RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRA, DEHRADUN versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS. on 30 September 1985

RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRA, DEHRADUN

v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

A

SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 ".v

B

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

--+

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Conflict between development and conservation-Need for recon-citing the two in the larger interest of the country-Quarrying and exca-vation of lime stone deposits-Directions issued.

- A

c

These Writ Petitions relate. to the mining of lime stone quarries in Dehradun mining area. Diiriog the pendency of the Writ Petitions, 'the Court appointed a Committee known as Bhargav Committee for the'· purpose of inspecting the lime stone quarries mentioned in the Writ Petitions. The Government of India had also appointed a working ' Group headed by the same, Shri D.N. Bhargav, who was a member of [D ]the Bhargav Committee appointed by the Court, on the mining of lime stone quarries in Dehradun-Mnssoorie area, some time in 1983. After the hearing was over, the Court passed a detailed order on 12th March, 1985 (1985) 3 SCR 169] giving various directions and observing that the · reasons for the order wiU be set out in the judgment to follow later.

·~

.,._

E

-

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Sen, one of the members of the Bench who heard these petitions before his retirement, speaking for himself, OBSERVED: I. It is not necessary to give any further reasons than those which are already stated in the order made by the Court on 12th March, 1985 becatise the broad reasons have been adequately set [F ]out in that order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to elaborate them. [ 639C I

~

2. Industrial development is necessary for economic growth of the country. If, however, industrial growth is sought to be achieved by haphazard and reckless working of the mines resulting in loss of life, loss of property, loss of basic amenities like supply of water'aod crea-lion of ecological imbalance, there may ultimately be DO real economic ' growth and no real prosperity. It is necessary to strike a proper balance. Appropriate authorities at the time of granting leases should take all these facts into consideration llDd also provide for adequate safeguards. (6400-F]

G

•

J

H

A of 1983.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 8209 & 8821

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

M.A. Krishnamoorthy, Pramod Dayal, Rishi Kesh, R.B. B Mehrotra, M.G. Ramachandran, C.M. Nayyar, M. Karanjawala, S.A. Sayed, Sushi! Kumar Jain, S. Dikshit, P.P. Juneja, P.K. Jain, K.N. Bhatt, D.N. Misra, I. Makwana, A. Subba Rao, Harjinder Singh, B.P. Singh, Parijat Sinha, C.P. Lal, Shri Narain, S.K. Gupta, K.R. Nambiar, S.S. Khanduja, K.K. Jain, C.M. Nargolkar, Kapil Sibal, R. Ramachandran, Miss A. Subhashini for the Appearing Parties and C Devi Ditta Mal, Petitioner-in-person.

The Judgment was delivered by

The Judgment was delivered by

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

-

-

.

Stone quarries classified as category B in the Bhargava CommitteeReport. So far as lime stone quarries classified as category A in theBhargava Committee Report and/or category 1 in the Working GroupReport and falling outside the city limits of Mussoorie are concernedwe directed that they should be allowed to be operated subject to theobservance of the requirements of the Mines Act 1952; the Metallifer-ous Mines .Regulations 196] and other relevant statutes, rules andregulations. This order made by us was a detailed order and we statedat the time when we made this order that we shall proceed to givedetailed reasons for the same in due course.

+

B

’

han

’

A

+

B

’

han

’

A

I do not think it necessary to give any further reasons than thosewhich are already stated in the order miade by us on 12th March, 1985. ¢ Speakingbeen adequately personally set outfor in myself the order I think and that it would the broad be an unnecessary reasons haveexercise to elaborate them. We have referred in the order to the ré-‘ports of the Bhargava Committee and the Working Group and we haveaccepted these reports. The Bhargava Committee has classified the;lime stone quarries into three categories namely, A,B and C while theDWorking Group has classified them into two categories, namely, 1 and2. The lime stone quarries comprised in category A by the BhargavaCommittee are the same as the lime stone quarries classified in cate-gory 1 by the Working Group and the lime stone quarries in categoriesB and C of the Bhargava Committee are classified in category 2 by theWorking Group. Both-the Bhargava Committee and the Working§Group are unanimous in their view that the lime stone quarries clas-sified in ‘category A by the Bhargava Committee and category 1 by theWorking Group are suitable for continuance of mining operations andthey have given their reasons for taking this view. So far as the limestone quarmies in category C of the Bhargava Committee Report areconcerned, they are regarded both by the Bhargava Committee and byFthe Working Group as unsuitable for continuance of mining operationsand both are of the view that they should be closed down for reasonswhich they have given in their respective reports.I agree with thereasons given in the Reports of the Bhargava Committee and theWorking Group. The only difference between the Bhargava Commit-tee and the Working Group is in regard to lime stone quarries clas- Gthatsified in these category lime stone B where quarries the Bhargava need not Committee be closed has down taken while the view theWorking Group has definitely taken the view that these lime stonequarries are not suitable for further mining. { have preferred not totake the extreme view of the Working Group so. far as the lime stonequarries classified in category B by the Bhargava Committee are con-H

‘~~

;D

a

a

ys:

_.

_f/’.

.

"

;

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

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

c

D

E

r

A.P.J.

..lo( .

-