-

-

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT

KENDRA

&

ORS. E'fC.

v.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC.

DECEMBER 18, 1986

[RANGANATH MISRA AND A.J.N. SEN, JJ.)

A

B

·...f. Constitution of India, 1950:-

....,

Artic/e 5 I A (g)--Environment-Preservation of-Ecological

balance keeping

unaffected-Task-Government as also every citizen

undertake.

Mineral Regulations Act,

1948/ Minerals Concession Rules, 1949:

Limestone-Quarrying of-Grant of mining /eases-Deposits not to

be exploited at cost of ecology and environmental consideration.

c

A letter received from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement

Kendra Dehradun was treated as a Writ fetition and notices issued. D

The main allegations therein related to unauthorised and illegal mining

operations carried on in the Mussoorie

Hills and the area around

adversely affecting the ecology

orthe area and leading to, environmental

disturbances.

In July, 1983 this Court directed all fresh quarrying to he

stopped.

~ E

_-;<(

I ,

On ll .8.1983 this Court "ppointed Bhargav Committee for

inspecting all the mines except those belonging to the State of Uttar

?radesh and the Union of India for determining whether the safety

standards laid down in the Mines Act 1952 and the. Mines Rules were

being observed or not and whether there was any danger of landslides

or was any hazard to individuals, cattle or agricultural lands by carry-

ing

on of mining

operatioiis. Blasting operations in tbe area were also

directed

to he stopped. On the basis of the main report of the said

Committee this

Court on August 24, 1983 permitted removal of

li~estone already quarried. The Committee directed closure of some of

the mines and reported the defects appearing in other mines and called

upon the mine owne..S to carry out rectifications.

The Bhargav Committee classified the mines in A, B and C

groups. So far as the mines in Group <.: were concerned, the Committee·

recommended that they should he closed down. As regards the mines in

Group A, the Committee opined that the quarrying could he carried on

F

G

H

without any environmental or

ecole>gical hazard. The Committee also

641

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A

recommended closure of B Group mines parmanently. The Union ...

Government had also appointed a Working Group on mining of

limestone quarries in Dehradun and Mussoorie area some time in, 1983

which was also headed by Shri Bhargav who was heading the Commit-

tee appointed by this

Court. The Working Group submitted its report

in September, 1983. After a comparative analysis of the two reports,

B the Court found that the Working Group had taken these very mines

,..

for their study and had divided the mines into two categories, namely,

Class I

and Class II.

AU the mines then categorised as Class I were now

included by

the Bhargav Committee in Group A and the remaining

mines now classified as

Group B and C were in Class II.

-

c

This Court had also appointed an Expert Committee headed by

).._

Professor Valdia to consider the problems .of ecology and environment

with reference to mining. Professor V aldia gave a separate report while ·-f

the other two members gave a joint report. In its order of March 12,

1985, this

Court observed that it does not propose to rely on the report

of Professor

V aldia and it would not be safe to direct continuance or

D discontinuance of mining operations in limestone quarries on the basis

of Main Boundary Thrust. In 12th March, 1985 order this Court

directed that the limestone quarries located in Sahasradhara Block and

placed in Category II by the Working Group should be closed down, that

the limestone quarries placed in Category II by the Working Group

other than those which are placed in Category B and C by the Bhargav

~

E Committee should also be closed down save and except for the limestone

quarries covered by the mining leases numbers 31, 36 and 37 for which

the same direction should be given as would be given in regard to the

limestone

quarries classified as Category B in the Bhargav Committee

-

Report, and that if there are any subsisting leases in respect of any of

these limestone

quarries they will forthwith come to an end and if any

F suits or writ petitions for continuance expire on unexpired leases in

respect

of any of these limestone quarries are pending, they too will

')..,,

stand dismissed.

I

This Court also directed closing down of the mines in A Category

located within

the municipal limits of Mussoorie.

G

In regard to B Class quarries of the Bhargav Committee Report

which featured

in

Cate?,ory II of the Working Group Report, as also of ..

the A Category quarries wi~n;,. tlte municipal limits, this Court set up a

Committee headed by Shri Bandopadi1yay, then . Secretary in the

H

Ministry of Rural Development and called upon the mine owners to

submit a fuU and detailed scheme to that Committee for its examination

....

--+-

-

.A

....,..

"'"

)t

-

RU.RAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. 643

and report to the Court about the same. It was directed 'that until

further orders from this Court on the basis of the Bandopadhyay

Committee Report these mines shall not be worked. Bandopadhyay

Committee submitted its report rejecting the schemes put forward

by

various lessees of the mines which have been closed down. On 20th November, 1986 this Court granted time to the erstwhile

lessees

of mines to file objections to Bandopadhyay Committee Report

within six weeks

and reply, if any, to be filed by the petitioners and the

State within four weeks thereafter. The petitions were to come up for

hearing in

February, 1987.

By

order dated March 12, 1985 the Court made a detailed order

containing various directions reported in

[(1985) 3

SCR 169] and the

reasons therefor were to foUow later .

Hon'ble

Mr. Justice A.N. Sen one of the members of the Bench

who

heard these petitions before his retirement delivered judgment on

30th September 1985 expressing.his views that it is not necessary to give

any further reasons than those which are already stated in the order

made on 12th March, I 985 because the broad reasons have been ade-

quately set out in the

order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to

elaborate them.

Giving the reasons the Court,

HELD:

!.'On a perusal of order dated 12th March, 1985 the

other members of the Bench are inclined to agree with the view taken by

· Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Sen that the said order covered almost aU the

relevant aseects and touched upon every issue germane to the matter. [646E]

2. The question whether the schemes submitted by the mine les­

sees to Bandopadhyay Committee have been rightly rejected

or not and

whether

under those schemes, the mine lessees can be allowed to

carry

A

B

c;

D

E

F

on mining operations without iii any way adversely affecting environ­

ment

or ecological

balance or causing hazard to individuals, cattle or

agricultural lands still remain to be considered and would have to be G

decided in the light of the

view taken by this Court in the order dated

12th March,

1985 and the instant judgment.

[650C-E]

3. Preservation of the environment and keeping ·the ecological

balance unaffected is Ii task which not only Governments but also every

citizen

must undertake. It is a social

oblig:>tion and every Indian citizen

H

A

B

c

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987) I S.C.R.

is reminded that it is bis fundamental duty as enshrined in Article

51A(g)

of the Constitution.

(6531>-E)

4. Consciousness for environmental protection is of recent origin.

Scientific development have made it possible and convenient for man to

· approach the places which are beyond his ken. The consequences of

such interference with ecology and environment have

now come to he

realised.

[652F-H)

5. Government hoth at the Centre and in the

State-must realize

and remain cognizent of the fact that the stake involved in the matter is

large and far reaching. The evil consequences would last long. Once

that unwanted situation sets in, amends or repairs would not he possi­

ble. The greenery of India may perish and the Thar desert may expand

its limits. [652E-F]

6.

It has been commended earlier to the

State of Uttar Pradesh as

also to the Union of India that afforestation activity may he carried out

D in the whole valley and the hills. Such activity has been undertaken.

This

Court is not oblivious of the fact that the

n~tural resources have to

he tapped for the purposes of social development but one cannot forget

of the same time that tapping of resources have to he done with requisite

attention and care so that ecology and environment may not

he affected

in any serious way; there may not he any depletion of water resources

E

and long term planning most be undertaken to keep up the national

wealth.

[653B-C)

7. It is for the .Government and the Nation-and not for the

Court-to decide whether the deposits should he exploited at the cost of

ecology

and environmental considerations or the

industrial requirement

F should he otherwise satisfied.

It may he perhaps

possible to exercise

.....

greater control and vigil over the operation and strike a balance het- ~-.

ween preservation and utilisation and that would indeed he a matter for

G

an expert body to examine and on the basis of appropriate advice,

Government should take a policy decision and firmly implement the

same.

[652D-E)

8. In .the .instant case, the limestone quarries in the area are

estimated to satisfy roughly three per cent of the country's demand. At

the present rate of mining, the

deposits are likely to last some 50 years.

Digging

of

limestone and allowing the waste to roll down or carried

down by

rain water to the lower levels has affected the villages as also

H

the agricultural lands located helow the hills. For .removing tlie

-

•

RURALLITIGATIONv. STATEOFU.P. IMISRA,J.] 645

•

j..· limestones quarried from the mines, roads have been laid and for that

purpose the hills have been interfered with; traffic hazard for the local

population both animals and

men-has increased. [652Bl

'

9. In 1949 the Minerals Concession Rules made by the Central

Government under the Minerals Regulations Act, 1948 authorised ....l grant of mining leases and several applicants came forward for quarry­

. I'" ing of high grade limestone. Until 1962, extraction of limestone was permit~

ted on temporary permits by the State Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. [651F-G]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 8209 & 8821of1983.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

M.A. Krishnamoorthy, Pramod Dayal, Rishi Kesh, R.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, l.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 and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appearing Parties and

)l.

Devi Ditta Mal Petitioner in person. •

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by,

RANGANATH MISRA, J. On March 12, 1985, after hearing

counsel an~ parties appearing in person at great length this Court

made a detailed order wherein it was said;

'

A

B

c

D

E

"This case has been argued at great length before us not :

only because a large number

of lessees of limestone quar-F

ries are involved al)d each

of them has painstakingly and

exhaustively canvassed his factual as well as legal points

of

view but also because this is the first case of its kind in the

country involving issues relating to environment and

ec-0-

logical balance and the questions arising for consideration

G

are of grave moment and significance not only to the

people residing in the Mussoorie Hill range forming part

of

the Himalayas but also in their implications to the welfare

of the generality of people living in .the country. It brings

into sharp focus the conflict between development and

con­

servation and serves to emphasise the need for reconciling

the t~o in the larger interest of the country. But since

H

646

A.

B

[1987] 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

r

having regard to the voluminous material placed before us

and the momentous. issues raised for decision, it

is not.

possible for us to prepare a full and detailed judgment

immediately and at the same time, on account of interim

order made byus, mining operations carried out through

bias.ting have been stopped and the ends of justice require

that the lessees of limestone quarries should know, without

any unnecessary delay, as to where they stand

in regard to

their limestone quarries,

we propose to pass our order on

the writ petitions. The reasons for the order

will be set out

in the judgment to follow

later."

C In the meantime, one of us our kamed Brother Sen, J., has _.+--.

retired from the Court. Before that event h_appened, on 30th.

September, 1985, he delivered a judgment expressing his views on the f

matter. He indicated:

D

"I do not think it necessary to give any further reasons than

those which are already stated

in the order made by us on

12th March,

1985. Speaking personally for myself, I think

that the broad reasons have been adequately set out

in the

order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to elaborate

them."

E On a perusal of our order of the 12th March, 1985, we are inclined to -lo(

agree with his view that the detailed order covered almost all the

relevant aspects and touched upon every issue germane to the matter.

As this was the first case of its type with wide and serious ramifi-•

cations, we would like to give a brief account of the manner in which

F

ihe proceedings commenced, were carried on and are to be concluded.

By an order dated

14. 7 .1983, this

Court directed a letter received h

from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Debra Dun dated '·

2. 7 .1983 along with accompanying affidavits to be treated as a writ

petition and issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Col-

G lector of Debra Dun. The main allegation therein related to unau­

thorised and illegal mining operations carried on

in the Mussoorie Hills and the area around adversely affecting the ecology of the area

and leading to environmental disturbances. Later on, another applica-r

tion was directed to be tagged on and both the applications were dealt

with together. Several parties, mainly, mining lessees numbering more

H than 100, got impleaded either at the instance of the petitioners or on

their own seeking. By a later order made

in the month of July 1983,

..

RURALLITIGATIONv. STATEOFU.P. {MISRA.1.J 647

this Court directed all fresh quarrying to be stopped and called upon

the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of Dehra Dun

District to strictly enforce that order.

On 11.8.1983, after hearing the counsel for parties then appear­

ing, this Court appointed a Committee for the purpose of inspecting

all

the mines other than those belonging to the State of

Uttar Pradesh and

the Union of India, with a view to determining whether the safety

standards laid down

in the Mines Act, 1952, and the Mines Rules made

thereunder were being observed or not and whether there was any

danger

of landslides on account of the quarrying operations particu­

larly during the monsoon

in any of the mines and if there was any other

hazard

to individuals, cattle or agricultural lands by reason of the

carrying

on of mining operations. Blasting operations in the area were

also directed to be stopped. This Committee came to be known as the

Bhargava Committee and its members were authorised to inspect the

mines and give suitable directions. The Committee made its main

report on the. basis whereof this Court on August 24,

1983 permitte4

removal of limestone already quarried. The. Committee directed

closure

of some of the mines and reported the defects appearing in the

other mines and called upon the mine owners to carry out recti­

fications.

The Bhargava Committee classified the mines

in the area into

three groups being A, B and C.

So far as the mines in Group (C) were

concerned. the Committee was

of the view that.they were not suitable

for continuance and should, therefore, be closed down. So far as the

question related

lo

the mines in Group A the Committee was of the

opinion that the quarrying could be carried on without any environ­

mental

or ecological hazard. In regard to the B

group mines, the

Bhargava Committee opined that those may not be closed down

permanently though it did notice the adverse impact

of their mining

activities. In its order

of 12th March, 1985, this Court took note of the

.fact,that the Union Government had appointed a Working Group on

mining

of limestone quarries in Debra Dun and Mussoorie area some

time in

1983 and

the Working Group was also headed by Shri

Bhargava who was heading the Committee appointed by this Court.

The other members of the Working Group were experts in the field

and the Working Group had submitted the report in September !983.

A comparative analysis was made

by this Court in regard to the mines

by referring to both the reports. The Court found that the Working

Group had taken these very mines for their study arid had divided the

mines into two

categories-namely, Class I and Class II. It

transryires

'

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

c

D

E

F

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

that all the mines then categorised as Class I were now included by the

Bhargava Committee in Group A and the remaining mines now clas­

sified as Group Band C by the Bhargava Committee were in Class II.

This Court had also appointed an Expert Committee with Pro­

fessor Valdia and two Members mainly to consider the problems of

ecology and environment with reference to mining. Professor Valdia

gave a separate report while the other two members gave a joint re­

port. Dealing with the separate report furnished

by Professor Valdia,

this

Court in its order of March 12. 1985 stated:

"We may observe straightaway that we do not propose to

rely

on the report of Professor Valdia who was one of the

Members

of the Expert Committee appointed by our order

dated 2.9.1983 as modified

by the order dated 23rd

October, 1983. This Committee consisted of Professor

Valdia, Shri Hukum Singh and Shri D.N. Kaul and it was

appointed to enquire and investigate into the question of

dist11rbance of ecology and pollution and affectation of air,

water and environment by reason

of quarrying operations

or working of stone crushers or limestone kilns. Shri

Hukum Singh

sub!llitted a joint report in regard to various

aspects while Professor Valdia submitted a separate report.

Professor Valdia's report was confined shortly to the

geological aspect and

in his report he placed considerable

reliance on the Main Boundary Thrust (shortly referred to

as M.B.T.) and he took the view that limestone quarries

which were

pangerously close to M.B.T. should be closed

down, because they were in the sensitive and vulnerable

belt. We shall examine this report in detail when

we

~ve

our reasons but we may straightaway point out that w do

not think it safe to direct continuance

or discontinuance of

mining operations in limestone .quarries on the basis of M.B.T."

At the further hearings after the said order, parties did not address

>:--

'

G arguments with reference to M.B.T. and we are of the view that this

topic

need not be dealt with by us. In 12th March 1985 order we

directed that the limestone. quarries located in Sahasradhara Block and

placed in Category

II by the Working Group should be closed down.

'>r ·

We further said:

H "We would also direct, agreeing with the Report made by

•

..

RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.) 649

the Working Group that the limestone quarries placed in A

Category II

by the Working Group other than those which

are placed

in Categories B and C by the Bhargava Commit-

tee should also not

be allowed to be operated and shoud be

closed down save and except for the limestone quarries

covered by the mining leases nuinbers

31, 36 and 37 for

which

we will give the same direction as we are giving in the

succeeding paragraphs

in regard to the limestone quarries

classified as Category B

in the Bhargava Committee

Report.

If there are any subsisting leases in respect of any

of these limestone quarries they will forthwith come to an

erid and if any suits or writ petitions for continuance expire

or unexpired leases in respect of any of these limestone

quarries are pending, they too

will stand

dismissed."

This Court directed closing down of the mines in A Category

located withif! the municipal limits of Mussoorie.

13

c

In regard to B Class quarries of the Bhargavjl _Committee Report D

which featured in Category II of the Working Group Report,

as also of

the A Category quarries within the municipal limits,

we set up a Com­

mittee under the chairmanship

of

Shri D. Bandyopadhyay, then Sec­

retary in the Ministry of Rural Development and called upon the mine

owners to submit a full and detailed scheme to that Committee which

would examine the said scheme keeping

in view the provisions of the

law as also the expediency

of allowing mining operations in the are'a

and report to the Court about the same. We have directed that until

further orders from this Court on

the basis of Bandopadhyay Commit-

tee report these mines shall not be worked.

It may be pointed out that

the Bandopadhyay Committe.e has submitted its report rejecting the

schemes

put forward by various lessees of the mines which have been

·closed down and on 20th November, 1986, this Court .has directed:

I

"We are informed that Bandopadhyay Committee has &Ub­

mitted its report rejectig the schemes put forward by vari-

E

F

ous erstwhile lessees of the mines which have been closed

down now. This Report

was

made as far back as in April' G

!986 and those who wanted to raise objections, ought to

have done so within a reasonable time after the report

was

submitted

·and those who have failed to do so, we cannot

shut them out and prevent them from raising their objec­

tions; and ·in any event delay in filing cannot prejudice

public interest since stone quarrying had already closed H

A

B

c

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] I S.C.R.

down. We would, therefore, grant time to the erstwhile

lessees of mines, who

wish to raise objections, to file their

objections within

six weeks from

to-day and reply, if any,

to those objections

may be filed on behalf of the petitioners

and the State of

Uttar Pradesh within four weeks there­

after.

The old record of the case may also be kept in Court

at the time of the hearing of this Writ Petition.

Writ.Petition

will come up for hearing on 3rd Tues-

day

in February 1987 before a Bench of which Hon'ble Mr.

,t-,.

Justice Ranganath Misra is a member."

From the aforesaid order it is clear that in view of the directions

given

by this

Co.urt the question still remains to be considered whether

the schemes submitted

by the mine lessees to the Bandopadhyaya Committee under our Order dated 12th March 1985 have been rightly

D rejected or not and whether under those schemes, the mine lessees can

be allowed to carry on mining operations without

in any way adversely

affecting environment or ecological balance or causing hazard to indi­

viduals, cattle and agricultural lands. This question would, of course,

have to be decided

in the light of the view taken by us in our

Order

E

F

G

dated

12th March 1985 and the present judgment.

·

The Himalayan range on the Northern Boundary of India is the

most recent mountain range and yet it

is the tallest. It has fonned the

Northern boundary

of the country and until recent times provided an

impregnable protection to the Indian sub-continent from the Northern

direction

.. This mountain range has been

responsible to regulate the

monsoons and consequently the rainfall in the Indo-gangetic belt. The .),._

Himalayas are the source for perennial rivers-the Ganges, Yamuna

and Brahmputra as also several other tributaries which have joined

these main rivers. For thousands of years nature has displaced its

splendour through the lush green trees, innumerable springs and

beautiful flowers. The Himalayas has been th·e store house of herbs,

shurbs and plants. Deep forests on the lower hills have helped to

generate congenial conditions for good rain.

The Doon Valley has been an exquisite region bounded by the

Himalayan and the Shivalik ranges and the Ganga and Yamuna rivers.

The perennial water streams and the fertile

soil have contributed not

H only to the growth of dense lush green forests but have helped the yield

RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OFU.P. [MISRA, J.] 651

of basmati rice and leechis. Mussoorie, known as the queen of Indian A

hill stations situated at a height

of

5000 ft. above sea level and Debra

Doon located below the heights have turned out to be important places

of tourist attraction, centres of education, research and defence

c_omplex.

At present the Valley is in danger. because of erratic, irrational

and uncontrolled quarrying of limestone. The landscape has been

stripped bare' of its verdant cover. Green cover today is about IO per

cent of the area while from decades ago it was almost 70 per cent.

The limestone belt has acted as the aquifer-to hold and release

water perennially. All the important streams-Song, Baldi, Rispana,

Kairuli

and Bhitarli originate from this area. Reckless mining, careless

disposal

of the mine-debris and random blasting operations have dis­

turbed the

natural· water system and the supply of water both for

drinking and irrigation has substantially gone down. There is a_ growing

apprehension that if mining is carried on in this process, a stage will

come when there would be dearth of water in the entire belt.

About a hundred years. back around the middle of the last

century, Britishers ·penetrated into the area and developed Mussoorie

as a Hill Resort. The existence of huge limestone deposits came to be

discovered

by the beginning of this century. Quarrying operations on

small scale

began. Direct human interference in limestone quarrying

seems to have begun in 1900. Around

1904 all the quarries were

declared as property of the Government and as appears from the

Bandopadhyay Report, in the year 1911 there existed only four

limestone quarries.

It had been working in the Debra Dun

area. Around

1947, limestone quarrying took a new

tum and a number

of persons who

had migrated from Pakistan started working on limestone deposits by

quarrying in private lands. In 1949, the Minerals Concession Rules

made by the Central Government under the Minerals Regulations

Act, !948, authorised grant of mining leases and several applicants

came forward

for quarrying of high grade limestone.

Until 1962, ex-·

traction of limestone was permitted on temporary permits by the State

Government of Uttar Pradesh.

In these proceedings we came across 105 mmmg leases and

these, as the various reports have indicated, had direct environmental

impact on the area. It is said that the limestone deposits in this area are

of high grade having upto 99.8 calcium carbonate. Mining operations

in _these

areas have led to cutting down of the forest. Digging of

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R.

A limestone and allowing the waste to roll down or carried down by rain

water to the lower levels has affected the villages as also the

agricultural lands located below the hills. The naturally formed

streams have been blocked. Blasting has disturbed the natural quiet,

has

shaken the soil, loosened the rocky structures and disturbed the

B

c

entire ecology of the area. For removing the limestones quarried from

the mines, roads have been laid and for that purpose the hills have.

~

been interfered with; traffic hazard. for the local population-both

animals and men-has increased.

The limestone quarries in this area are estimated to satisfy

roughly

three per cent of the country's demand for such raw material

and we. were told during the hearing that the Tata Iron and

Steel

Company is the largest consumer of this limestone for manufacturer of

a special kind

of steel. At the present rate of mining, the deposits are

likely to last some

50 years. It is for the Government and the Nation­

and not for the Court-to decide whether the deposits sliould be ex-

D ploited as

the cost of ecology and environmental considerations or the

industrial requirement should be otherwise

satisfied.· It may be

perhaps possible to exercise greater control and vigil over the opera­

tion

and strike a balance between preservation and utilisation that

would

indeed be a matter for an expert body to examine and on the

E

F

G

H

basis of appropriate advice, Government should take a policy decision

-'(_

and firmly implement the same.

Governments-both at the Centre and in the State-must realize

· and remain cognizant of the fact that the stake involved in the matter is

large and far-reaching. The evil consequences would last long. Once

that unwanted situation sets in, amends or repairs would not be possi­

ble.

The greenery of India, as some doubt, may perish and the Thar

desert may expand its limits.

'>-.,.

Consciousness for environmental protection is of recent origin.

The United Nations Conference on World Environment held in Stock­

holm in June 1972 and the follow-up action thereafter is spreading the

awareness. Over thousands of years men had been successfully ex­

ploitiag

the ecological system for his sustenance but with the growth of

population the demand for land has increased and forest growth has

been and is being cut down and man

has started encroaching upon

Nature and its assets. Scientific developments have made it possible

and convenient for man to approach the places which were hitherto

beyond his ken.

The consequences of such interference with ecology

and environment have now came to be realised. It is necessary that the

-

RURAL LITIGATION v. STATEOFU.P. [MISRA,J.l 653

:>

Himalayas and the forest growth on the mountain range should be left A

uninterfered with so that there may be sufficient quantity

of rain. The

top soil may be preserved withoutbeing eroded and the natural setting

of the area may remain intact. We had commended earlier to the

State

of Uttar Pradesh as also to the Union of India I.hat afforestation acti-

--t

vity may be carried out in the whole valley and the hills. We have been

B

told that such activity ,has been undertaken. We are not oblivious of

the fact that natural resoun;es·have got to be tapped for the purposes

of social development but one cannot forget at the same time that

tapping

of resources have to be done with requisite attention and care

4

so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious

way;

there

may not be any depletion of water resources and long-term

planning must be undertaken to keep up the national wealth.

It has c -y· always to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind

and are not intended to be exhausted in one ~eneration.

We must pla.ce on record our appreciation of the steps taken by

the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra. But for this move, all

D

that.

has happened perhaps may not have

_come. Preservation of the

environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected

is a task

which

not only Governments but also

every citizen must undertake. It

is a social obligation and let us remind every Indian citizen that it is his

• )o fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 5 lA(g) of the Constitution .

We are of the view that the Kendra should be entitled to the costs

E

of this proceeding. We assess the same at Rs.10.000 and direct the

-

State of Uttar Prad!!sh to pay the same either directly or through Court

within

one month.

A.P.J.

~