forest (Co11sen·atio11) Act read with Section 29
of the Rajastlzan Forest Act and Rule 4 (6) of t/ze Rajastlzan Minor
Mineral Concessions Rule:- G
.. Section 29 of the Rajasthan Act empowers the Government to
declare any forest land or waste land to be a protected.forest. Sub-
section ( 1) says that, "the State Government may by notification in the
officiaJ gazette declare the provisions of this chapter applicable to any H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 3 S.C.R.
A forest land or waste land which is not included in a reserve forest but
which is the property of the State Government or 6ver which the State
Government has proprietary rights" It is not disputed in this case that
the land over which the listed mines (mines listed in Appendix A and
B to the Report of the Justice M.L. Jain Committee) are situated is the
property of the State Government. The State Government is empow-
B ered not only to declare any forest land as a protected forest but also
any waste land as such. The idea evidently is not only to protect the
existing forest but also to bring waste lands under schemes of.affores-
tation. Once declared as protected forest the distinction between forest
land and waste land disappears.-The entire area becomes a protected
c forest. Before, however, declaring any forest land or waste land as a
protected forest, the State Government is obliged to make an enquiry
into the nature and extent of the rights of the State Government and of
private persons in or over the forest land or waste land proposed to be
declared as protected forest and record the same at a survey or
settlement or in such other manner as .the State Government thinks
D
sufficient. This is the requirement of sub-section (3). However, the
proviso to sub-section (3) empowers the State Government. in case it
thinks that such an enquiry and record will occupy such length of time
as in the meantime to endanger the rights of the State Government, it
may, pending such enquiry and record; declare a particular area to be
E a protected forest without, of course. abridging or affecting any rights
of individuals or communities. Sub-section (4) empowers the State
Government to delete any area from out of the area declared as
protected forest. Reading Section 29 as a whole, it appears, the normal
rule is to make an enquiry into the rights 11f the State Government and
of the private parties overthe land propos~d to be declared as protected
F forest in the first instance, prepare a record thereof and then declare it
as a protected forest. But in case of urgency, it is open to tlie State
Government to issue such notifi~ation forthwith subject, of course, to
the existing rights of individuals and communties in the area con-
cerned. In this case, the notification dated January I, 1975 issued by the
G Governmeqt of Rajasthan appears to be one issued under the proviso
to sub-section (3). Sri Bhandare submits that a notification issued
under the proviso to sub-section (3) is only an interim or provisional
notification and that after conducting the enquiry contemplated by the
main limb of sub-section,.(3)_# regular and proper notification under
sub-section (.i) nas still to be issued. Until then, he submits, the
H
declaration as protected forest does not take effect.· We are not
TARUN BHAJM T SANGH''· UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.) 39
prepared to agree. Section 29 contemplates only one notification A
declaring an area as a protected forest. Whether issued after a normal
enquiry and record or without enquiry or record, Section 29 contem-
plates only one notification and not two in any event. Therefore, the
notification issued is the valid and effective one. It is not a provisional
or preliminary notification. It is not also the case of the mine-6wners
that leases or licences in their favour were granted prior to January I, B
1975. All of them were granted in the middle of or in the late eighties.
The savings clause contained in the proviso to sub-section (3) does not
avail them.
In view of the ambiguity prevailing with respect to the precise C
boundaries of the area or areas declared as protected forest under the
notification dated January 1, 1975, the Justice M.L. Jain committee
was appointed by this court to demarcate and identify the areas
declared as protected forest under the said notification, with the help
of the Revenue and Forest Departments of the State ofRajasthan. It has
0
done so. Besides being headed by a former Judge of the Rajasthan High
Court, it was composed of high officials of the Government of
Rajasthan. They have undertaken an elaborate and intensive exercise
and have demarcated the 3:reas declared as protected forest with the
help of the official maps and records. We see no reason not to accept
the said report. The several objections submitted by ihe mine-owners E
cannot prevail over the official maps and records. They were repre-
sented before the Commission at the time of the said exercise. It is
significant to notice that the dissent note appended by the officers of
the Government of Rajasthan was not with respect to the demarcation
or identification of areas declared as protected forest, but only with F
respect to the closure of the mines operating within those areas. The
report of the committee is accordingly accepted herewith.
Once an area is declared as a protected forest, it comes within the
purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, I 980. It becomes a forest
land within the meaning of Section 2. The effect of this position is that G
no non-forest activity can be carried on in the said area except with the
prior approval of the Central Government. Even the State Government
cannot carry on any such non-forest activity in the said area without
such prior approv'al. That the mining activity amounts to non-forest
purpose is beyond dispute. Thus, the grant of mining leasesnicences H
40 SCPRE:l.1E COL'RT REPORTS (1993) 3 S.C.R.
A and their renewal by the State Government, without obtaining the prior
approval of the Central Government, in respect of the mines situated
within the protected fo_rest, after January I, I 975 is contrary to law. All
the mines listed in Appendix A to the committee's report do fall within
the areas declared as protected forest while the mines listed in
Appendix B fall partly within and pa11ly outside such areas ..According
8 to Rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986
too, no mirun!! Jease could have been granted or renewed within the
r -
forest "wirhoutclearance
. ... from the Central Governme1ifin accordance
·... .
with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Rules made° thereun-
der". Admittedly, no such prior approval or clearance of Central
c Government was obtained .. The Chairman of the Committee, Sri
justice M.L. Jain has recommended that 215 mines mentioned in
appendix-A to his report, which are situated wholly within the pro-
tected forest should be closed forthwith. There can hardly be any valid
objection in law to the said recorµmendation. Similarly, with respect
to 47 mines mentioned in appendix-B to the report, the learned
D Chairman has reco1runended that they should be closed forthwith in so
far as they fall within the protected forest. To this reconunendation
also, there can be no valid objection in law.
At this stage, it would be appropriate to consider the application
E filed by State of Rajasthan for permission to delete an extent of 5.02
sq. Km. from out of the protected forest. The application is confined
only to 208 mines out of 262 listed mines. 54 mines mentioned in para
(9) of the application are proposed to be closed; indeed, according to ,..
the counsel for the State, they have already been closed. Reliance is -
1'' placed upon the order dated May 14, 1992 in this behalf. It is pointed
out that the said order does contemplate such modification, of course,
with the permission of this Court and for valid reasons. It is pointed out
that for such deletion or modification, the prior approval of the Central
Government is not required. No such requirement is prescribed either
in the Forest (Conservation) Act or Rajasthan Forest Act, it is
G submitted. In this context, the submission.of Sri M.C. Bhandare may
also be considered. He says that there are a number of mines around
and outside the area declared as protected forests and that no purpose
would be served by merely closing the mines within the protected
forest and leaving those outside unhindered. He says that all these
H mines within and outside, are within the tiger reserve, as per the
Rajasthan Government map though outside the sanctuary: May be so.
TARUN BHARAT SANGH,.. UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.J 4i
But it cannot be forgottcq that purpose of Forest Acts and purpose of A
Environmental Protection Acts may not always be the same. Such
closure may not serve the environmental purpose-assuming that-
factual situation asserted by the learned counsel is true, upon which
aspect we need not and do not make any pronouncement but it may
serve the forest purpose. Be that as it may, both the purposes appear to
be inter-twined in this case.In this situation. we thinkit appropriate that B
the merits of the said proposal be examined by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India and a report submitted
to this Court, within three months from today. Orders will be passed
on the application for directions filed by the State of Rajasthan after
considering the said report. c
( B) Notification issued by tile Central Gm·er11me11t under Section
3 of t/1e E11viro11me111 (Protection) Act. 1986 on May 7. 1992:
This notification expressly prohibits the carrying on of the mining D
operations, except with the Central Government's prior permission, in
the "areas covered under project tiger". The prohibition extends to
existing mining leases in Sanctuaries/National Park. All mining opera-
tions are prohibited therein. The table appended to the notification
particularises the areas where carrying on the processes and operations
aforesaid is prohibited without the permission of the Central Govern- E
-
ment. They include all reserve forest. protected forest or any other area •
shown as forest in the land records maintained by the State Govern-
ment as on the date of the issuance of the said notification in relation
to i111er afia /\!war district of the State of Rajasthan. The table also
includes "all areas of Sariska National Park and Sariska Sanctuary F
n11tified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 72)''. we
cannot agree with the learned counsel for mine-owners that the area
declared as project tiger in the Alwar district has not been properly
identified or that it is not properly identifiable. Both the State
Government and Central Government have demarcated them in ex-
actly identical manner. The map produced before us by the State G
Government is a detailed plan, prepared with great care. There is no
reason to presume that it is not prepared by competent persons on the
basis of the relevant material. The map delineates the area declared as
sanctuary within the area declared as tiger reserve. The location of
listed mines is clearly marked. They fall within the tiger reserve- H
42 Sl1PRE~1E COURT REPORTS (1993( 3 S.C.R.
A though outside the sanctuary. A puhlication by the Forest Survey of
India. Dchradun, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of
~
India, entitled. 'Status of Forest covering in Project Tiger Reserve' has
heen placed before us. At pages 92-94, we find the map of Sariska
Tiger reserve, Rajasthan. The houndaries, shape and dimensions of the
said map tally fully and perfectly with the map prepared by the State
B of Rajasthan. Thus, there can be no legitimate dispute with respect to
the correctness of the map produced by Government of Rajasthan or
with respect to the area declared as tiger reserve. Both the State
Government and Central Government have delineated it. May be that
the declaration as tiger reserw was without any statutory authority and
c is rdatahle to the executive power of the Union of India-but the
notification issued under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection)
Act puts the stamp of statutory authority over it. The Central Govern-
ment has spccificaJly stated in its affidavit that no "'prior permission.,
was ohtained with respect to the nlines located within the tiger rcsern:.
On this ground. the mining opcrations being carried on in the tiger
D
reserve, including the listed mines also. appears to be contrary to law.
Of course. this notification has come nnly in May. 1992.
Now coming to the appropriate directions to be made in this
behalf. it should be borne in mind that there is a distinction hetween the
E listed mines and those mines wllich are situated outside the protected
forest hut witllin the tiger reserve. So far as the listed mines are
concerned, the very grant and renewal of those mining leases/licences
is itself illegal. These areas were declared as protected forest as far
back as January I. l 975. If so. no nlining lease or licence could have
F been granted in respect of the mines situated within the protected forest
-
without .clearance from the Central Government as required by Ruic
4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and without
prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act. l 980. It is an admitted fact that all these leases
and licences were granted after 1980. There is also the order of this
G Court dated October 11. l 991 directing that "no mining operation of
whatever nature shall be carried on in the protected area"-(Protectcd
area does, without a doubt, include the areas declared as protected
forest). The recoriunendation orthe Chairman of the Comnlittee, Sri
justice M.L. Jain is also to the effect that the mining activity in the listed
H mines should be stopped forthwith. Even with respect to the mines in
appendix-B (wllich partly \all witllin and partly outside the protectc~
•
TAR UN BHARAT SANGH v. UNION OF INDIA [REDDY J.l 43
forest areas) the recommendation of the Chairman is th~t they shouk A
be closed to the extent they fall within the protected forest. T~e Central
Government has also taken the stand that the mining activity in these
areas is illegal and cannot go on. As against this is the plea of the
Rajasthan Government and of the mine-owners that the area covered
hy these mines should be allowed to be deleted/ excluded from the
protected forest in lieu of their offer to include an equal extent of area 8
within the protected forest. We do not propose to express any opinion
on this plea of the Rajasthan Government and the mine-owners for the
reasons recorded hereinbefore. We would like to have the opinion of
the Central Government on the said plea or proposal, as it may be
called. Only thereafter shall we consider the request of the State c
Government. But as on .today, the situation is that the mining activity
in the listed mines (according to the Rajasthan Government, it has
already stopped all mining activities in 54 mines specified in its
application) is illegal and has to stop. May be that this will have the
. effect of bringing to halt the activity involving a good amount of capital
and a large number of workers. But in view of the inherent illegality D
allaching to them. indicated hereinbefore. we have no option but to
clost.'. them. We cannot permit them to operate. If and when the central
government reconuncnds the plea ofthe State Government and any of
the areas already declared as protected forest are deleted with leave of
this court, can the mining activity go on in these areas. It is accordingly E
directed that aJJ mining activity in the mines mentioned in appendix-
A to the report of Sri justice M.L. Jain Committee shall stop forthwith.
Similarly. the mining activity in the mines mentioned in append(x-B to
the said report shall also stop forthwith in so far as they fall within the
protected fore.st areas. The plea of the Rajasthan Gqvernment and of F
the mine-owners shall be considered by Department of Forest and
Environment, Government of India and a report submitted to this Court
within three months.
Now conling to the mines located outside the protected forest
areas but witltin the tiger reserve. it cannot be said that the very grant G ·
of mining lease/licence is itself illegal in their case- unless, of course,
such ntining least!/ licence or its renewal has been granted on or after
May 7, 1992 (particulars in this behalf are not made available to us).
The illegality has attached to these mines by virtue of the notification
issued by the central government under Section 3 of thl.! Environment .8
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 3 S.C.R.
A (Protection) Act on May 7, l 992. In the circumstances, it is d.irected
that the mining activity in the mines situated outside the protected
forest areas but within the tiger reserve may continue for: a period of
four months. Within this period it shall be open to the concerned mine-
owners to approach the Department of Forest and Environment,
Government of India for permission to continue their mining opera-
B tions. They can continue the mining operations in these mines only if
the central government permits them and subject to the orders of the
central government in that behalf. If no permission is obtained from the
central government within the said period of four months, the mining
activity in the entire area declared as tiger reserve shall stop and cease
c on the expiry of four months. --
List this matter for further orders on July 12, 1993.
N.V.K. Pet.ition Pending .
•
...
.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "environmental law"Sign in to search