DEEPAK KUMAR ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.

                     (2012] 4 S.C.R. 819


                   DEEPAK KUMAR ETC.                                A
                               v.
           STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.
                 I.A. NOS.12-13 OF 2011
                               IN
     (Special Leave Petition (C) No.19628-29 of 2009)               B
                    FEBRUARY 27, 2012

  [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND CHANDRAMAULI KR.
                  PRASAD, JJ.]
                                                                    c
       Environmental Laws - Mining lease - Necessity of proper
environmental assessment plan - Government of Haryana
issued auction notice dated 3. 6. 2011 proposing to auction
extraction of minor mineral boulder, gravel and sand quarries
of area not exceeding 4.5 hectares in each case in the District     D
of Panchkula, auction notices dated 8.8.2011 in the District
of Panchkula, Ambala and Yamuna Nagar exceeding 5
hectares and above, quarrying minor mineral, road metal and
masonary stone mines in the District of Bhiwani, stone, sand
mines in the District of Mohindergarh, slate stone mines in         E
the District of Rewari, and also in the Districts of Kurukshetra,
Kamal, Faridabad and Palwal, with certain restrictions for
quarrying in the river beds of Yamuna, Tangri, Markanda,
Ghaggar, Krishnavati River basin, Dohan River basin etc. -
Validity of the auction notices under challenge - Complaint         F
of illegal mining going on in the State of Rajasthan and Uttar
Pradesh - Held: There are no materials to come to the
conclusion that the removal of minor mineral boulder, gravel,
sand quarries etc. covered by the auction notices dated
3.6.2011 and 8.8.2011, in the places notified therein and also      G
in the river beds would not cause environmental degradation
or threat to the biodiversity, destroy riverine vegetation, cause
erosion, pollute water sources etc. - The auction notices dated
3. 6. 2011 and 8. 8. 2011 have permitted quarrying mining and
                              819                                   H
    820      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 4 S.C.R.

A removal of sand from in-stream and upstream of several
    rivers, which may have serious environmental impact on
    ephemera/, seasonal and perennial rivers and river beds and
    sand extraction may have an adverse effect on bio-diversity
    as well - Further it may also lead to bed degradation and
B   sedimentation having a negative effect on the aquatic life -
    The auction notices were issued without conducting any study
    on the possible environmental impact on/in the river beds
    and elsewhere - When faced with a situation where extraction
    of alluvial material within or near a river bed has an impact
c   on the rivers physical habitat characteristics, like river stability,
    flood risk, environmental degradation, loss of habitat, decline
    in biodiversity, it is not an answer to say that the extraction is
    in blocks of less than 5 hectares, separated by 1 kilometre,
    because their collective impact may be significant, hence the
    necessity of a proper environmental assessment plan -
0
    Taking note of the technical, scientific and environmental
    matters, MoEF, Government of India, issued various
    recommendations in March 2010 followed by the Model
    Rules, 2010 framed by the Ministry of Mines which have to
    be given effect to, inculcating the spirit of Article 48A, Article
E   51A(g) read with Article 21 of the Constitution - The State of
    Haryana and various other States have not so far
    implemented the recommendations of the MoEF or the
    guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines before issuing
    auction notices granting short term permits by way of auction
F   of minor mineral boulders, gravel, sand etc., in the river beds
    and elsewhere of less than 5 hectares - Direction to all the
    States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines to
    give effect to the recommendations made by MoEF in its
    report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the
G   Ministry of Mines, within a period of six months from date of
    this order and submit their compliance reports - Central
    Government also should take steps to bring into force the
    Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules 2010
    at the earliest - State Governments and UTs also should take
H   immediate steps to frame necessary rules under Section 15
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 821
               ORS. ETC.
of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)             A
Act, 1957 taking into consideration the recommendations of
MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and model guidelines
framed by the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India - In the
meanwhile, leases of minor mineral including their renewal
for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States/   B
Union Territories only after getting· environmental clearance
from the MoEF - Mines and Minerals (Development &
Regulation) Act 1957 - s.15 - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 48A, 51A(g) rlw 21.

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. Nos.12-13 of               C
2011
                                 IN
SLP (CIVIL) No. 19628-19629 of 2009 etc.
                                                                   D
     From the Judgment & Order dated 15.05.2009 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP Nos. 20134
of 2004 and 4758 of 2008.
                               WITH
       SLP (C) Nos. 729-731 of 2011, 21833 of 2009, 12498-         E
12499 of 2010, SLP (C) ..... CC 16157 of 2011 with SLP
(C) ..... CC 18235 of 2011.

    Mohan Jain, ASG, P.S. Narasimha, Gopal Subramanium,
Ranjit Kumar, P.S. Patwalia, Ranbir Chandra, Narender Hooda,       F
Sr. AAG, Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, Gaurav Agarwal, K.
Parmeswar, Haris Beeran, P.K. Manohar, V. Venayagam
Balan, Shish Pal Laler, N.P. Midha, Balbir Singh Gupta, D.K.
Thakur, B.K. Prasad, S.N. Terdol, Shvinder Dwivedi, Tarjit
Singh, Manjit Singh (for Kamal Mohan Gupta), Aseem Mehrotra,       G
Mohd. F. Khan, Shefai Jain, R.P. Singh, Shree Pal Singh,
Devashish Bharuka, Radha Shyam Jena, Tapesh Kumar Singh,
Samir Ali Khan, Jitender Mohan Sharma, Sandeep Singh,
Vibhor Verdhan, Sameer Singh, Mohit Kumar Shah, Ashutosh
Singh, Devanshu K. Devesh, lrshad Ahamad, Sarvesh Singh,           H
    822      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A A. Benayagamblan, Manish Pitale, Wasi Haider, C.S. Ashri,
  Asha G. Nair, Sanand, Ramakrishnan, Meena C.R., Kamlendra
  Misra, Karanjawala & Co. Prakash Kumar Singh, Vijay
  Panjwani, Anitha Shenoy, Vibha Dutta Makhija, D.S. Mahra, H.
  Wahi, D.K Sinha, Milind Kumar, Krihnanand Pandey, Rachana
B Srivastava, B.S. Banthia, D.K. Sinha, Gopal Singh, Anil
  Srivastava, H. Wahi, Corpt>rate Law Group, RS. Jena, T.V.
  George, Naresh K. Sharma, Prashant Bhushan, Shibashish
  Mishra, lrshad Ahmad, Prerna Mehta, S.M. Jadhav, Shiv Kumar
  Suri, G. Prakash, E.M.S. Anam, Gopal Singh, Subharo Sanyal,
c B.K. Prasad, Himinder Lal, Moinudding Ansari, L.R. Singh,
  C.D. Singh, Lalitha Kaushik, K.S. Bhati, Neeraj Shekhar,
  Sumita Hazarika, Suresh A. Shroff & Co. S. Prasad, Khaitan
  & Co. Pragati Neekhra, Naresh K. Sharma, R. Nedumaran,
  K.K. Mani, Srikala Gururishna Kumar, S. Srinivasan, Prashant
  Kumar, L.K. Pandey, Shiv Prakash Pandey, Sangeeta Kumar,
0
  Nikhil Nayyar, V. Ramasubramanian, Pratap Venugopal,
  Namrata Sood (for K.J. John & Co.), R. Ayyam Perumal,
  Prabha Swami, M.A. Chinnasamy, C.N. Sree Kumar, Naveen
  R. Nath, Revathy Raghavan, L.C. Agrawala, Ashwani Bhardwaj
E for the appearing parties.

          The Order of the Court was delivered

         K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. I.A. Nos. 12-13 of 2011 are
    allowed. SLP (C) Nos.12498-12499 of 2010 be detagged and
F   be listed after two weeks.

       The Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
  Haryana issued an auction notice dated 3.6.2011 proposing
  to auction the extraction of minor mineral boulder, gravel and
  sand quarries of an area not exceeding 4.5 hectares in each
G case in the District of Panchkula, auction notices dated
  8.8.2011 in the District of Panchkula, Ambala and Yamuna
  Nagar exceeding 5 hectares and above, quarrying minor
  mineral, road metal and masonary stone mines in the District
  of Bhiwani, stone, sand mines in the District of Mohindergarh,
H slate stone mines in the District of Rewari, and also in the
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 823
     ORS. ETC. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Districts of Kurukshetra, Kamal, Faridabad and Palwal, with          A
certain restrictions for quarrying in the river beds of Yamuna,
Tangri, Markanda, Ghaggar, Krishnavati River basin, Dohan
River basin etc. The validity of those auction notices is under
challenge before us, apart from the complaint of illegal mining
going on in the State of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.                s
     2'. When the matter came up for hearing on 25.11.2011,
we passed an order directing the CEC to make a local
inspection with intimation to MoEF, State of U.P., Rajasthan
and Haryana with regard to the alleged illegal mining going on       C
in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and also with regard
to the areas identified for mining in the State of Haryana and
submit a report. We also directed the CEC to examine whether
there has been an attempt to flout EIA Notification dated
14.9.2006 by breaking the homogeneous area into pieces of
less than 5 hectares. CEC was also directed to examine               D
whether the activities going on in that area have any adverse
environmental impact.

      3. CEC, in response to our order, submitted a detailed
report on 4.1.2012. However, the report is silent with regard to     E
the disturbing trend of serious illegal and unrestricted upstream,
in-stream and flood plain sand mining activities and the
prevailing degree of degradation of the sites and the
environment, especially on the river beds mentioned earlier.
Report of CEC however states that the auction notice also refer      F
to mining leases of less than 5 hectares and hence no
environmental clearance need be obtained as per the MoEF
notification dated 14.9.2006. No light is also thrown on the
question whether there has been, in fact, an attempt to flout the
notification dated 14.9.2006 by breaking the homogeneous             G
area into pieces of less than 5 hectares and the possible
environmental or ecological impact on quarrying of minor
minerals.

      4. Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, submitted that CEC report is silent about those         H
    824      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A aspects and also whether 1 km. distance has been maintained
  between the mining blocks of less than 5 hectares. Learned
  counsel also submitted that mining areas earmarked are at the
  foothills of fragile Himalayan ranges known as Shivalik hills,
  which are spread over the Districts of Panchkula, Ambala and
B Yamuna Nagar and the illegal and excessive mining has
  caused serious environmental degradation and ecological
  impact, and no Environmental Impact Assessment has ever
  taken place in areas earmarked for mining especially on the
  river beds.
c       5. Shri Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel
  appearing for the State of Haryana, submitted that the State
  has taken adequate and effective precautions to maintain 1 km.
  separation between mining blocks of less than 5 hectares each
  and that the auction notice dated 3.6.2011 itself has imposed
D strict restrictions on quarrying in the river beds so also the
  auction notice dated 8.8.2011. Further, it was pointed out that
  the notification dated 14.9.2006 would not apply for quarrying
  minor minerals from areas of less than 5 hectares and therefore,
  no environmental impact assessment needs to be undertaken
E either at the instance of the State Government or the Project
  Proponent.

       6. Shri Mohan Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General,
  appearing for the MoEF submitted that the grant or allotment
F of mining licence/lease of smaller plots of less than five hectares
  should not be encouraged from the environmental point of view
  and that the applicability of EIA notification of 2006, has to be
  seen in its letter and spirit so as to ensure environmental
  safeguards in place and implemented for sustainable mining.
  Learned counsel also assured, if environmental clearance is
G sought for covering a mining area of less than five hectares,
  the same shall be immediately attended to and necessary
  clearance would be granted in accordance with law.

      7. We have no materials before us to come to the
H conclusion that the removal of minor mineral boulder, gravel,
 DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 825
      ORS. ETC. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
sand quarries etc. covered by the auction notices dated                  A
3.6.2011 and 8.8.2011, in the places notified therein and also
in the river beds of Yamuna, Ghaggar, Tangri, Markanda,
Krishnavati river basin, Dohan river basin etc. would not cause
environmental degradation or threat to the biodiversity, destroy
riverine vegetation, cause erosion, pollute water sources etc.           B
Sand mining on either side of the rivers, upstream and in-
stream, is one of the causes for environmental degradation and
also a threat to the biodiversity. Over the years, India's rivers
and Riparian ecology have been badly affected by the alarming
rate of unrestricted sand mining which damage the ecosystem              c
of rivers and the safety of bridges, weakening of river beds,
destruction of natural habitats of organisms living on the river
beds, affects fish breeding and migration, spells disaster for
the conservation of many bird species, increases saline water
in the rivers etc. Extraction of alluvial material from within or near   D
a streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical
habitat characteristics. These characteristics include bed
elevation, substrate composition and stability, in-stream
roughness elements, depth, velocity, turbidity, sediment
transport, stream discharge and temperature. Altering these
                                                                         E
habitat characteristics can have deleterious impacts on both
in-stream biota and the associated riparian habitat. The
demand for sand continues to increase day by day as building
and construction of new infrastructures and expansion of existing
ones is continuous thereby placing immense pressure on the
supply of the sand resource and hence mining activities are              F
going on legally and illegally without any. restrictions. Lack of
proper planning and sand management cause disturbance of
marine ecosystem and also upset the ability of natural marine
processes to replenish the sand.
                                                                         G
     8. We are expressing our deep concern since we are
faced with a situation where the auction notices dated 3.6.2011
and 8.8.2011 have permitted quarrying mining and removal of
sand from in-stream and upstream of several rivers, which may
have serious environmental impact on ephemeral, seasonal                 H
    826      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A and perennial rivers and river beds and sand extraction may
  have an adverse effect on bio-diversity as well. Further it may
  also lead to bed degradation and sedimentation having a
  negative effect on the aquatic life. Rivers mentioned in the
  auction notices are on the foothills of the fragile Shivalik hills.
B Shivalik hills are the source of rivers like Ghaggar, Tangri,
  Markanda etc. River Ghaggar is a seasonal river which rises
  up in the outer Himalayas between Yamuna and Satluj and
  enters Haryana near Pinjore, District Panchkula, which passes
  through Ambala and Hissar and reaches Bikaner in Rajasthan.
c River Markanda is also a seasonal river like Ghaggar, which
  also originates from the lower Shivalik hills and enters Haryana
  near Ambala. During monsoon, this stream swells up into a
  raging torrent, notorious for its devastating power, as also, river
  Yamuna.
D      9. We find that it is without conducting any study on the
  possible environmental impact on/in the river beds and else-
  where the auction notices have been issued. We are of the
  considered view that when we are faced with a &ituation where
  extraction of alluvial material within or near a river bed has an
E impact on the rivers physical habitat characteristics, like river
  stability, flood risk, environmental degradation, loss of habitat,
  decline in biodiversity, it is not an answer to say that the
  extraction is in blocks of less than 5 hectares, separated by 1
  kilometre, because their collective impact may be significant,
F hence the necessity of a proper environmental assessment
  plan. Possibly this may be the reason that in the affidavit filed
  by the MoEF on 23.11.2011 along with the annexure-2 report,
  the following stand has been taken:

          ''The Ministry is of the opinion that where the mining area
G
          is homogenous, physically proximate end on identifiable
          piece of land of 5 ha or more, it should not be broken into
          smaller sizes to circumvent the EIA Notification, 2006 as
          the EIA Notification, 2006 is not applicable to the mining
          projects having lease area of less than 5 ha. The Report
H
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 827
     ORS. ETC. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
    of Committee on Minor Minerals, under the Chairmanship        A
    of the Secretary (E&F) with representatives of various
    state Governments as members including the State of
    Haryana and Rajasthan recommended a minimum lease
    size of 5 ha for minor minerals for undertaking scientific
    mining for the purpose of integrating and addressing          B
    environmental concerns. Only in cases of isolated
    discontinued mineral deposits in less than 5 ha, such
    mining leases may be considered keeping in view the
    mineral conservation."

Situations referred to earlier prevail not only in the State of   C
Haryana but also in the neighbouring and other States of the
country as well and those issues had come up for serious
deliberations before the Government of India, on various
occasions.
                                                                  D
      10. Government of India was receiving various reports
regarding the adverse impacts on riverbeds and groundwater
due to quarrying/mining of minerals. The Mines and Minerals
(Development & Regulation) Act 1957 empowers the State
Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals. It was    E
noticed that proposals for mining of major minerals typically
undergo environment impact assessment and environmental
clearance procedure, but due attention has not been given to
environmental aspects of mining of minor minerals.
Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994 did not      F
apply to the mining of minor minerals, noticing that minor
minerals were brought under the ambit of the Environmental
Impact Assessment Notification of 2006 and as per the said
notification mining of minerals with a lease area of 5 hectares
and above require prior environmental clearance. MoEF's           G
attention was drawn to several instances across the country
regarding damage to lakes, riverbeds and groundwater leading
to drying up of water beds and causing water scarcity on
account of quarry/mining leases and mineral concessions
granted under the Mineral Concession Rules framed by the          H
    828          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A State Governments under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals
  (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. MoEF noticed that
  less attention was given on environrr.ental aspects of mining
  of minor minerals since the area was small, but it was noticed
  that the collective impact in a particular area over a period of
B time might be significant. Taking note of those aspects, MoEF
  constituted a Core Group under the Chairmanship of the
  Secretary (E&F) to look into the environmental aspects
  associated with mining of minor minerals, vide its order dated
  24.03.2009. The terms of reference to the Group were as
C under:

          (i)     To consider the environmental aspects of mining of
                  minor minerals (quarrying as well as river beds
                  mining) for their integration into the mining process.

D         (ii)    Specific safeguard measures required to minimize
                  the likely adverse impacts of mining on environment
                  with specific reference to impact on water bodies
                  as well as groundwater so as to ensure sustainable
                  mining.
E
          (iii)    To evolve model guidelines so as to address
                   mining as well as environmental concerns in a
                   balanced manner for their adoption and
                   implementation by all the mineral producing States.

F The Group held its first meeting on 7.7.2009 and discussed the
  impact that may be caused by quarrying/mining of minor
  minerals on riverbeds and ground waters. It was noticed that
  individual mines of minor minerals being small in size may have
  insignificant impact, however, their collective impacts, taking
G into consideration various mines on a regional scale, is
  significantly adverse. It was, therefore, felt necessary to
  consider various aspects since appropriate guidelines have to
  be issued on the basis of the report of the Committee. The
  issues which were brought up for consideration were; (i) the
H need to re-look the definition of minor mineral, (ii) minimum size
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 829
     ORS. ETC. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
of lease for adopting eco friendly scientific mining practices,       A
(iii) period of lease, (iv) cluster of mine approach for addressing
and implementing EMP in case of small mines, (v) depth of
mining to minimize adverse impact on hydrological regime, (vi)
requirement of mine plan for minor minerals, similar to major
minerals, and (vii) reclamation of mined out area, post mine          B
land use, progressive mine closure plan etc.

     11. Comments and inputs from various States and Experts
were also invited so as to prepare a report for consideration
of the MoEF. Based on the discussion held and subsequent              C
inputs received, a draft report was prepared and circulated to
all members for their further inputs. Report was further
discussed on 29.1.2010 for its finalization. The observations/
comments made during the meeting were incorporated in the
report and it was again circulated to all members for their
consideration. The report so circulated was ultimately finalized.     D
The decision taken by the MoEF affects generally the mining
of minor minerals including the riverbed mining throughout the
country. For an easy reference, we may extract the issues and
recommendations made by the MoEF, which are as follows:
                                                                      E
     "4.0 ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    4.1 Definition of Minor Mineral:

           The term minor mineral is defined in clause (e) of
    Section 3 of MMDR Act, 1957 as "minor mineral means               F
    building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other
    than sand used for prescribed purposes and any other
    material which the Central Government may, by Notification
    in the Gazette of India declare to be a minor mineral". The
    term 'ordinary sand' used in clause (e) of Section 3 of the       G
    MMDR Act, 1957 has been further clarified in rule 70 of
    the MCR, 1960 as "sand shall not be treated as minor
    mineral when used for any of the following purposes
    namely: (i) purposes of refractory and manufacture of
    ceramic, (ii) metallurgical purposes, (iii) optical purposes,     H
    830       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2012] 4 S.C.R.

A         (iv) purposes of stowing in coal mines, (v) for manufacture
          of silvicrete cement, (vi) manufacture of sodium silicate and
          (vii) manufacture of pottery and glass.

                 Additionally, the Central Government has declared
          the following minerals as minor minerals: (i) boulder, (ii)
B
          shingle, (iii) chalcedony pebbles used for ball mill purposes
          only, (iv) limeshell, kankar and limestone used in kilns for
          manufacture of lime used as building material, (v) murrum,
          (vi) brick-earth, (vii) fuller's earth, (viii) bentonite, (ix) road
          metal, (x) reh-matti, (xi) slate and shale when used for
c         building material, (xii) marble, (xiii) stone used for making
          household utensils, (xiv) quartzite and sandstone when
          used for purposes of building or for making road metal and
          household utensils, (xv) saltpeter and (xvi) ordinary earth
          (used or filling or levelling purposes in construction or
D         embankments, roads, railways building).
                 It may thus be observed that minerals have been
          classified into major and minor minerals based on their
          end use rather than level of production, level of
E         mechanization, export and import etc. There do exist some
          minor mineral mines of silica sand and limestone where
          the scale of mechanization and level of production is much
          higher than those of industrial mineral mines. Further, in
          terms of the economic cost and revenue, it has been
F         estimated that the total value of minor minerals constitutes
          about 10% of the total value of mineral production whereas
          the value of non metallic minerals comprises only 3%. It
          is, therefore, evident that the operation of mines of minor
          minerals need to be subject to some regulatory parameters
          as that of mines of major minerals.
G
                 Further, unlike India there does not exist any such
          system based on end usage in other countries for
          classifying minerals into major and minor categories. Thus,
          there is a need to re-look at the definition of "minor"
H         minerals per se.
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 831
     ORS. ETC. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

        It is, therefore, recommended that Ministry of Mines      A
  along with Indian Bureau of Mines, in consultation with
  the State Governments may re-examine the classification
  of minerals into major and minor categories so that the
  regulatory aspects and environment mitigation measures
  are appropriately integrated for ensuring sustainable and       B
  scientific mining with least impacts on environment.

  4.2 Size of the Mine Lease:

         Area for grant of mine lease varies from State to
  State. Maximum area which can be held under one or              C
  more mine lease is 2590 ha or 25.90 sq.miles in Jammu
  & Kashmir. Rajasthan prescribed a minimum limit of 1 ha
  for a lease. Maximum area prescribed for permit is 50x50
  m. In most of the States area of permit is not specified in
  the rules. It has recently been observed by Punjab and          D
  Haryana High Court in its order dated 15.5.2009 that State
  Government are apparently granting short term permits by
  dividing the mining area into small zones in effect avoids
  environmental norms.
                                                                  E
        There is, thus a need to bring uniformity in the extent
  of area to be granted for mine lease so as to ensure that
  eco friendly scientific mining practices can be adopted. It
  is recommended that the minimum size of mine lease
  should be 5 ha. Further, preparation of comprehensive
  mine plan for contiguous stretches of mineral deposits by       F
  the respective State Governments may also be
  encouraged. This may suitably be incorporated in the
  Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 by Ministry of Mines.

  4.3 Period of Mine Lease:                                       G

        The period of lease varies from State to State
  depending on type of concessions, minerals and its end
  use. The minimum lease period is one year and maximum
  30 years. Minerals like granite where huge investments are      H
    832       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A         required, a period of 20 years is generally given with the
          provisions of renewal. Permits are generally granting for
          short periods which vary from one month to a maximum
          one year. In States like Haryana, minor mineral leases are
          auctioned for a particular time period. Mining is considered
B         to be capital intensive industry and considerable time is
          lost for developing the mine before it attains the status of
          fully developed mine. If the tenure of the mine lease is short,
          it would encourage the lessee to concentrate more on
          rapid exploitation of mineral without really undertaking
c         adequate measures for reclamation and rehabilitation of
          mined out area, posing thereby a serious threat to the
          environment and health of the workers and public at large.

                There is thus, a need to bring uniformity in the period
          of lease. It is recommended that a minimum period of
D         mine lease should be 5 years, so that eco friendly
          scientific and sustainable mining practices are adopted.
          However, under exceptional circumstances arising due
          to judicial interventions, short term mining leases I
          contracts could be granted to the State Agencies to meet
E         the situation arising there from.

          4.4 Cluster of Mine Approach for Small Sized Mines:

                 Considering the nature of occurrence of minor
          mineral, economic condition of the lessee and the likely
F         difficulties to be faced by Regulatory Authorities in
          monitoring the environmental impacts and implementation
          of necessary mitigation measures, it may be desirable to
          adopt cluster approach in case of smaller mine leases
          being operated presently. Further, these clusters need be
G         provided with processing/crusher zones for forward
          integration and minimizing excessive pressure on road
          infrastructure. The respective State Governments I Mine
          Owners Associations may facilitate implementation of
          Environment Management Plans in such cluster of
H         mines.
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 833
     ORS. ETC. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
  4.5 Requirement of Mine Plan for Minor Minerals:               A

  At present, most of the State Governments have not made
  it mandatory for preparation of mining plan in respect of
  minor minerals. In some States like Rajasthan, eco friendly
  mining plans are prepared, which are approved by the           8
  State Mining Department. The eco friendly mining plans
  so prepared, though conceptually welcome, are observed
  to be deficient and need to be made comprehensive in a
  manner as is being done for major minerals. Besides, the
  aspects of reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out         C
  areas, progressive mine closure plan, as in vogue for major
  minerals could be introduced for minor minerals as well.

        It is recommended that provision for preparation
  and approval of mine plan, as in the case of major
  minerals may appropriately be provided in the Rules            D
  governing the mining of minor minerals by the respective
  State Governments. These should specifically include
  the provision for reclamation and rehabilitation of mined
  out area, progressive mine closure plan and post mine
  ~d~a                                                           E
  4. 6 Creation of Separate Corpus for Reclamation I
  Rehabilitation of Mines of Minor Minerals:

         Mining of minor minerals, in our country, is by and
  large unorganized sector and is practiced in haphazard         F
  and unscientific manner. At times, the size of the leasehold
  is also too small to address the issue of reclamation and
  rehabilitation of mined outs areas. It may, therefore, be
  desirable that before the concept of mine closure plan for
  minor minerals is adopted, the existing abandoned mines        G
  may be reclaimed and rehabilitated with the involvement
  of the State Government. There is thus, a need to create
  a separate corpus, which may be utilized for reclamation
  and rehabilitation of mined out areas. The respective
  State Governments may work out a suitable mechanism            H
    834     . SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 4 S.C.R.

A         for creation of such corpus on the 'polluter pays' principle.
          An organizational structure may also need to be created
          for undertaking and monitoring these activities.

          4. 7 Depth of Mining:
B         Mining of minerals, whether major or minor have a direct
          bearing on the hydrological regime of the area. Besides,
          affecting the availability of water as a resource, it also
          affects the quality of water through direct run of going into
          the surface water bodies and infiltration I leaching into
c         groundwater. Further, groundwater withdrawal, dewatering
          of water from mine pit and diversion of surface water may
          cause surface and sub surface hydrologic systems to dry
          up. An ideal situation would require that quarrying should
          be restricted to unsaturated zone only above the phreatic
D         water table and should not intersect the groundwater table
          at any point of time. However, from the point of view of
          mineral conservation, it may not be desirable to impose
          blanket ban on mining operation below groundwater table.

                 It is, therefore, recommended that detailed hydro-
E
          geological report should be prepared in respect of any
          mining operation for minor minerals to be undertaken
          below groundwater table. Based on the findings of the
          study so undertaken and the comments I
          recommendations of Central Ground Water Authority I
F         State Ground Water Board, a decision regarding
          restriction on depth of mining for any area should be taken
          on case to case basis.

          4. B Uniform Minor Mineral Concession Rules:
G
                 The economic value of the minor minerals excavated
          in the country is estimated to contribute to about 9% of the
          total value of the minerals whereas the non metallic
          minerals contribute to about 2.8%. Keeping in view the
          large extent of mining of minor minerals and its significant
H
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 835
     ORS. ETC. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
   potential to adversely affect the environment, it is           A
   recommended that Model Mineral Concession rules
   may be framed for minor minerals as well and the minor
   minerals may be subjected to a simpler regulatory
   regime, which is, however, similar. to major minerals
   regime.                                                        B

   4.9 River Bed Mining:

   4.9.1 Environment damage being caused by unregulated
   river bed mining of sand, bazari and boulders is attracting
   considerable attention including in the courts. The            C
   following recommendations are therefore made for the
   river bed mining.

         (a) In the case of mining leases for riverbed sand
   mining, specific river stretches should be identified and      D
   mining permits/lease should be granted stretch wise, so
   that the requisite safeguard measures are duly
   implemented and are effectively monitored by the
   respective Regulatory Authorities.

        (b) The depth of mining may be restricted to 3m/          E
   water level, whichever is less.

         (c) For carrying out mining in proximity to any
   bridge and/or embankment, appropriate safety zone
   should be worked out on case to case basis, taking into        F
   account the structural parameters, locational aspects,
   flow rate etc. and no mining should be carried out in the
   safety zone so worked out.

   5.0 Conclusion:
                                                                  G
   Mining of minor minerals, though individually, because of
   smaller size of mine leases is perceived to have lesser
   impact as compared to mining of major minerals. However,
   the activity as a whole is seen to have significant adverse
   impacts on environment. It is, therefore, necessary that the   H
    836       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 4 S.C.R.


A         mining of minor minerals is subjected to simpler but strict
          regulatory regime and carried out only under an approved
          framework of mining plan, which should provide for
          reclamation and rehabilitation of the mined out areas.
           Further, while granting mining /eases by the respective
B          State Governments "location of any eco-fragile zone(s)
           within the impact zone of the proposed mining area, the
           linked Rules/Notifications governing such zones and the
          judicial pronouncements, if any, need be duly noted. The
          Union Ministry of Mines along with Indian Bureau of Mines
c         and respective State Governments should therefore make
          necessary provisions in this regard under the Mines and
          Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Mineral
          Concession Rules, 1960 and adopt model guidelines to
          be followed by all States. "
D         (emphasis supplied)

    The report clearly indicates that operation of mines of minor
    minerals needs to be subjected to strict regulatory parameters
    as that of mines of major minerals. It was also felt necessary
E   to have a re-look to the definition of "minor" minerals per se.
    The necessity of the preparation of "comprehensive mines plan"
    for contiguous stretches of mineral deposits by the respective
    State Governments may also be encouraged and the same be
    suitably incorporated in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960
F   by the Ministry of Mines. Further, it was also recommended that
    States, Union Territories would see that mining of minor
    minerals is subjected to simpler but strict regulatory regime and
    carried out only under an approved framework of mining plan,
    which should provide for reclamation and rehabilitation of
G   mined out areas. Mining Plan should take note of the level of
    production, level of mechanisation, type of machinery used in
    the mining of minor minerals, quantity of diesel consumption,
    number of trees uprooted, export and import of mining minerals,
    environmental impact, restoration of flora and host of other
H   matters referred to in 2010 rules. A proper framework has also
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 837
     ORS. ETC. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
to be evolved on cluster of mining of minor mineral for which       A
there must be a Regional Environmental Management Plan.
Another important decision taken was that while granting of
mining leases by the respective State Governments, location
of any eco-fragile zone(s) within the impact zone of the
proposed mining area, the linked Rules/Notifications governing      B
such zones and the judicial pronouncements, if any, need to be
duly noted.

    12. The Minister for (E & F) wrote DO letter dated 1st June,
2010 to all the Chief Ministers of the States to examine the        C
report and to issue necessary instructions for incorporating the
recommendations made in the report in the Mineral
Concession Rules for mining of minor minerals under Section
15 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957. Following are the key recommendations re-iterated in the
~~                                                                  D
      "(1)   Minimum size of mine lease should be 5 ha.

      (2)    Minimum period of mine lease should be 5 years.

      (3)    A cluster approach to mines should be taken in         E
             case of smaller mines leases operating currently.

      (4)    Mine plans should be made mandatory for minor
             minerals as well.
                                                                    F
      (5)    A separate corpus should be created for
             reclamation and rehabilitation of mined out areas.

      (6)    Hydro-geological reports should be prepared for
             mining proposed below groundwater table.
                                                                    G
      (7)    For river bed mining, leases should be granted
             stretch wise, depth may be restricted to 3m/water
             level, whichever is less, and safety zones should be
             worked out.
                                                                    H
    838     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 4 S.C.R.


A         (8)   The present classification of minerals into major and
                minor categories should be re-examined by the
                Ministry of Mines in consultation with the States."

       13. The Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India sent a
  communication No.296/7/2000/MRC dated 16.05.2011 called
8
  "Environmental aspects of quarrying and of minor minerals -
  Evolving of Model Guidelines" along with a draft model
  guidelines calling for inputs before 30. 06. 2011. Draft rules
  called Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules,
  2010 were also put on the website. Further, it may be noted
C Section 15(1A)(i) of the Act specifies the manner in which
  rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation, such as trees, shrubs
  and the like destroyed by reasons of any quarrying or mining
  operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area
  once selected by the State Government, whether by way of
D reimbursement of the cost of rehabilitation or otherwise by the
  persons holding the quarrying or mining lease.

          14. We are of the view that all State Governments I Union
    Territories have to give due weight to the above mentioned
E recommendations of the MoEF which are made in consultation
    with all the State Governments and Union Territories. Model
  · Rules of 2010 issued by the Ministry of Mines are very vital from
    the environmental, ecological and bio-diversity point of view and
    therefore the State Governments have to frame proper rules in
F accordance with the recommendations, under Section 15 of the
    Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

       15. Quarrying of river sand, it is true, is an important
  economic activity in the country with river sand forming a crucial
  raw material for the infrastructural development and for the
G construction industry but excessive in-stream sand and gravel
  mining causes the degradation of rivers. In-stream mining
  lowers the stream bottom of rivers which may lead to bank
  erosion. Depletion of sand in the streambed and along coastal
  areas causes the deepening of rivers which may result in
H
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 839
     ORS. ETC. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
destruction of aquatic and riparian habitats as well. Extraction     A
of alluvial material as already mentioned from within or near a
streambed has a direct impact on the stream's physical habitat
characteristics.

      16. We are of the considered view that it is highly
                                                                     8
necessary to have an effective framework of mining plan which
will take care of all environmental issues and also evolve a long
term rational and sustainable use of natural resource base and
also the bio-assessment protocol. Sand mining, it may be noted,
may have an adverse effect on bio-diversity as loss of habitat       C
caused by sand mining will effect various species, flora and
fauna and it may also destabilize the soil structure of river
banks and often leaves isolated islands. We find that, taking
note of those technical, scientific and environmental matters,
MoEF, Government of India, issued various recommendations
in March 2010 followed by the Model Rules, 2010 framed by            D
the Ministry of Mines which have to be given effect to,
inculcating the spirit of Article 48A, Article 51A(g) read with
Article 21 of the Constitution.

      17. The State of Haryana and various other States have         E
not so far implemented the above recommendations of the
MoEF or the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines before
issuing auction notices granting short term permits by way of
auction of minor mineral boulders, gravel, sand etc., in the river
beds and elsewhere of less than 5 hectares. We, therefore,           F
direct to all the States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry
of Mines to give effect to the recommendations made by MoEF
in its report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed
by the Ministry of Mines, within a period of six months from
today and submit their compliance reports.
                                                                     G
      18. Central Government also should take steps to bring
into force the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development
Rules 2010 at the earliest. State Governments and UTs also
should take immediate steps to frame necessary rules under
Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and                H
    840       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 4 S.C.R.


A   Regulation) Act, 1957 taking into consideration the
    recommendations of MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and
    model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India.
    Communicate the copy of this order to the MoEF, Secretary,
    Ministry of Mines, New Delhi, Ministry of Water Resources,
8   Central Government Water Authority, the Chief Secretaries of
    the respective States and Union Territories, who would circulate
    this order to the concerned Departments.

       19. We, in the meanwhile, order that leases of minor
C mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five
  hectares be granted by the States/Union Territories only after
  getting environmental clearance from the MoEF.

          Ordered accordingly.

D 8.8.8.                                         Matter adjourned.