RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA V. STATE OF U.P., (1985) 2 SCC 431

 

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA V. STATE OF U.P., (1985) 2 SCC 431

FACTS

The Supreme Court had received a writ petition from Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra regarding the unauthorised and illegal operation of lime-stone quarries in the Mussoorie Hill range, India. It was argued that the quarries caused a hazard to healthy environment and affected the perennial water springs.

The Court thereafter had appointed an expert committee for the purpose of inspecting the lime-stone quarries. They had divided the lime-stone quarries into three categories according to the grade of the adverse impact of the mining operations (category A had the least pronounced adverse impact, category B had a more pronounced adverse impact and category C had been directed to be closed down).

The Government of India also appointed a Working Group on Mining of Lime Stone Quarries in Dehradun-Mussoorie area, some time in 1983. The Working Group was also headed by the same Shri D.N. Bhargav who was a member of the Bhargav Committee appointed by us. There were five other members of the Working Group along with Shri D.N. Bhargav and one of them was Dr. S. Mudgal who was at the relevant time Director in the Department of Environment, Government of India and who placed the Report of the Working Group before the Court along with his affidavit. The Working Group in its Report submitted in September 1983 made a review of lime stone quarry leases for continuance or discontinuance of mining operations and after a detailed consideration of various aspects recommended that the lime stone quarries should be divided into two categories, namely category 1 and category 2; category 1 comprising lime stone quarries considered suitable for continuance of mining operations and category 2 comprising lime stone quarries which were considered unsuitable for further mining.

JUDGEMENT

The Court by an Order appointed a Committee consisting of Shri D.N. Bhargav, Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, Shri M.S. Kahlon, Director General of Mines Safety and Col. P. Mishra, Head of the Indian Photo Interpretation Institute (National Remote Sensing Agency) for the purpose of inspecting the limestone quarries mentioned in the writ petition as also in the list submitted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. This Committee which we shall hereinafter for the sake of convenience refer to as the Bhargav Committee, submitted three reports after inspecting most of the limestone quarries and it divided the limestone quarries into three groups. The limestone quarries comprised in category A were those where in the opinion of the Bhargav Committee the adverse impact of the mining operations was relatively less pronounced; category B comprised those limestone quarries where in the opinion of the Bhargav Committee the adverse impact of mining operations was relatively more pronounced and category C covered those limestone quarries which had been directed to be closed down by the Bhargav Committee under the orders made by us on account of deficiencies regarding safety and hazards of more serious nature.

It is interesting to note that the lime stone quarries comprised in category A of the Bhargav Committee Report were the same lime stone quarries which were classified in category 1 by the Working Group and the lime stone quarries in categories B and C of the Bhargav Committee Report were classified in category 2 of the Report of the Working Group. It will thus be seen that both the Bhargav Committee and the Working Group were unanimous in their view that the lime stone quarries classified in category A by the Bhargav Committee Report and category 1 by the Working Group were suitable for continuance of mining operations. So far as the lime stone quarries in category C of the Bhargav Committee Report are concerned, they were regarded by both the Bhargav Committee and the Working Group as unsuitable for continuance of mining operations and both were of the view that they should be closed down. The only difference between the Bhargav Committee and the Working Group was in regard to lime stone quarries classified in category B. The Bhargav Committee Report took the view that these lime stone quarries need not be closed down, but it did observe that the adverse impact of mining operations in these lime stone quarries was more pronounced, while the Working Group definitely took the view that these lime stone quarries were not suitable for further mining. We are clearly of the view that so far as the lime stone quarries classified in category C in the Bhargav Committee Report are concerned which have already been closed down under the directions of the Bhargav Committee, should not be allowed to be operated.