A

B

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA

AND ORS.

v.

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

MAY 4, 1990

[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND

K. RAMASWAMY,

JJ.)

Constitution of India,

1950: Article 32-Doon Valley-Loss -~

caused to ecology-Mining operations to stop-No petition to be enter-

C tained by Registry.

Disposing of on 30.8.1988 Writ Petitions Nos. 8209 and 8821 of

1983 this Court had come to the conclusion that the entire mining

operation in the Doon Valley should come to a halt excepting in the case

of a selected few, for reasons indicated in that order. Since then from time ·-

D to time several applications had been moved by the ex-lessees seeking

permission for removing the stacked material or extension of time for

appropriating the mined material. In allowing

or rejecting each such

application this Court has been expressing itself clearly that the Dom1

Valley should be made available for afforestation to make good the loss

caused to the ecology.

E

By today's order while disposing of all the pending applications ,

including one fresh Writ Petition in the light of the report of the

Monitoring Committee appointed by this Court, the Court,

HELD:

No application either for original permission or for

F extension

of time shall hereafter be entertained by this Court and the

Registry

is directed by this order not to entertain such petitions. It may

be that such direction may_ affect some one who has not been vigilant or

has on account of some other difficulty or hardship not been able to

remove the stacked material within his leasehold area in the Doon

Valley; bot taking the broad interest of the entire Valley into account

G

such individual losses or inconveniences have to be sacriticed and

{or

overlooked and equities can no longer be allowed to be invoked. [76A-B)

A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be placed

by the Monitoring Committee

by

30th June, 1990 for consideration of

the Court on 23rd July, 1990. The rehabilitation scheme which has

H already been furnished by the appropriate committee should also

be

72

./

RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 73

placed before the Court for orders on the said date. [SOB-C]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 1, 3 and 10 of 1989

and 12 of 1990.

IN

Writ Petition (C) No. 8209 of 1983 etc.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

V.A. Bobde, V. Gauri Shankar, M.K. Ramamurthy, Prashant

Bhushan, T. Sridharan, Ms. Shobha Dixit and M.A. Krishnamurthy for

the Petitioners.

Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms.

A. Subhashini

R.P. Srivastava (NP),

Promod Dayal, R.B. Mehrotra and Raju Ramacl;iandran for the

Respondents.

The

Order of the Court was delivered by

RANGANATH MISRA, J. On 30th of August, 1988, while

disposing

of two writ petitions being Nos.

8209 and 8821 of 1983, this

Court came to the conclusion· that the entire mining operation in the

Doon Valley should come to a halt. With a view to effectuating this

conclusion all mining activity was directed to be stopped excepting

in

the case of a few for reasons indicated in that order.

Several applications thereafter came before

t~is Court for per­

mission to remove stacked material and almost for one and a half years

now, many rounds

of such applications have been filed before

this

Court which have led to inquiries being made by executive authorities,

a

joint inspection by the District Judge and the District Magistrate as

also separate reports from the Monitoring Commi:tee appointed

by

this Court. After hearing parties in some cases the court has granted

permission for removal and extended time for approJriating the mined

material. On the plea that within the time given by the Court removal

was

not possible, fresh extensions of extended

da'es have also been

asked for.

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

At one stage, the Monitoring Committee

cported that taking

advantage

of such extensions further mining was l:eing illegally

under­

taken. The Monitoring Committee also pointed ~ut that where the H

74

I

' '

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990) 3 S.C.R ..

. , ~ . - .

. A mined material was spread over it had consolidated and grass as also

other vegetations have started growing. In' these circumstances, while

either allowing or rejecting the applications for removal or extension

or allowing removal under restrictions, this Court has been expressing

itself clearly that ·the Doon Valley should be made available for

afforestation ·to. make good the Io.ss that had been caused to the

B ecology and that work should no longer be interfered with .

. A fresh set of applications have now been made for permission to

remove the mined material, machinery and/or extension of time for

the same; This

Court had called for a report on the basis of joint

inspection by the District Judge and the District" Magistrate of

C

Dehradun and after the said report was received,

the Monitoring

Committee has made its report

on the basis of this Court's direction. A

group

of these applications had been heard on

Uth of February, 1990;

but as some other applications remained to be disposed of on the basis

of the report of the Monitoring Committee which was yet to be

received, no orders had then been made. The Monitoring Commi~tee

D · sent its report dated 6th of April, 1990, and the other group of appli­

cations which were .then pending have in the meantime been heard on

26th

of April,

1990; We proceed to dispose of all the pending appli­

cations by this order;

We have considered the submissions with some amount of·

E anxiety particularly as we are of the definite view that the Doon Valley' ~

should be ·left free to the planters for reafforestation and the mine''

owners should be put out in every respect of the same. Two or three·

aspects have, however, to be borne in mind while dealing with a case:

of this type. Mining was stopped by our order all of a sudden within a;

month from 30th· of August, 1988. Though fresh mining is stopped,

F mined material which had been appropriated by the mine-owner by

his own efforts should.ordinarily be allowed to be taken by him. There is

1

no doubt that the mined material has been loosened from the original•--/

place by digging and even if it is allowed to be stacked, consolidation.

of such material is bound to take quite some time and within one year·

it is not likely to consolidate approplately. The mined material has a:

G market and with the closure of the mining operation substantially int

the Doon Valley, this material seems to have been fetching good price;

as there is demand for the same. When mining was .stopped, no i

compensation was provided and the only hope our order held ciut was·i ..

rehabilitation. · · · " •:

''-~ [; ()

H At this stage,.,,it is appropriate to extract a portion from ~the letter,

RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 75

of the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee dated April 6, 1990,

addressed to the Registrar of this Court. The Chairman is no other

"')-than the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of

Environment and Forests. He has pointed out:

"The Committee would seek the indulgence of the Court to

submit to the Hon

1ble Justices that the areas ravaged by

these mines including the roads leading to the mine areas

are in immediate need of afforestation to consolidate the

soil and prevent soil erosion. Permission granted to the

miners

will inevitably delay the process of afforestation and

will destroy any natural vegetation that has come

up along

the roads and the mine areas since the last monsoon.

Shri

David Paul (Lease No. 99) in fact broke several check dams

in the process of lifting material taking advantage of this

Court's orders granting him permission to remove quarried

material. The process of afforestation of these areas cannot

even be started

as long as various applications of these

miners for removal of material are pending before

·this

Hon'ble Court. It is humbly submitted that this Court

must, therefore, once and for all, put an end to such

applications,

in order that the Monitoring Committee may

vigorously take up the task of afforestation

of these

areas."

We can quite appreciate the anxiety of the Monitoring

_/ Committee that initial permission and extension of time for removal

has disturbed afforestation. The Monitoring Committee must, how­

ever, appreciate that the enthusiasm which it

is prepared to exhibit has

... to be sobered down in the initial period by such judicial directions as

,. are called for taking the cause of equity and justice into consideration.

Even in such of the cases where permission or extension for

.:... removal would be granted now, we are of the view that the mine­

owners should not be permitted to operate and the District Magistrate

should set up a machinery under his control and subject to the super­

vision

of the Monitoring Committee to enable removal. We do not

propose to allow the process of removal to continue beyond 15th of

June,

1990. The process of afforestation for the year would begin only

by

that time awaiting the onset of the monsoons. The ex-lessees in

whose

c~se original or extended orders permitting removal would now

.-I. be made have, therefore, to contact the District Magistrate within one

week of this order and the District Magistrate would work out removal

on appropriate payment from the respective areas of the ex-lessees of

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

c

76

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990) 3 S.C.R.

the extracted material

as mentioned in this Court's order of today on

or before 15th of June,

1990. We make it clear that no application

either for original permission or for extension shall hereafter be enter-~

tained by this Court and the Registry is directed by this order not to

entertain such petitions. It may be that such direction may affect some

one who has not been vigilant or has on account of some other diffi­

culty

or hardship been not able to remove the stacked material within

his leasehold area in the Doon Valley; but taking the broad interests of

the entire Valley into account such individual losses or inconveniences

_

have to be sacrificed and/or overlooked and equities can no longer be _ __..

allowed to be invoked. 4111!1

B

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS IN DISPOSED

OF WRIT PETT/ON NO. 82090F 1983

I.A. NO. 1OF1989

D This application is by the former lessee of lease No. 16-Ved Pal

Singh Chaudhary. The mine closed down on 30th of September, 1988

in terms of this Court's direction dated 30.8.1988. The first report on

the record is dated 18th of February, 1989, jointly given by the Addi­

tional District Magistrate, Dehradun, D.P. sharma, Geologist of

Dehradun and the Forest Range Officer, Mussoorie. This report indi-

E cated that limestone extracted

was found lying scattered in different

,

marble pits and also heaps of different shapes. The estimated quantity

in the heaps appeared to be 11,500 metric tons. This Court permitted

removal of the mined material and the report of the Monitoring

Committee shows that between March and May,

1989, with extensions

.

1111

obtained from the Court, 11,539 metric tons have already been "II

F removed.

The joint inspection report of the District Judge and the District "'

Magistrate has indicated that there was no fresh mining in the area

after 30th of August, 1988, and it appeared that the scattered material

had been collected and· removed while the stack has remained

G untouched. The present petition

is for removal of the stack which is

claimed to be more than

11,000 metric tons.

The Monitoring Committee on the basis of the fact that

11,539

metric tons had been removed has assumed that there must have been

fresh mining to justify the presence of the stack.

It has also indicated in

H

the report that there is no danger whatsoever of any scree or stacked

''•

RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 77

material rolling down and affecting and choking the streams. Accord-

A

ing to the Committee, giving fresh opportunity for removal would

r

encourage illicit mining and several mine-owners are likely to carry on

that clandestinely. Keeping the two reports in view, we are inclined to

hold

that there has been no fresh mining and the stack now found is the

old one; it would not be appropriate to assume that the stack has

consolidated nor

is it possible that the vegetation on such a stack B

would grow within a year. For the reasons we have already indicated

earlier we think it appropriate that ex-mine-owner of lease No.

16

--.;

should be permitted to have the existing stacked material of 11,500

r-

metric tons removed from the leasehold area but the same shall be

through the agency set up by the district Magistrate on terms of

payment and the removal shall be completed on or before the

15th

c

,,.,..-June, 1990. It is made clear that the removal shall be supervised by the

Monitoring Committee.

~. I.A. Nos. 3 and 10 of 1989 and 12 of 1990

These are applications made on behalf of Punjab Lime & D

Limestone Company for extension of time for lifting the mined

material lying in the first two lease areas held by the aforesaid lessee

and for original permission for the lease No. 96.

Under the final order

of this Court dated 30th August, 1988, [1988 3 IT 787] in Paragraph 51

of the decision three mines including lease No. 96 valid up to 12.12.

/

1989 were permitted to work. Therefore, mining activity in respect of E

lease No. 96 must have stopped after 12th December, 1989. The joint

inspection report of the District Judge and the District Magistrate

indicated that 2,269 metric tons of material were lying at the face of

•

the mine in lease No. 14/ii while in regard to lease No. 14/i there was

no material found and the scattered scree was reported to have totally

stabilised. The Monitoring Committee has opposed removal from

F

lease No. 14/ii by saying that permission to remove had been given and

""'

utilised.· We are of the view that the petition in regards to lease No.

14/i should be rejected

in view of the concurrent reports of the joint

inspection and the Monitoring Committee that the scree has already

consolidated. So far

as 2,269 metric tons from lease No. 14/i are con-

cerned there

is no particular reason to take a different view and we

G

direct that the same shall be removed through the machinery set up by

the District Magistrate upon payment of the cost by the ex-mine-

_...(

owner. This removal shall also to be made prior to 15th June, 1990.

Lease No. 96 closed down operations on 12th December, 1989.

5000 metric tons of limestone are claimed to have been scattered over H

A

B

c

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3 S.C.R.

the area and reliance is placed upon the rule permitting six months'

time

from. the date of closing for removal of such material. The

Monitoring

Committee has reported that there was no scree lying on

the leased area.

It found that there is some scattered material on the

surface of the mine which cannot conveniently be stacked up.

Since

this is the first application of the ex-lessee after the mining has been

closed,

we would have directed the Monitoring

Committee to make a

fresh inspection in the presence of the ex-mine-owner but in

view of

the clear report that there

was no stacked material found by the

Monitoring

Committee and the further fact stated in the report that

the scree has already consolidated even during the currency of the

mining lease,

we do not think it will be appropriate at this stage to

permit any removal. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989

This petition is by the legal representatives of

C.G. Gujral who

wdS lessee of lease No. 76. The first petition is for substitution of his

D legal representatives. It is allowed. So far as. the second one is con­

cerned, the legal representatives of Shri Gujral, ex-mine-owner re­

quests for permission for removal of the extracted mineral

as also

some machine parts from the leasehold area. At the instance of

Shri

Gujral this Court on 30.1.89 had made the following order:

E

F

"Heard learned counsel in C.M.P. for permission to

remove the mining material already lying at the quarry site.

Subject to the verification

by the

Collector either per­

sonally or

by a responsible officer that the allegation is

correct, removal may be permitted. The entire stock either

near the quarry or stocked

in the stacking site 'hould be

removed within four weeks from the day permission

is

granted .....

".

It is alleged that soon after on 18th September, 1989, C.G.

Gujral, original mine lessee died and his legal representatives had

instituted a suit. The suit has

now been dismissed by a separate order

G

of this

Court and interim relief granted has also been vacated. This

petition filed in July,

1989, seeks permission for removal of the stacked

material and for permission to remove the machinery

which comprises

of compressors and tools said to be lying at the mine-site. The joint

inspection report indicates that the mine site

was not accessible. 16

kms. pathway had been damaged and even walking was not possible. If

H we permit the roadway to be repaired, there is apprehension of

I

,_

RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 79

damage to the land in the locality. If the work is left to the legal A

"")'-

representatives of the ex-mine-owner they are likely to collect material

for the purpose of repair which would.derinitely;affect the ecology.

Yet

there are valuable machines apart from the mined material to be

collected. We leave it to the Collector and the Monitoring Committee

to find

out if by some convenient path or any. other process by which

B

the machinery and the mined material can be moved out. The legal

representatives of the ex-mine-owner may

now contact the Collector

-.;

and the Monitoring Committee to find out the modality of removal

r-

and in case some convenient way is found out the stacked material and

the machinery may be removed with the help of the agency of the

Collector subject to the payment of the cost on or before

15th June,

1990. c

.---

C.M.P. No. 18702of 1989

------

This application Is by the ex lessee of lease No. 31. The joint

inspection report indicates that the mining

was stopped on 12th March, D

1985 and there has been no fresh quarrying. The report indicates:

"Under the mining faces in the slopes and in the river beds

scree and fine material were seen lying and scattred.

Natural vegetation

is overgrown.

Plants like ..... were

E

/

growing. At some spots pine plants and fums were also

found growing indicating that there

is existence of humus

and the already quarried material has compacted and

'-,.·

settled binding the soil."

In this view of the matter it becomes difficult to entertain this

F

petition at this stage; the petition is accordingly dismissed.

A.

I.A. No. 4 of 1989

This application is by the ex-lessee of mine No. 17 asking for

permission for removal of already extracted mineral

lying at the mine G : site. In the joint inspection report it has been indicated that this Court

had granted some time for removal. The ex-lessee had also obtained

..J.

an order from the Addi. District Judge of Dehradun. The report indi-

cated

that there was no sign of fresh mining. We have taken all aspects

into account and

we are of the view that this application has to be

rejected. H

A

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 3 S.C.R.

C.M.P. No. 18703 of 1989

This application is on behalf of the ex-lessee of lease No. 8 for "(.

extension of time for lifting of mined mineral. The joint inspection

report indicates that mining in this area was stopped as early as 12th

March, 1985, and "Natural vegetation has overgrown in and around

B

the mining faces. Considerable quarried material was lying scattered in

the slopes, the quantity of which could not be ascertained

ar meas;;­

red. The Monitoring Committee in its report dated 10.8.89 assessed

that approximately 7 ,000 metric tons of the mining material was lying _J

scattered in the mining area." We have no intention to permit any

meddling to unsettle the settled situation. As the mining has stopped

for more than

five years and the report is that there has been over-

C growth of natural vegetation

we do not intend to permit extension of

--..

time as prayed for. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

C. M. P. 11756 of 1988

D The two writ petition Nos. 8209 and 8821of1983 clearly relate to

the Doon Valley and mining activity falling within the district of

Tehri-Garhwal was not be the subject-matter of those

two writ peti­

tions. The

CMP filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh is dismissed leaving

it open to the State to agitate its contentions in regard to mining

activity

in Tehri-Garhwal separately.

E

,

W.P. No. 151of 1990

This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution asking

for grant of leases in respect of

five mines falling within the 'A' cate­

gory

of the Bhargava Committee Report as also Category (1) of the

F Working Group Report to the Calcium Carbonate Manufacturers

Association for carrying out limited mining activity to meet the essen­

tial and captive need of the Calcium Carbonate Industry. When the

main writ petitions were pending,

CMP 30707 /87 had been filed for the

self-same relief and it wanted to be impleaded in those two writ peti­

tions. The application

was rejected on

30th of August, 1988, by saying:

G

'

"From time to time, Civil Miscellaneous Petitions

had been moved and orders were made.

We do not see any justification to make any further order in such cases. All

CMPs are disposed of."

H Thereafter, the petitioner made another application for the same relief

""l'

RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. {MISRA, J.} 81

but the Registry did not entertain it in view of the final order of 30th

August, 1988. The present writ petition, in these circumstances, is not

maintainable. That apart, this Court had come to the conclusion on

30th of August, 1988, that mining activity in the Doon Valley area

must ultimately stop. The Court has taken into consideration the need

for availability of minimum supply of the mineral in question and to

make available such supply, controlled and regulated mining activity

has been permitted. Mining leases are not granted

by this Court and in

view of the conclusion already reached that no fresh mining activity

should be carried on,

we see no justification for entertaining this writ

petition.

Contempt Petition No. 25 of 1989

'

A

B

c

There is already an order that the proceeding for contempt is

misconceived. We do not find any justification to give any further time

-_ _.for lifting or removal. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

I.A. No. 9 of 1989

This application is by the Monitoring Committee appointed by

this Court and the prayer is to recall the order of 19th October, 1989,

and to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to sell the material and utilise

the proceeds for the purposes of reafforestation and conservation. In

D

view of the steps we have taken in the connected matters, no particular E

directions are necessary.

c

The only other question that is left for consideration is the

recommendation of the Monitoring Committee that the payment of F Rs.5 per metric ton of the extracted material fixed by this Court in

1988 should be raised to Rs.20 per metric ton. We have heard counsel

for the parties. We have also perused the report and the papers

produced on behalf of the lessees who are still running. We are in­

clined, on the materials placed, to take the view that the rate should be

enhanced to Rs.10 from Rs.5 with effect from Ist June, 1990. Since this G

will

not have any retrospective effect the liability for such payment

would

be only in respect of the lessees who are running by permission

of the Court given

in the main judgment of August 30, 1988.

It has been contended by some of the lessees before us that the

money which has been collected on the basis of Rs.5 per metric ton

has

· H

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

A not yet been utilised for plantation. We hope and trust that there is no

basis for the criticism but would like to advise the Monitoring Com-

mittee to activise its steps in the proper direction. '(

A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be placed

by the Monitoring Committee

by

30th June, 1990, for the considera­

B ti on

of the Court on the 23rd July,

1990.

The rehabilitation scheme which has already been furnished by ·r

the appropriate Committee should now be placed before the Court for --1

orders also on 23rd July, 1990

R.N.J. Petition disposed of.

·-

'

l-I