Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.

Lime stone quarries in the Dehradun and Mussoorie hill area were challenged before the Supreme Court as harmful to the environment (the surroundings in which people and living things exist). The Court stopped mining in some quarries at once and sent others to a new expert committee. It said this was the first case of its kind in the country.

Quick Revision

Parties

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun, and others — petitioners. They brought the writ petitions.

State of Uttar Pradesh and others — respondents. The State also opposed the lessees on the quantity of minerals lying at the quarry sites.

Lessees of the lime stone quarries — parties before the Court. A large number of them argued their factual and legal points at length. Some were represented by Shri Pramod Dayal, advocate.

Interventionists (intervenor: a person allowed to join a case) — persons who intervened in the case. The order mentions them only when it allows the Bandyopadhyay Committee to hear them.

Procedural History

1. The source header names the Bench as Bhagwati, Amarendra Nath Sen and Misra Rangnath, JJ. It gives the date of judgment as 12 March 1985, with equivalent citations (AIR, SCR, SCC, SCALE) and a citator list. Bhagwati, J. delivered the judgment.
2. The case is two writ petitions, Nos. 8209 and 8821 of 1983, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
3. By an order dated 11 August 1983 the Court appointed a Committee of three experts. It was to inspect the lime stone quarries named in the petitions and in the list given by the Government of Uttar Pradesh.
4. By an order of 2 September 1983, modified on 25 October 1983, the Court named an Expert Committee. It was to enquire into ecology (how living things relate to their surroundings), pollution (harmful contamination of air, water or land) and the effect of quarrying on air, water and environment.
5. On 15 December 1983 the Court asked the District Magistrate, Dehradun, to send an officer to assess the minerals lying at the closed quarries.
6. On 5 January 1984 the Court appointed two officers to assess the quantity of minerals at the quarries directed to be closed.
7. The Court made an interim order that stopped mining operations carried out through blasting.
8. After the hearing the Court passed its order of 12 March 1985. It said the reasons would be set out in a judgment to follow later.
9. No lower-court decision is recorded. The order refers to stay orders and pending suits or writ petitions that lessees had filed in other courts.

Facts

1. The writ petitions concerned lime stone quarries in the Dehradun mining area. The Court says the quarries are in the Mussoorie Hill range, part of the Himalayas.
2. A large number of lessees held the quarries. Each lessee argued his own facts and law at length.
3. On 11 August 1983 the Court appointed a Committee of D.N. Bhargav (Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur), M.S. Kahlon (Director General of Mines Safety) and Col. P. Mishra (Head of the Indian Photo Interpretation Institute, National Remote Sensing Agency).
4. This Bhargav Committee submitted three reports after inspecting most of the quarries. It divided them into three categories.
   • Category A: the adverse impact of mining was relatively less pronounced.
   • Category B: the adverse impact of mining was relatively more pronounced.
   • Category C: the quarries had been directed to be closed under the Court's orders because of serious safety and hazard deficiencies.
5. In 1983 the Government of India appointed a Working Group on Mining of Lime Stone Quarries in the Dehradun Mussoorie area. It was headed by the same D.N. Bhargav and had five other members.
6. One member, Dr. S. Mudgal, was Director in the Department of Environment, Government of India. He placed the Working Group report before the Court with his affidavit.
7. In its report of September 1983 the Working Group divided the quarries into category 1 (suitable for continued mining) and category 2 (unsuitable for further mining).
8. The two reports matched in most places. The Category A quarries of the Bhargav Committee were the Working Group's category 1. Categories B and C of the Bhargav Committee were the Working Group's category 2.
9. Both bodies agreed that Category A quarries were suitable for continued mining. Both also agreed that Category C quarries should be closed.
10. They differed only on Category B. The Bhargav Committee said these quarries need not be closed, but noted a more pronounced adverse impact. The Working Group said they were not suitable for further mining.
11. By the Court's order of 2 September 1983 (modified on 25 October 1983) an Expert Committee of Prof. K.S. Valdia, Shri Hukum Singh and Shri D.N. Kaul enquired into ecology, pollution and the effect on air, water and environment of quarrying, stone crushers and lime stone kilns.
12. Shri Kaul and Shri Hukum Singh gave a joint report. Prof. Valdia gave a separate report that dealt largely with geology and relied heavily on the Main Boundary Thrust (M.B.T.). He said quarries dangerously close to the M.B.T. should be closed because the belt was sensitive and vulnerable.
13. Several applications asked for removal of lime stone, dolomite and marble chips already mined and lying at the sites.
14. For the quarries other than the Category A quarries outside Mussoorie city, the lessees and the petitioners and the State disagreed on the quantity of minerals lying at the sites.
15. On 15 December 1983 the Court asked the District Magistrate, Dehradun, to send an officer to assess the lime stone at the sites. He sent the Sub-Divisional Magistrates of Mussoorie and the Tehsildar (Quarry), Dehradun, to inspect the 20 quarries in Category C, which had been ordered closed under the Bhargav Committee's directions.
16. Kedar Singh Arya, Tehsildar (Quarry), Dehradun, filed an affidavit with a chart of the minerals mined and lying at the sites.
17. On 5 January 1984 the Court appointed two officers, Shri D. Bandophadyay and the Director of Geology (Mines), Lucknow. They were to visit the closed quarries and assess the quantity of minerals after notice to the lessees, the District Magistrate and the petitioners' representatives.
18. They visited the quarries and made their assessment in January 1984. The quantity was very much less than the lessees claimed.
19. The December 1983 figures of the District authorities were smaller than the January 1984 figures. The lessees' present claims were larger again.
20. Although these quarries were directed to be closed, illegal mining appears to have been carried on in secret. The December 1983 and January 1984 figures, and the lessees' present claims, kept growing.
21. Because of the Court's interim order, mining by blasting had stopped.

Issues Raised

The order does not list issues in numbered form. The questions it decides are these.

1. Which lime stone quarries in the Dehradun Mussoorie area should be closed down, given the reports of the Bhargav Committee and the Working Group?
2. Which quarries may continue mining, and on what conditions?
3. Should the quarries in Category B, and the Category A quarries inside Mussoorie city, be cleared or closed without a further inquiry?
4. How should the environmental harm of quarrying be weighed against the need for lime stone for industry?
5. What relief should be given to the lessees and workmen who lose their business or work?
6. May the lessees remove the minerals already mined and lying at the sites, and how?

Arguments Contended

The order says the case was argued at length. It does not set out the arguments of either side in detail. It records only the points below.

For the petitioners and the State of Uttar Pradesh

1. The order records no separate argument for the petitioners or the State on whether the quarries should close.
2. On the minerals lying at the sites, the petitioners and the State disputed the lessees' claims about the quantity.

For the lessees (respondents)

1. Each lessee canvassed his factual points and his legal points in the case.
2. The lessees claimed that a larger quantity of minerals was lying at the sites than the officers had found.
3. Learned advocate Shri Pramod Dayal appeared for some of the lessees. He arranged the affidavits and written submissions systematically.
4. The order mentions stay orders obtained from courts, and suits and writ petitions for continuance or renewal of leases. These are the lessees' own proceedings, not recorded arguments.

The Court states that it is not going into the various ramifications of the arguments advanced while making the order.

Court's Reasoning

The order was delivered by Bhagwati, J. for the Bench of three Judges. There is no separate or dissenting opinion. The order has no numbered paragraphs, so no paragraph numbers are cited.

Opinion of the Court (Bhagwati, J.)

1. Noted: the case was argued at great length because many lessees were involved. The Court called it "the first case of its kind in the country involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance".
2. Noted: the case raises questions of grave importance for people in the Mussoorie Hill range and for people across the country. It brings into sharp focus the conflict between development and conservation (keeping natural resources safe). It shows the need to reconcile the two in the larger interest of the country.
3. Noted: the material was voluminous and the issues momentous, so a full judgment could not be prepared at once. Mining by blasting had stopped because of the interim order. The lessees needed to know their position without delay. Why: so the Court passed its order now and promised the reasons in a later judgment.
4. Noted: the Bhargav Committee's three categories were based on the severity of the mining impact. Category C quarries had already been closed under the Court's orders.
5. Noted: the Working Group's categories 1 and 2 matched the Bhargav Committee's categories. Both bodies agreed on A and C. They differed only on B.
6. Held: the Court will not rely on the report of Prof. K.S. Valdia. It does "not think it safe to direct continuance or discontinuance of mining operations" in the quarries on the basis of the M.B.T. The Court adds that it does not doubt the correctness of his report. It will examine the report in detail when it gives its reasons.
7. Noted: the Court will also examine whether lime stone deposits act as aquifers. There is no denying that quarrying and excavation of lime stone deposits do seem to affect the perennial water springs.
8. Held: this environmental disturbance has to be weighed against the need for lime stone quarrying for industrial purposes in the country. The Court took this into account in making the order.
9. Held: Category C quarries, already closed under the Bhargav Committee's directions, should not be allowed to operate. Any stay order from any court allowing mining stands dissolved. Subsisting leases end without liability against the State of Uttar Pradesh. Pending suits or writ petitions for continuance of expired or unexpired leases stand dismissed.
10. Held: the Sahasradhara Block quarries are placed in Category B by the Bhargav Committee. The Court agrees with the Working Group report and directs that they be closed at once.
11. Held: the Court also agrees with the Working Group on the quarries placed in category 2 other than those in Categories B and C. They are not to operate and are to be closed. The exception is the quarries under mining leases Nos. 31, 36 and 37, which get the Category B treatment. Subsisting leases end at once. Pending suits or writ petitions for continuance of leases are dismissed.
12. Held: Category A quarries (the Working Group's category 1) fall into two classes, inside and outside the city limits of Mussoorie. Those outside the city limits may operate. They must observe the Mines Act 1952, the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and other relevant statutes, rules and regulations.
13. Held: the Court does not hold that expired leases are automatically renewed where suits or writ petitions for renewal are pending. The appropriate courts will decide renewal on the law and facts of each case.
14. Held: Category A quarries inside the city limits of Mussoorie get the same direction as Category B quarries.
15. Held: the Court does not clear Category B quarries (the Working Group's category 2) for continued mining. It does not close them permanently without further inquiry either. It appoints a high powered committee, the Bandyopadhyay Committee.
16. Noted: the Committee is chaired by Mr. D. Bandyopadhyay, Secretary, Ministry for Rural Development. Its members are Shri H.S. Ahuja (Director General, Mines Safety, Dhanbad), Shri D.N. Bhargav (Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur) and two experts nominated by the Department of Environment, Government of India within four weeks.
17. Held: lessees of Category B quarries, and of Category A quarries inside Mussoorie city, may submit a full and detailed mining scheme to the Committee. The Committee must examine it without unnecessary delay. It must report to the Court whether the quarry can operate under the scheme, and on what conditions. If it cannot, the Committee must give reasons.
18. Held: the Committee will take into account the aspects the Court had asked the Bhargav Committee and the Kaul Committee to consider. This includes whether the quarry is inside Mussoorie city limits. It must also give the lessee an opportunity to be heard, even if briefly.
19. Held: the Committee will consider whether the lessee violated the Mines Act 1952, the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and other statutes, rules and regulations. It will consider the nature, extent and frequency of the violations and their possible hazards.
20. Held: the Committee will insist on a broad plan of exploitation and detailed mining management plans. It will ensure that lime stone is exploited in a scientific and systematic manner. Two or more lessees may be required to combine their areas if necessary.
21. Held: the Committee should ensure that lime stone is used only in special industries, having regard to its quality. It should not be wasted in industries that do not need high grade lime stone.
22. Held: the State of Uttar Pradesh will meet the Committee's expenses, including allowances appropriate to the members' offices. It will provide transport and other facilities. The District Administration of Dehradun will help serve notices. The Indian Bureau of Mines will provide secretarial facilities.
23. Held: before giving its opinion, the Committee may hear the petitioner, the interventionists and other persons or organisations interested in maintaining a healthy environment and ecological balance.
24. Held: the Court will consider the Committee's report in each case and then decide whether the quarry may operate. Until then the quarries may not operate or be worked. The District Authorities of Dehradun must take prompt and active steps so that no mining is carried on, even clandestinely.
25. Held: this order overrides any stay or interim order obtained by a lessee. Despite any stay, interim order or subsisting lease, the lessees may not carry on any mining activity in these quarries.
26. Held: in the meantime the lessees may not correct the defects pointed out in the orders of the District Mining authority. They may include proposals to correct them in the scheme sent to the Committee. The State may not use non-correction of defects as a ground for ending the lease.
27. Noted: the Category C quarries at Sl. Nos. 17 to 20 had already been closed. No further direction is needed except for removal of lime stone, dolomite and marble chips lying at the site.
28. Noted: lessees of quarries closed permanently, now or after the Committee's report, will be thrown out of business in which they invested large sums of money, time and effort. This would cause them hardship.
29. Held: that hardship is the price of protecting "the right of the people to live in healthy environment" with minimal disturbance of ecological balance. People must also be free from avoidable hazard to themselves, their cattle, homes and agricultural land, and from undue effect on air, water and environment.
30. Held: to ease the hardship, whenever another area in Uttar Pradesh is opened for lime stone or dolomite quarrying, the displaced lessees get priority. They must be told the area is available so they can apply. Priority is subject to their being otherwise fit and eligible. The Court is confident that the Government of India and the State will take the order's considerations into account when opening new areas.
31. Noted: workmen of the permanently closed quarries will lose work. Workmen of quarries closed temporarily, pending schemes and the Committee's report, will be without work for the time being.
32. Held: quarries that are or will be closed permanently must be reclaimed, with afforestation and soil conservation. Immediate steps must be taken for reclamation, using the existing Eco-Task Force of the Department of Environment, Government of India. Workmen thrown out of employment must, as far as practicable and as fast as possible, get jobs in this programme.
33. Held: Category A quarries outside Mussoorie city have been allowed to operate. The lessees must be allowed to remove the minerals lying at the sites without any restriction, except those set by statutes, rules or regulations, and subject to payment of royalty.
34. Noted: for the other quarries, the lessees and the petitioners and the State disagreed on the exact quantity lying at the sites. The Court recounts the District Magistrate's inspection and the January 1984 assessment of Shri Bandophadyay and the Director of Geology (Mines), Lucknow.
35. Noted: the quantity assessed by those two officers was very much less than the lessees claimed. The Court says illegal mining appears to have been done in secret in the closed quarries. Otherwise the figures would not have grown between December 1983 and January 1984, and again afterwards.
36. Held: the Court does not decide the precise quantity mined and lying at the site when the quarries were closed. It lets the lessees remove whatever minerals are found at the site or its vicinity, provided they are covered by their leases or quarry permits.
37. Held: removal must be done and completed within four weeks of the order. It must be done in the presence of three persons:
38. an officer not below the rank of Deputy Collector, nominated by the District Magistrate, Dehradun;
39. a gazetted officer of the Mines Department, nominated by the Director of Mines;
40. a public spirit individual in Dehradun, other than Mr. Avdesh Koushal, nominated by Shri D. Bandopadhyay.
41. Held: the nominations are to be made within one week and may be changed from time to time. The lessees must give notice of intended removal to the District Magistrate, the Director of Mines and the person nominated by Shri Bandophadyay. They may not remove any minerals except in the presence of the three persons. After four weeks they must report the precise quantities removed. They may not remove any minerals after four weeks.
42. Noted: the Court thanks Shri Pramod Dayal for his very commendable assistance. Without it the hearing and the order could not have been completed so fast.

Authorities

• The order cites no decided case.
• Bhargav Committee reports (three): used to classify the quarries into Categories A, B and C. The Court relied on them.
• Working Group report (September 1983): used to classify quarries into categories 1 and 2. The Court agreed with it on the Sahasradhara Block and on category 2 quarries.
• Report of Prof. K.S. Valdia: the Court did not rely on it, but did not doubt it.
• Joint report of Shri D.N. Kaul and Shri Hukum Singh: mentioned. The Bandyopadhyay Committee must take into account the aspects the Court had asked the Bhargav Committee and the Kaul Committee to consider.
• Mines Act 1952 and Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961: the working conditions for permitted quarries.
• Also cited in footnotes: none. Articles 32 and 48A of the Constitution appear in the headnote subject index. The petitions were filed under Article 32. The judgment text does not state what Article 48A says.

Judgement

The Court passed the following order on the writ petitions.

1. Category C quarries, already closed, must not operate. Stay orders stand dissolved. Subsisting leases end without liability against the State of Uttar Pradesh. Pending suits and writ petitions for continuance are dismissed.
2. The Sahasradhara Block quarries must close at once, though placed in Category B.
3. The quarries in the Working Group's category 2, other than those in Categories B and C, must not operate and must close. Mining leases Nos. 31, 36 and 37 get the Category B treatment. Subsisting leases end at once. Pending suits and writ petitions are dismissed.
4. Category A (Working Group category 1) quarries outside Mussoorie city limits may operate. They must follow the Mines Act 1952, the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and other relevant laws. Expired leases are not automatically renewed. The courts will decide renewal case by case.
5. Category A quarries inside Mussoorie city limits are treated like Category B quarries.
6. The Bandyopadhyay Committee is appointed. Its members are D. Bandyopadhyay (Chairman), H.S. Ahuja, D.N. Bhargav and two experts nominated by the Department of Environment within four weeks.
7. Lessees of Category B quarries and of Category A quarries inside Mussoorie city may submit mining schemes to the Committee. It reports to the Court. The Court then decides each quarry.
8. Until then those quarries may not operate. The District Authorities of Dehradun must prevent any mining, even clandestine.
9. This order overrides any stay or interim order. The lessees may not correct defects meanwhile. The State may not end leases for non-correction of defects.
10. The State of Uttar Pradesh must provide the Committee's funds, allowances, transport and other facilities. The District Administration of Dehradun helps serve notices. The Indian Bureau of Mines provides secretarial facilities.
11. The Committee may hear the petitioner, the interventionists and others interested in a healthy environment.
12. Nothing more is needed for the quarries at Sl. Nos. 17 to 20, except for removal of minerals lying at the site.
13. The Government of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh must give displaced lessees priority in grant of any new lime stone or dolomite lease area in Uttar Pradesh. They must tell them when an area is available.
14. Immediate steps must be taken to reclaim closed quarries, with the Eco-Task Force. Workmen thrown out of work are to get jobs in the afforestation and soil conservation programme as far as practicable.
15. Lessees of Category A quarries outside Mussoorie city may remove minerals at the site without restriction, except those set by law, and subject to royalty.
16. Other lessees may remove minerals covered by their leases or permits within four weeks, in the presence of the three nominated persons. They must give notice and file a report of the precise quantities removed.
17. The Government of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh must each pay Rs. 5,000 to Shri Pramod Dayal. This is not costs. It is additional remuneration in recognition of his valuable assistance.
18. No order as to costs is recorded in the order.

Legal Principle / Ratio

When mining harms the environment, the Court may close quarries, allow some to work under conditions, and send doubtful ones to an expert committee for inquiry. The harm to the environment is weighed against the need for the mineral. The hardship to lessees is the price of protecting the people's right to a healthy environment.

Key holding: hardship to lessees "is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment".

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The order is made first and the reasons are promised later. This page therefore holds only the conclusions and the short reasons given in the order.
• The Court says it will examine in detail the Valdia report and the aquifer question. The order does not decide them.
• The order does not mention Article 21. It also does not say where the "right of the people to live in healthy environment" comes from.
• The Court refuses to rely on the M.B.T. test for closure, but does not say what test it prefers. It relies on the two category reports.
• The Court treats the Bandyopadhyay Committee as the body that will decide the facts about Category B quarries. The Court itself takes the final decision.
• The Court says the quarries were closed but mining continued clandestinely. The order leaves enforcement to the District Authorities.

Significance

• The Court itself calls this the first case of its kind in the country on environment and ecological balance.
• It states the conflict between development and conservation and says both must be reconciled.
• It uses expert committees to classify quarries and to decide doubtful cases.
• It combines closure with relief: priority for new leases, reclamation and jobs for workmen.
• The order shows that a stay order from any court does not allow mining against the Supreme Court's direction.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: the Court may close harmful quarries and send doubtful ones to an expert committee. Trap: this is an order, with reasons promised later.
• Categories: A (less impact), B (more impact), C (closed for safety). The Working Group's category 1 matches A and its category 2 matches B and C.
• Disagreement: the two reports differ only on Category B.
• Valdia report: not relied on; the M.B.T. test was rejected as unsafe. The Court did not doubt the report.
• Bandyopadhyay Committee: examines mining schemes for Category B quarries and Category A quarries inside Mussoorie city. The Court decides after its report.
• Relief: priority for new leases, reclamation through the Eco-Task Force, jobs for workmen.
• Removal of minerals: four weeks, in the presence of three persons.
• Payment: Rs. 5,000 each from the Government of India and the State to Shri Pramod Dayal. Not costs.
• Do not write: Article 21 as a holding of this order. The order does not mention it.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so none are cited.