Holding

The ban on mining within the specified area remains in force pending a Monitoring Committee report, the 1994 environmental clearance notification applies to lease renewals, and mining on forest‑designated or foreign‑funded afforested land is prohibited unless strict sustainable‑development conditions are met.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether mining activities within a 5 km radius of the Delhi‑Haryana border and in the Aravalli hills cause environmental degradation and whether the earlier order of 6 May 2002 banning such mining should be varied. It held that the ban remains in force until a newly constituted Monitoring Committee submits its report, and that the 1994 environmental clearance notification applies to renewals of mining leases. The Court also clarified that mining on land designated as forest under the Punjab Land Preservation Act requires prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and that mining on areas afforested with foreign‑funded projects is prohibited. Mining may be permitted only if it complies with sustainable‑development principles and strict statutory conditions, including environmental impact assessments and groundwater protection. The Court directed the formation of a Monitoring Committee, ordered the Ministry of Environment to prepare short‑ and long‑term restoration plans, and left unresolved issues such as royalty disputes to appropriate forums.

Issues considered

The legality of continuing mining operations within 5 km of the Delhi‑Haryana border and in the Aravalli hills.
Whether the Supreme Court order of 6 May 2002 banning mining can be vacated or modified.
Applicability of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 notification of 27 January 1994 to renewal of mining leases.
Whether mining on land classified as forest under the Punjab Land Preservation Act requires compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Whether mining on areas afforested under foreign‑funded projects is permissible.
Obligations of mining lease‑holders under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and related rules.
Procedural requirements for environmental impact assessment, groundwater protection, and afforestation.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21, s. Article 47, s. Article 48A
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986s. Rule 5, s. Section 3(1), s. Section 3(2)
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980s. Section 2
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957s. Section 18
Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900s. Section 3, s. Section 4, s. Section 5
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

Subjects

environmental lawminingpollution controlforest conservationsustainable developmentgroundwater depletionenvironmental impact assessmentpublic interest litigationAravalli hillsforest (conservation) act

Judgment

A M.C. MEHTA
V.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MARCH 18, 2004

B [Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]

Environmental Laws:

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986/Air (Prevention and Control of
C Pollution) Act, 1974/Water (Prevention and Control of Poilution) Act, 19741
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980/Constitution of India, 1950; Article 21:

Writ petition for stopping mining activity in the vicinity ofDelhi-Haryana
border on ground of environmental degradation-Issuance of directions by
the Supreme Court to Expert Environment Agencies/Institutions to suggest
D ways and means for preventing and controlling pollution in the sensitive
ecological region of the border area-Compliance thereto by the authorities
concerned to control mining operations in the area to the extent it adversely
affects local habitants in general and environment in particular-Authorities
concerned issuing notifications/taking remedial measures-On consideration/
E examination of reports/recommendations/notifications and reports of action
taken by the authorities, petitions disposed of the with directions.

Forest Policy-Mining and industrial development-Held: Permission
for mining activity should not be granted without appraisal of proper Mine
Management Plan from the environmental angle and enforcing it strictly.
F
Forest Land-Mining activity-Grant of-Held: It should be examined
in the light of princ~nle of sustainable development and can be permitted to ·(
continue so long as environment is not affected adversely-However, it should
not be allowed on the forest land ear-marked for afforestation/plantation from
G foreign jimds.

Mining Plan-Approval of-Permission-Held: Approval of the mining
plan does not signifo. approval of mining activity ipso facto-The lease-holders
have to comply with the statutory requirements for the protection ofenvironment
and control of pollution before starting any such activity.
H 126
M.C. MEHTA v.U.O.l. 127
Mining Activity-Gr1111t of per111issio11-Conditions-Held: Right to live A
includes right of enjoyment of"pollution fi"ee air and water-Mining operations
impairs ecological and natural resources-Utmost good faith and honesty on
the part of the /ease-holders are pre-requisite for preventing and considering
environmental degradation-They should disclose the probable effect of the
activity in polluting the environment to the authorities concerned before seeking B
permission to carry on the same.

Ground w11ter resources-Preservation of-Held: Water shed
l management/rain water harvesting/other methods of conservation of water
resources and provisions thereto should be made-Funds should be created
for eco-restoration in the region-Continuous inspection should be carried C
out to ensure compliance with the requirements for sustainable development--
If due to mining activity water level 1~~ toucheq, it should be stopped and
Monitoring Committee has to carve out the area.

Notifications:
D
Notification dated May 7, 1992-Effect of-No mining activity could be
permitted in the area under plantation in Aravalli project in order to protect
-,.! the ecology of the Aravalli region.

Notification dated January 27, 1994-Scope of-Held: No mining
operation could be commenced/renewed without Environment Impact E
Assessment having been done and clearance obtained from the Central
Government.

·, Notification dated November 29, 1999-Scope of-Held: It stipulates
preparation of master plan integrating the environmental concerns andfuture
land use-It has to be modified so as to indicate proposed restoration to F
compensate in lieu of environmental degradation and also to indicate
restoration programmes.

Role of Regulatory Authorities:

Role of State Pollution Control Board/Ministry of Environment and G
Forest/Forest Department-Held: They should undertake regular monitoring
of the mining activity to check and assess an ambient air and water quality
and other environmental protection measures-MOEF should monitor the eco-
restoration efforts and to render technological supports thereto-Monitor
implementation of recommendations by the expert institutions-Arouse public H
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A awareness-Monitoring Committee constituted to undertake the assigned task-
Grant of renewal of mining lease should be effected only after ensuring
compliance of the norms, public standard and safeguards-Act of negligence/
connivance on the part of the authority should be viewed seriously and principle
of accountability should be followed-Forest Department could carry out
afforestation on behalf of the mine-operators-The directions should also be
B followed in respect of mining activity in Faridabad district in public interest.

Ruleslprovisio11s-Jnadequacy of-Held: Rules need to be made for
levying charges for dump removal/ecological restoration-Appropriate
technology need to be used for mining operations/mining land use and mining
C decomposing.

Disputes relating to non-payment of royalty-Held: May be adjudicated
by the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

The petitions on environmental degradation due to mining activity
D were considered by the Supreme Court earlier, and it directed the Haryana
State Pollution Control Board vide its order dated 20th November, 1995
to inspect and ascertain the impact of mining operations on the Batkal
Lake and Suraj Kund, which are ecologically sensitive areas. The Board
recommended that the Environmental Management Programme (EMP)
should be prepared by Mine Lease Holders and become operative only
E after obtaining approval from the State Pollution Control Department/
Board. It also recommended stoppage of mining activities within the radius
of 5 Kms. from the specified area. The State Government had stopped
mining operations in the prescribed areas. The mine-operators/lease
holders raised objections and the matter was again considered by the
F Supreme Court, and the Court vide its order dated April 12, l 996 sought
expert opinion from National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute (NEERI) on the point whether the mining operations in the said
area are required to be stopped in the interest of environmental protection,

•
pollution control and tourist development. On consideration of the Reports rr_--
submitted by NEERI, this Court came to the findings, that the mining
G activities in the vicinity of tourist resorts casting serious impact on the
local ecology; that in order to preserve environment and control pollution
within the vicinity of the tourist resorts, it was necessary to stop mining
activities within 2 Km. radius of these resorts; that Haryana Pollution
Control Board to enforce all the recommendations as contained in Para
H 6.1 of the Report; that failing to comply with the recommendations made
M.C. MEHTA v.L:.0.1. 129

would result in the closure of the mining operations; and that the renewal A
of permission for mining activity shall not be granted without obtaining
prior No Objection Certificate from the authorities concerned.

In the meanwhile, an Interim Application has been filed by the Delhi
Ridge Management Board for direction to stop mining activities and
pumping of water to protect the Asola Bhatti Wild Life Sanctuary and B
the ridge in the interest of maintaining ecological balance in the area. This
Court directed the Government of Haryana to stop all mining activities
and pumping of ground water in and around the specified area. The matter
was considered further by this Court and vide its order dated 22nd July,
2002, it directed the Environmental Pollution Central Authority (EPCA) C
to give a report in regard to environmental pollution in the area after
making a personal visit without any advance notice. EPCA visited the sites
where alleged mining activities were going on and submitted a detailed
report. When the report came up for consideration, some of the
leaseholders complained that their mines had not been inspected by the
Committee. The Court directed the Committee to carry out the inspection D
of these mines as well. The Committee visited these mines and submitted
another report.

The Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India,
issued a Notification dated May 7, 1992 issued under Section 3(2), Clause
(5) of the Environment Protection Act r/w Rule 5 of the Rules having E
bearing on the aspect of mining in the Aravalli Hills whereby all new
mining operations including renewal of mining lease have been prohibited.
The Notification also sets out procedure for taking prior permission before
undertaking any mining activity in the specified area. The powers vested
in the Central Government by virtue of the said notification were delegated F
to the State Government by issuing notification dated November 29, 1999
by the Central Government. Subsequently, the power delegated to State
Government has been withdrawn by the Central Government in terms of
notification dated 28th February, 2003. The Central Government issued
another notification on January 27, 1994, which stipulated that expansion
or modernization of any activity (if the pollution load exceeded the existing G
one) or a new project listed in Schedule I of the notification shall not be
undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded environmental
clearance by the Centra I Government. Though the notification made
-\
Environment Impact Assessment mandatory but the Ministry of
Environment and Forests did not carry out such assessment in respect of H
I
'

130 SllPREMF COURT REPORTS [20041 3 S.C.R.

A any of the mining lease in the area. However, the lease holders had applied
for Environment Impact Assessment in terms of this Court's order dated
6'" May, 2002.

The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was constituted by the
Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests for the
B purpose of monitoring and ensuring compliance of the orders of this Court
on the subject matter of forests and Wild life and ancillary issues. Since
then the Committee has submitted three reports for consideration by the
Court. Further, this Court vide its order dated 31st October, 2002 has
directed that no mining activity could be carried out without remedial
C measures taking place and for this purpose it is necessary that environment
impact assessment is done before any mining activity could be permitted.

The main question which arose in these writ petitions is as to whether
the mining activity in an area up to 5 Kms. from the Delhi-Haryana Border
on the Haryana side of the ridge and al~o in the Aravalli hills caused
D environmental degradation. Other aspects to be examined includes as to
whether the compliance of the conditions imposed by the Pollution Boards
while granting No Objection Certificate for mining as also compliance of
various statutory provisions and notifications and obtaining of the '..(
necessary clearances and permission from the concerned authorities before
starting the mining activity.
E
It was contended by the lease-holders that the order dated 6th May,
2002, passed by this Court should not be given effect to; that the National
Forest Policy itself c?ntem plates for mining operations in forest area; and
that pollution, if any, as generated due to mining activities did not traverse
F beyond the distance of I Km. and therefore stoppage of mining operations
upto a distance of 5 Kms. was wholly unjustified.

State of Delhi, one of the respondents, submitted that the mining
activities in the specified areas should be stopped in compliance with this
Court's order dated 6th May, 2002; and that all the mining activities and
G the pumping of mining water in and around the area upto 5 Kms. from
Delhi-Haryana border should be prohibited.

Disposing of the Petitions, the C!mrt

HELD: 1.1. The natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be
H utilized if the utilization results in irreversible damage to environment.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.l. 131

There has been accelerated degradation of environment primarily on A
account of lack of effective enforcement of environmental laws and non-
compliance of the statutory norms. This Court has reiterated that right
to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it
includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full
enjoyment of life. [190-D, E]
B
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bthar, AIR (1991) SC 420; MC. Mehta v.
Union of India, ll 987] 4 SCC 463; Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of
India and Ors., 12000] 10 SCC 664 and A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof
M V Nayuder (Retd) and Ors., [19991 2 SCC 718, referred to. 1.2.

1.2. Mining operation is hazardous in nature. It impairs ecology and
c
people's right to natural resources. The entire process of setting up and
functioning of mining operation require utmost good faith and honesty
on the part of the intending entrepreneur. The fullest disclosures including
the potential for increased burdens on the environment consequent upon
possible increase in the quantum and degree of pollution, has to be made D
at the outset so that public and all those concerned including authorities
may decide whether the permission can at all be granted for carrying on
mining activity. 1191-D, E, F)

1.3. The Regulatory Authorities have to act with utmost care in
ensuring compliance of safeguards, norms and standards to .be observed E
by the entrepreneurs. They must act in the manner enjoined upon them.
Where these authorities, either connive or act negligently by not taking
prompt action to prevent, avoid o~ control the damage to .environment,
natural resources and peoples' life, health and property, the principles of
accountability for restoration and compensation have to be applied.
F
[191-F, G, HJ

1.4. If without degrading the environment or minimising adverse
effects thereupon by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry
on development activity applying the principles of sustainable
development, in that eventuality, the development has to go on but balance G
has to be struck. 1192-A, BJ

TN Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors., [1997) 2
sec 267, referred to.
2.1. The grant of mining lease is governed by the Mines and Minerals H
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12004] 3 S.C.R.

A (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 which was enacted to provide
for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the
control of the Union oflndia. Section 18 of the Act casts a duty upon the
Central Government to take all such steps as may be necessary for the
conservation and systematic development of minerals in India and for the
B protection of environment by preventing or controlling any pollution which
may be caused by mining operations and for such purposes, the Central
Government may, by notification in the official gazette, make such rules
as it thinks fit. A tentative scheme of mining and annual programme and
plan for excavation from year to year for five years is required to be
incorporated in the mining plan. It cannot be presumed that by approving
C Mining Plan and Scheme by Ministry of Mines, Central Government is
deemed to have approved mining and that it could be commenced
forthwith on such approval. A mining lease holder is also required to
comply with other statutory provisions of Environment (Protection) Act,
1986; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; The Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Forest (Conservation)
D Act, 1980. Mere approval of the mining plan by Government of India,
Ministry of Mines would not absolve the lease holder from complying with
the other provisions in the Acts. 1192-G; 193-B; G; 194-B-D]

2.2. The lessee is required to take steps so that the overburden, waste
E rock, rejects and fines generated during prospecting and mining operations
or tailings, slims and fines produced during sizing salting and benefication
or metallurgical operations shall be stored in separate dumps which shall
be properly secured to prevent escape of material therefrom in harmful
quantities which may cause degradation of environment. Wherever
possible, it shall be back-filled into the mines excavation with a view to
F restoring the land for its original use as far as possible and wherever it is
not feasible during mining operation, the waste dumps shall be suitably
terraced and stabilized through vegetation or otherwise. The phased
restoration, reclamation and rehabilitation of lands affected by mining
operation should be undertaken and it should be completed before the
G conclusion of mining operations and the abandonment of mine. Air
pollution due to fines, dust and smoke or gaseous emissions during mining
operations and related activities shall be controlled and kept within
'permissible limits' specified under various environmental laws by the
holder of mining lease. Further, noise arising out of such operations shall
be abated or controlled by the lessee at the source so as to keep it within
H the permissible limit. The mining operations shall be carried out in such
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 133
a manner so as to cause least damage to the flora of the area and nearby A
areas. Every holder of mining lease shall take immediate measures for
planting in the same area or any other area not less than twice'the number
of trees destroyed by reason of any mining operation and look after~ them
during the subsistence of the licence/lease and restore, to the extent
possible, other flora destroyed by mining operations. These measures B
should be strictly complied with for the protecti.,n o! environment and
control of pollution. (194-F, G, H; 195-A-D]

3.1. The basic objectives of the National Forest policy are
maintenance of environment stability through preservation and, where
necessary, restoration of the ecological balance that has been adversely C
disturbed by serious depletion of the forests of the country and checking
the soil erosion and water conservation and increasing. substantially the
forest/tree cover through massive afforestation and social forestry
programmes. Diversion of forest land for any non-forest purpose should
be subject to the most careful examinations by specialists from the
standpoint of social and environmental costs and benefits. The mining and D
industrial development should be consistent with the needs for
conservation of trees in forest. It provides that no mining lease should be
·.,.i
granted to any party, private or public, without a proper Mine
Management Plan appraised from the environmental angle and strktly
enforced. (195-F, G, H; 196-C, D]
E
3.2. The mining operations on forest land could be continued so long
as it is possible to undertake it on the sustainable development principles
and after obtaining due approvals under ".arious statutory provisions
including Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. However, the
commencement and continuation of mining over the areas on which crores p
of foreign funds have been spent for afforestation and plantation should
not be allowed. (196-F]

4.1. The Notification dated 7th May, 1992 was passed with a view
to strictly implement the measures to protect the ecology of the Aravalli
range. Hence, any mining activity on the area under plantation under G
Aravalli project should not be permitted. The grant of leases for mining
operation over such an area would be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and
illogical. (198-B, q

4.2. Provisions have been made in the notification dated 29th
November, 1999, for preparation of a master plan integrating the H
134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A environmental concerns and the future land use of the area, but the master
plan prepared so does not address the issue of natural resource assessment
and water resource status; the areas near crushing zone and active mining
zone remain a matter of concern and concerted efforts have not been given
to the quality of roads and the dust suppression measures to maintain the
quality of air within safe limits. Though guidelines of operation in an eco-
B friendly manner have been issued by the State Government but its
compliance was only partial. There exists no mechanism to upgrade the
mining technologies and methodologies to minimize the impact due to
mining in the eco-sensitive zones in the district. There is no identified land
where overburden could be temporarily dumped prior to being utilized
C for void filling and for other purposes. There is lack of adequate awareness
among the people in respect of the environmental problems. The ground
water potential is already in the dark category. Lack of water conservation
measures and rainwater harvesting may ultimately lead to water scarcity
in the near future. Having identified the environmental problems, various
actions bave been recommended by CMPDI for the eco restoration in the
D Aravalli Range in Gurgaon district. It is imperative on the part of the State
Government to improve inter-departmental co-ordination among various
Government departments to achieve the common objective of ecological
restoration of Aravalli Hills in the district. The master plan should indicate
the proposed eco-restoration plan to compensate the environmental
E degradation by the proposed activities in the master plan. Rehabilitation
programmes for the abandoned mines areas should include conversion of
these either to water reservoirs and eco-parks or its reclamation by filling
with rural waste, urban waste or fly ash. The planning should also include
environmental impact and concerns of activities of one sector on the other
sectors in the district. [199-A-H; 200-A)
F
4.3. All efforts should be made to preserve the ground water
resources. Water shed management and rainwater harvesting have to be
implemented in the Aravalli hills region on war footing. In the areas where
mining deeper than the ground water table of the area has to be carried
G out, adequate provision of pollution control and conservation of water
resources should be made. There should be frequent inspections of the
mining operations to ensure that these are in line with the requirement
for sustainable development. Inspections may be carried out at an interval
of three months. There should be continual source of revenue from the
mining operations to the fund, recommended to be created, for the eco-
H restoration of the Aravalli hills. Where during mining activities water level
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 135
is touched, the Monitoring Committee shall carve out that area and that A
the leaseholders would co-operate and not to undertake any mining in such
area. [200-A-C; 209-AI

4.4. The State Pollution Control Board shall undertake regular
monitoring to check compliance and to assess the ambient air quality,
water quality and other environmental protectior. mt~sures. The Ministry B
of Environment and Forest should take initiative to appoint a Central
Agency to monitor the eco-restoration efforts and to provide technical
support to the implementing organizations. The renewal of mining lease
and granting new leases should be effected after examining the
environmental protection measures taken by the lessee. Requisite data C
should be displayed on the internet to arouse awareness in public and for
further usage. Stringent action should be taken for water conservation.
Forest Department may even carry out afforestation on behalf of mine
operators. Expenses should, however, be borne by the mine operators. The
mine lessee should implement the environmental management plan and
mining plan approved by the concerned authority. In future, efforts in D
., respect of search for sustainable development should broadly take into
consideration resource potential in the region, the demand of the products
and the supply options. All future planning should not only concentrate
to meet the ever growing demand of the products but due consideration
should also be given to protect the chain. All the developmental activities E
should, therefore, be planned in a coherent manner and there should be
integrated approach for sustainable development. [200-C-HJ

4.5. The short term and long term action plan for the restoration
of environmental quality of the area should be prepared separately. The
action plan should be prepared in such a way that it could be a guiding p
tool in the hands of the State Pollution Control Boards and Government
agencies for enforcement of the environmental laws for the restoration of
environmental quality of the area. 1201-EJ

5. There is need of enactment of rules for grant of mine leases to
levy a separate charge for dump removal, ecological restoration in the G
area, the technology to be used for mining operations and post mining land
use and mine decommissioning. From the point of view of environmental
protection in the Aravalli hills, planning and provisions must start from
the stage of grant of mine lease. Though the environmental upgradation
measures need to be taken more seriously by the mine and other industrial H
136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A operators, there is need ·on the part of the State Government to
immediately start these measures in the areas where degradation has
already taken place. {202-E-F; 203-A-B]

6. The notification dated January 27,.1994 mandates that the mining
operation shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless
B environmental clearance by the Central Government has been accorded.
However, in none of the leases, requirements of the notification was
complied with either at the stage of initial grant of the mining lease or at
the stage of renewal. No mining operation can commence without obtaining
environmental impact assessment in terms of the notification. No doubt,
..,.
C the notification is prospective in effect but the question is whether it would
be applicable to the cases of renewal that comes up for consideration after
the issue of the notification. It cannot be said that the notification would
not apply to the cases for renewal of the leases. Though the notification is
not applicable to minor minerals, but having regard to degradation of
environment and the required standard about the risk of harm to the
D environment or to human health to be decided in public interest according
to 'reasonable person's test' and the report of Central Mine Planning &
Design Institute Limited, the Monitoring Committee is directed to examine
the leases being granted for extraction of minor mineral in light thereof '-<.
and file its report. (204-F; 206-G-H; 207-A; 209-E-Fj

E Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union of India and Ors., [2000] IO SCC
644, Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [1987] I SCC 213
and Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., [1989[ Supp.
I SCC 504, referred to.

F 7. Mining activity within forest area cannot be permitted in
contravention of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The Act
makes the contravention of any of the provisions of Section 2 of the Act
as an offence punishable in the manner as provided in the Act. The State
Government cannot be permitted to take a compete summersault in these
proceedings and contend that the earlier stand in regard to certain area
G under the lease was covered under notification issued under Section 4 and/
or 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act and treating the said area as
forest and now stating that it was so stated under some erroneous
impressions. These areas shall be treated as forest area and for its use for
non-forestry purpose, it would be necessary to comply with the provisions
H of the FC Act. [207-C; 208-E, F, G]

.,
, M.C. MEHTAv. U.0.1. 137
TN. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and Ors., 119971 2 A
SCC 267 and Environmental Awareness Forum v. State of Jammu and
Kashmir and Ors., referred to.

8. Though the study conducted by CMPDI relates to mining activity
in Aravalli Hills in Gurgaon district, but in public interest, the general
safeguards and suggestions as given in the report should be implemented B
in respect of mining in Faridabad district also. Accordingly, the
Monitoring Committee shall inspect the leases in question in Faridabad
District as well in the light of these recommendations by NEER!, EPCA,
CEC and CMPDI and file its report containing suggestions on
recommencement or otherwise of the mining activity therein. If, despite C
stringent conditions, the degradation of environment continues and reaches
a stage of no return, this Court may have to consider, at a later date, the
closure of mining activity in areas where there is such a risk. However, it
would not be expedient to lift the ban on mining imposed in terms of the
order of this Court dated 6th May, 2002 before" ensuring implementation
of suggestions of CMPDI and other recommendations of experts (NEER!, D
EPCA anci CEq. This question would be considered on individual basis
after ~eceipt of report -0f the Monitoring Committee. 1209-G-H; 210.A-B-CI

9. The application for environment irnput assessme::! fi!ed by the
lessee in terms of notification dated 27'" January, 1994 have to be
considered by the Ministry of Environment and Forest The adverse effect, E
;; .::ry,-a!ttl extent thereof on human health and ecology shall be examined
while deciding impact of these activities. There is also the desirability of
transparency in such matter. [210-El

10. The dispute as to non-payment of royalty to villagers cannot F
be properly adjudicated in these proceedings. Hence, it could be
) adjudicated before appropriate forum in accordance with law. (209-CI

I 1. With a view to monitor the overall eco-restoration efforts in the
Aravalli Hills and to provide technical support to the implementing
organizations and also to monitor implementation of recommendations G
contained in the reports, it is necessary to constitute a Monitoring
Committee comprising of the heads of certain Boards/departments and
also representatives of the public. The MOEF would act as a nodal agency
of the Monitoring Committee. The Secretary of MOEF is directed to
appoint an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary in the Ministry
for the said purpose. The Monitoring Committee is directed to inspect the H
138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A mines in question and file a report within a period of three months.
(210-F, G, H; 211-A-EI

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION
NO. 1785 OF 200 I
..
IN
B
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 22 AND
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4677 OF I985

C (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India )
WITH
I.A. Nos. 1806, 1815, 1817-18, 1819, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1794
and 1795 In I.A. No. 1785 In W.P. (C) Nos. 4677/85, 410/2002, I.A. Nos.
I 832. 1835-36, 1838 and 1839-40 In I.A. No. I 785 in I.A. No. 22 in W.P.
D (C) Nos. 4677/85, 661, 428, 624/2002 and C.P. (C) No. 568/2002 in W.P.
(C) No. 428 of 2002

Mukul R.ohtagi. Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, Ranjit
Kumar, Kailash Vasdev, Dr. RajeP.v Dhavan, M.C. Mehta-in-person, Naresh
Kaushik, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Abn1snek Maratham, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik,
E S.C. Gupta, K.C. Kaushik, D.S. Mahra, K.K. Lahiri, Ejaz Maqbool, Gou~·
Kejftwa!, Nt1eraj Kumar Jain for Ms. Kavita Wadia, T.A. Khan, P.
Parmeswaran, K.B. Rohtagi, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Mahesh Kasana,
Mrs.Nanita Sharma. Vivek Sharma, Abhishek Atrey, Mrs. Vanita Bhargavn,
Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Bina Gupta, Mrs. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, D.N.
f Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Mrs. Sheil Sethi, Sanjay
Sarin, AshuK. Malffiu:,. Dhruv Mehta, Mohit Choudhary, Ms. Shalitni Gupta,
S.U.K. Sagar, Ms.Bina Madhdvan, Prasanth P., R.C. Verma, Mukesh Verma,
Manish Shanker, S.K. Dubey, A.K. Yadav, K..V. Mohan, Mohan Pandey.
R.S. Suri, Vijay Panjwani, Mrs. Indra Sawheny, Bharat Sangal, C.D. Singh,
V.B. Saharya, Mahabir Singh, Shiva Pujan Singh, J.P. Dhanda, S.K. Sabharwal,
G Neeraj Kumar Sharma and A.D.N. Rao for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. The main question to be examined in these
matters is whether the mining activity in area upto 5 kilometers from the
H Delhi-Haryana border on the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. .I.] \39

hills causes environment degradation and what directions are required to be A
issued. The background in which the question has come up for consideration
may first be noticed.

The Haryana Pollution Control Board (HPCB) was directed by orders
of this Court dated 20th November, 1995 to inspect and ascertain the impact
of mining operation on the Badkal Lake and Surajkund - ecologically sensitive B
area falling within the State of Haryana. In the report that was submitted, it
was stated that explosives are being used for rock blasting for the purpose of
mining; unscientific mining operation was resulting in lying of overburden
materials (topsoil and murum remain) haphazardly; and deep mining for
extracting silica sand lumps is causing ecological disaster as these mines lie C
unreclaimed and abandoned. It was, inter alia, recommended that the
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) should be prepared by mine lease
holders for their mines and actual mining operation made operative after
obtaining approval from the State Departments of Environment or HPCB; the
EMP should be implemented following a time bound action plan; land
reclamation and afforestation programmes shall also be included in the EMP D
and must be implemented strictly by the implementing authorities. The report
recommended stoppage of mining activities within a radius of 5 krrls. from
Badkal Lake and Surajkund (tourist place). The Haryana Government, on the
basis of the recommendations made in the report, stopped mining operations
within the radius of 5 kms of Badkal Lake and Surajkund. The mine operators
E
raised objections to the recommendations of stoppage of mining operations.
According to them, pollution, if any, that was generated by the mining activities
cannot go beyond a distance of 1 km. and the stoppage was wholly unjustified.

NEERI Report and eariier directions

By order dated April 12, 1996, the Court sought the expert opinion of
F
•.
National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEER!) on the point
whether the mining operations in the said area are to be stopped in the
interest of environmental protection, pollution control and tourisl)l development
and, if so, whether the limit should be 5 kms. or less. NEER! in its inspection
report dated 20th April, 1996, inter a/ia, recommended that: G
"6.1 Mining. (I) Detailed exploratory operations need to be undertaken
to facilitate the estimation of reserves in the region, and for scientific
management of mining operations.

(2) The mine lease-owners need to undertake the mining operations H
-{
140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A in series, i.e. mining activities must be completed to fulr potential in
a block before moving to the next. This will help in reclamation of
..,.
land in the block in which mining operations have been completed.

(3) to (9) ...

B (IO) The Environmental Management Plans (EMP) being formulated
by the mine-owners should include land rejuvenation and afforestation
programmes, and other measures necessary to protect the quality of
the environment and human health. The mining operations should
commence only after the approval of EMPs by a designated authority.
j
A time-bound action plan needs to be initiated for the implementation
c of the measures delineated in the Environmental Management Plans.

( 11) & ( 12) ...

(13) The question of lifting the ban on mining operations needs to be
considered in conjunction with the implementation of stringent
D pollution control, land reclamation, green belt, and other
Environmental Management measures so as to facilitate the availability
of construction materials and employment opportunities for the workers
along with the protection of environment and public health.

(14) It is considered necessary to prepare a Regional Environmental
E Management Plan for urgent implementation to enable eco-friendly
regional development in the area."

On consideration of the reports, this Court came to the conclusion that
the mining activities in the vicinity of tourist resorts are bound to cast serious
impac·. on the local ecology. The mining brings extensive alteration in the
F natural land profile of the area. Mined pits and unattended dumps of
overburdened left behind during the mining operations are the irreversible
consequences of the mining operations and rock blasting, movement of heavy
vehicles, movements and operations of mining equipment and machinery
cause considerable pollution in the shape of noise and vibration. The ambient
G air in the mining area gets highly polluted by the dust generated by the
blasting operations, vehicular movement, loading/unloading/transportation and
the exhaust gases from equipment and machinery used in the mining
operations. It was directed that in order to preserve environment and control
pollution within the vicinity of two tourist resorts, it is necessary to stop
mining activity within 2 kms. radius of the tourist resorts of Badkal Lake and
H Surajkund. The Court further directed the Director, HPCB to enforce all the
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O I. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. J.] \41

recommendations of NEER! contained in para 6.1 of its report so far as the A
mining operations in the State of Haryana are concerned. Further, it was
directed that failing to comply with the recommendations may result in th.e
closure of the mining operations and that the mining leases within the area
from 2 kms. to 5 kms. radius shall not be renewed without obtaining prior
no objection certificate from the HPCB as also from the Central Pollution B
Control Board (CPCB). Unless both the Boards grant no objection certificate,
the mining leases in the said area shall not be renewed. MC. Mehta v. Union
of India and Ors., [1996] 8 SCC 462.

Present Issues

The aspects to be examined include the compliance of the conditions
c
imposed by the Pollution Boards while granting no objection certificate for
mining and also compliance of various statutory provisions and notifications
as also obtaining of the requisite clearances and permissions from the
concerned authorities before starting the mining operations.
D
In matters under consideration, the areas of mining fall within the districts
of Faridabad and Gurgaon in the Haryana State.

I.A. No. 1785/0 I has been filed by the Delhi Ridge Management Board
praying that the Government of Haryana be directed to stop all mining activities
and pumping of ground water in and from area upto 5 kms from Delhi- E
Haryana border in the Haryana side of the Ridge, inter alia, stating that in
the larger interest of maintaining the ecological balance of the environment
and protecting the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary and the ridge located in
Delhi and adjoining Haryana, it is necessary to stop mining. In the application,
it has been averred that the Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary is located on the F
southern ridge which is one of the oldest mountain ranges of the world and
represents the biogeographical outer layer of the Aravalli mountain range
which is one of the most protected areas in the country. The sanctuary is
significant as it is instrumental in protecting the green lung of National Capital
of Delhi and acts as a carbon sink for the industrial and vehicular emissions
of the country's capital which is witnessing rapid growth in its pollution level G
each year. The ridge, it is averred, is a potential shelter belt against advancing
desertification and has been notified a wildlife sanctuary and reserve forest
by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. Regarding the
mining activities, it is averred that for extraction of Badarpur (Silica sand),
there is large scale mining activity on the Haryana side just adjacent to the
wildlife sanctuary of the ridge which activities threaten the sanctuaries habitat H
{
142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A and also pumping of large quantity of ground water from.mining pits. It was
also stated that the ground water level was being depleted as a result of the ".
mining activity. Further, the query dust that comes out of mining pits is a
,.
serious health hazard for human population living nearby and also the wild !

animals inhabiting the sanctuary pointing out that the mining and extraction
of ground water had been banned in National Capital Territory of Delhi and
B the ridge being protected as per the order of this Court, it is necessary, that
the ridge on the Haryana side is also protected - that being the extension of
the range and, therefore, mining, withdrawal of ground water and destruction
of flora, etc. should also be restricted outside Delhi or at least upto 5 kms.
from Delhi-Haryana border towards Haryana.
c On 6'h May, 2002, this Court directed the Chief Secretary, Government
of Haryana to stop, within 48 hours, all mining activities and pumping of
ground water in and from an area upto Skms. from Delhi-Haryana border in
the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli Hills. The question to
be considered is whether the order shall be made absolute or vacated or
D modified.

Our examination of the issues is confined to the effect on ecology of
the mining activity carried on within an area of 5 Kms. of Delhi-Haryana
Border on Haryana side in areas falling within the district of Faridabad and
Gurgaon and in Aravalli Hills within Gurgaon District. The question is whether
E the mining activity deserves to be absolutely banned or permitted on
compliance of stringent conditions and by monitoring it to prevent the
environmental pollution.

EPCA Visits
F In terms of the order passed by this Court on 22nd July, 2002,
;,,
Environmental Pollution Central Authority (EPCA) was directed to give a ...l
report with regard to environment in the area preferably after a personal visit
to the area in question without any advance notice. It may be noted that
EPCA was constituted by the Government of India under notification dated
G 29th January, 1998 issued in exercise of power under Section 3(1) & (3) of
the Environment (Protection) Act, I 986 (for short, 'the EP Act') Mr. Bhure
Lal was appointed its Chairman. The EPCA was constituted with a view to I
protect and improve the quality of environment and preventing, controlling
),'
and abetting environmental pollution. EPCA has also the power to deal with
environment issues pertaining to National Capital Region which may be
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABJ-IAR WAL. J.] 143

referred to it by the Central Government. The EPCA has jurisdiction over the A
National Capital Region as defined in clause (f) of Section 2 of the National
Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985. The Districts of Gurgaon and
Faridabad are part of the National Capital Region, under Section 2(f) read
with the Schedule of the said Act.

The Chairman of the CPCB is a convenor member of EPCA. EPCA B
made a surprise visit to the area to see the mining sites. The mining sites
visited are located in the villages of Anangpur, Pali, Mohabatabad and Mangar,
which fall within the notified area of 5 km radius from the Delhi border in
the Faridabad district. EPCA also visited mining sites that are located outside
the notified zone in Kot area, EPCA also held consultation with the officials C
of the Central Groundwater Board and obtained their opinion on this matter.
On August 7, 2002, members of the EPCA visited the mining sites located
within five km radius from Delhi border. The objectives of the visit, as per
EPCA, were as follows :

I. Assessment of the level of compliance with the conditions laid D
down in the regulatory procedures like the No Objection
Certificate (NOC) granted by authorities to the mine owners;

2. Evidence of land and habitat degradation in and around the mining
sites;

3. Evidence of misuse and shortage of ground water in the area; E
4. Assessment of the implication of such activities for the local
ecology and drinking water sources in the area.

During the visit, prima facie, EPCA found evidence of clear violation
of some of the key conditions of order of this court dated May I 0, 1996. F
>.
EPCA 1st Report and Recommendations

The EPCA gave its report dated 9th August, 2002. It would be useful
to reproduce the said report in extenso as under:

"Anangpur area and its vicinity : EPCA inspected the mining sites G
owned by Mohan Ram and Company as well as at least 5 other
mining sites in this area, which EPCA is not clear who owns. At the
time of visit there was no mining taking place. So EPCA members
assessed level of compliance with some of the key conditions ]aid
down in the NOCs. There was clear evidence of violation of the H
~
I

144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A following conditions. ,.. .
1. The excavated pits should be filled with fly ash or municipal
solid waste in the bottom layers. The top soil should be used as
a top layer while filling the pit. Land reclamation and tree
plantation should be done in a planned manner over the reclaimed
B mine pits.
ii. The applicant shall not discharge any effluent or groundwater
outside their lease premises and shall take appropriate
measures for rainwater harvesting and reuse of water so as
I
not to affect adversely the ground water table of the area.
c No mining operation shall be carried out in the water table
area.

111. The green belt proposed in the environment management
plan around the proposed mining lease area and along the
road side shall be developed.
D
The most serious violation noticed by the EPCA was the continuation
of mining even after reaching the ground water level which has been
disallowed by the regulatory agencies. Photographs taken by EPCA,
which show deep mining pits have turned into large lakes of ground
water. In this mining lease area EPCA members saw extensive and
E deep water bodies. The water was blue, indicating that this was
groundwater and not surface water runoff collected in the pits.

Even more serious violation noticed was configuration of water pipes
laid out to draw water out of the pits to throw them over hills and let
the water flow out. This is a grave misuse of precious ground water
F in an area where ground water is the only source of water for the
local population - both urban and rural.

EPCA members talked to local villagers who complained that water
table in the area has gone down over a period of time and that the
village is facing water shortage. While earlier ground water could be
G tracked at the depth of 30-35 ft. now deep bore wells have been dug
to get drinking water, in addition, noise and dust pollution from the
mining sites are a problem.

Goodwill mine in Pali village : EPCA found similar violation of
conditions and evidence of mining sites reaching the level of ground
H water in deep pits and pipes fitted to drain out water here as well.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. J.] 145

\,),.. During the long drive to various mining sites, EPCA could not see A
any credible sign of green belt along the roads. Moreover, one
important condition of NOCs is that "a safe distance should be
maintained from the road to overburden dumps and the mine pits in
accordance with the directions/notifications of the department of
environment, Haryana and bureau of mines." But EPCA noticed
mining sites very close to the roads and also very close to the B
ecologically sensitive area of Asola sanctuary near the Goodwill mines.

Stone crushing sites in Pali : EPCA has inspected the stone crushing
.:....
sites in the area. All sites had a lot of material and trucks being
loaded. It is difficult to establish if these are the left over material
from the past or were products from banned sites or from sites from
c
outside the notified area. EPCA was informed that after the Hon 'ble
Supreme Court directive of May 2002, the stone crushers were not
being operated, except between the hours of 5 am to 9 am. EPCA
was, therefore, unable to verify the working conditions of these
crushers. But it did not find any evidence of afforestation as stipulated D
by the NEER! directive or any evidence of dust minimizing equipment.
.,
.
Mining around Mangar village : Again the same situation was found
around Anangpur. The villagers interviewed here were caught between
the devastation of the mines, desperate shortage of drinking water
and the only livelihood option that these manual stone quarries E
provided.

Legal mining in Kot area : As mmmg is banned along the 5 km
radius from the Delhi border, EPCA also visited some mines that are
outside the notified area to ascertain the state of the environment. In
this area, surface mining is being done and not deep mining. Therefore, F
'. as yet, the groundwater reserves are not being touched in this region.
)
The entire area was 1ike a giant dust field. We saw no evidence of
any afforestation or even dust minimising efforts being undertaken in
the areas that are being mined. We did see one tanker of water, which
was sprinkling the roads, unable to stop the dust from swirling. EPCA
G
could not see any protection for the workers from dust. As this area
will clearly emerge as a major mining in the future, it is important

~ . that the mining area is properly demarcated and environment
management plan implemented to enable scientific mining to minimize
degradation of the environment.
H
146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Faridabad-Gurgaon road : EPCA saw mining alongside the road. .... .
Though the mines were closed because of the Hon 'ble court directive,
EPCA saw vast pits and mining activity in this area. This is the road
for the proposed bypass from Delhi.

3. The present laws and regulations in the area
B We have assessed the current applicable laws and regulations in the
area, which govern land use and mining so as to understand what
efforts have been made by different agencies to ensure compliance .

• In may 1992, parts of the Aravalli range were declared
ecologically sensitive under the Environment (Protection) Act
c Under this notification, certain activities - including all new
mining operations, including renewals of mining leases - are
restricted and permission has to be sought from the Ministry of
Environment and Forests. This notification is valid for reserved
forests in the districts of Gurgaon in Haryana and Alwar in
D Rajasthan .

• ln August 1992, the Forest Department of Haryana had issued a
notification under the Punjab Land Preservation Act 1900, banning
the clearing and breaking up the land not under cultivation,
quarrying of stone ... in the Badkal area without prior permission
E of the forest department. This ban was for 30 years. Earlier it
had already issued a similar notification for the Pali area for 25
years.

F
• In 1996, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court banned aU mining activity
within 2 kms of the Badkal and Surajkund tourist resorts.

• In the same order, it ordered that mining leases within the area
-
from 2 km to 5 km radius shall not be renewed without obtaining
no-objection certificates from the Haryana Pollution Control
Board as also the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). It
stipulated that "unless both the boards grant no objection
certificate, the mining leases in the said area shall not be renewed".
G
• Mining in the 2-5 kms was allowed under condition that there
would be strict adherence to the environment management plan
laid down by the NEER!. It has to be noted here that the CPCB -,.·
had in its report to the Hon'ble Court in 1996 stated that the
"deep mining for silica is causing an ecological disaster". CPCB
H
M.C. MEHTAv. U.O.l. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. J.] 147
has recommended that mining activity "should be stppped within A
a radius of 5 kms from Badkal and Surajkund. The subsequent
report of NEER! dated 20.4.1996, recommended green belt at I
km radius all around the boundaries of the two lakes. On this
basis, the Hon 'ble Court directed that radius be extended to 2
kms for a green belt and to cushion the impacts of air and noise B
pollution.

• The Hon 'ble Court in its order asked the agencies to ensure
enforcement of the recommendations of NEERI. It directed that
"failure to comply with the recommendations may result in the
closure of the mining operations."
c
4. Compliance and enforcement : absent and missing

To discuss the future strategy for this area, it would be important to
assess the track-record of the different agencies in ensuring that the
previous orders and directives are enforced and complied with.

I. No mining within 2 kms of Badkal and Surajkund : Probably
D
enforced. But difficult to assess as the area is hilly.

2. Mining within 2-5 kms should get permission from Haryana
Pollution Control Board and CPCB. The CPCB has issued 2
NOCs, dated December 20, 2001 and May 6, 2002. No further E
record has been found of NOCs given for mining in this area.
EPCA has not been able to find the NOCs granted by the Haryana
Pollution Control Board.

Compliance with the environmental management plans recommended
by NEERI as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
F
' S. No. Directive Enforced or not
/
1. 200 mts wide green belt along Shrubs and wild growth. No real
Surajkund and Badkal evidence of good afforestation.

2. I 00 mts wide green belt outside Definitely not done. EPCA did not G
mining lease boundary see afforestation, except for some
recent plantation of dying and dead
trees in one or two places. The sign
boards were more prominent than
the trees they were supposed to H
148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004J 3 S.C.R.

A show. .... .
3. 100 mts open peripheral area Not done
around stone crusher zone with
green belt

B 4. Green belt on either side of the We saw large scale construction on
road between Surajkund and th is road - from schools to
Badkal. management colleges and housing
colonies.
5. Mining should commence only There is no evidence of an
c after the environmental environmental management plan
management plan (EMP) is being adhered to in this region.
approved by a designated
authority

Adherence to the conditions of the No-objection Certificate granted by
D CPCB for mining

S. No. Directive Enforced or not
••
1. Mining to be done with No evidence
approved mining plan
E
2. Excavated pit to be filled by EPCA saw no evidence that this
fly ash or municipal solid waste recommendation had even been

F
in the bottom layers.
Overburden should be used in
the middle layer. Top soil on
top layer and afforestation.
attempted to be followed. All
abandoned mines were left open and
degraded. The entire region was
pockmarked with deep holes and
-
overburdens.
3. No discharge of effluent or Not done. Gross violation. See
groundwater outside lease section on water for details.
premises. Must take measures
G for rain water harvesting and
reuse of water so as not to
affect the groundwater table in
the areas. No mining operations
shall be carried out in the water
table area.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHAR WAL, J] 149

I .}. 4. Ambient air quality standards No evidence. Mine was closed. A
to be complied with.

5. Noise level at the boundary No evidence. Mine was closed.
shall conform with noise
standards.
B
6. Green belt around lease area Not done.
and roadside

7. Clearance of groundwater No evidence. Groundwater board has
board for the usage of the not given any clearance that we
groundwater will be obtained, could ascertain. C
for the conservation of
groundwater and to ascertain
that there will be no impacts
on the groundwater table of the
area.
D
From the above, it is clear that little or nothing has been done to
seriously comply with the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as well as to enforce the regulations and conditions laid down by the
authorities for environmental management of the mining areas.

5. Impact on groundwater reserves E
It has been argued by the Government of Haryana in its IA no.1785
of 2001 that the expert committee constituted by it under the
Chairmanship of the principal conservator of forests has submitted
that there is a water divide between the two boundaries of the two F
States which prevents the flow of water from Delhi side to Haryana
side. It has, therefore, argued that the mining on the Haryana side is
not affecting the water balance in the Delhi side of the ridge.

It has further said that only in four pits the groundwater was pumped
regularly and in two pits occasionally. Therefore, it has argued that G
little or no impact on groundwater reserves is possible.

5.1.Groundwater Board

EPCA requested the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) for its
opinion. The Board has based its recommendations on the data
H
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12004] 3 S.C.R.

A available with it as well as a field survey.
.J...

The key issues are :

1. On the issue of the ridge providing a water divide between the
two States, the CGWB has maintained that while the surface
water divide follows the Delhi-Haryana border, except in the
B
catchment of Bhuria Nala, 'the surface water divide may not be
the groundwater divide in the strict sense due to secondary
porosity and also flat topped nature of the hills.' It also states
that the Aravalli hills are highly fractured, jointed and weathered
making the major recharge zone for the surrounding areas.
c 2. On the impact on the groundwater reserves due to mining, the
Board has found that its observation wells have shown an increase
in groundwater levels in Anangpur, Mangar, after the mining has
been stopped in May. Therefore, in spite of monsoon failure and
continued abstraction of water, the observation wells have noted
D increased water levels within just 2 months of the mining being
closed.

The groundwater levels in a tube well monitored in Mewla Maharajpur
during mid July and first week of August showed a rise of 0.18
..
metres, A higher rise - 0.71 to 0.78 metres was observed in the two
E tube welis near the Mangar mines and Pali mines in the two months
since the mines were closed. This clearly points to the impact of
mining on groundwater reserves.

This fact was also confirmed in the interviews done by EPCA at site. .,
3. CGWB also notes that contrary to what has been claimed, the
F
mined water is not being pumped into abandoned pits to recharge
the groundwater. Instead the groundwater pumped is discharged '
into the surrounding nalas, leading to "wastage" of groundwater. '
For instance, in the case of Anangpur mines, the water was
pumped into the Bhuria Nala and in the case of Pali, the
G groundwater was discharged into a nala to the Badkal lake and
from Manger mine towards Dhauj lake causing "enormous losses
to groundwater resources of the area". The mined water is also
full of silt, which reduces recharge as well.
'":,,i
4. Furthermore, CG WB notes that the large surface lakes in the
H mines are leading to huge losses of groundwater through
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. J.] 151

'.i.. evaporation. A
5. The Central Ground Water Authority (CG WA) has notified these
areas - South district of NCT Delhi, Faridabad, Ballabhgarh
Municipal Corporation area, Gurgaon town as water stressed areas
and has put regulatory measures on ground water development
in these areas. B
Given all this, CGWB concludes that the "dewatering of mines in the
Aravalli hills has affected groundwater regimes of the mine area as
well as buffer zone resulting in the depletion of ground water
resources."

5.2. Compliance with groundwater related regulations
c
The NOC given by the Central Pollution Control Board, includes an
explicit condition regarding ground water :

That the mine owner will ensure that there is no discharge of
effluent of ground water outside lease premises. They must take D
measures for rain water harvesting and reuse of water so as not
to affect the groundwater table in the areas. Most importantly, it
stipulates that no mining operations shall be carried out in the
water table area.
This condition has been grossly violated. Even the Haryana E
government's affidavit in court accepts that pumping of ground water
is taking place, though it attempts to soften the issue by arguing that
it is only being done in a few cases.

Under this condition, mining is not allowed in the water table area.
EPCA saw deep and extensive pits of mines with vast water bodies. F
EPCA also saw evidence of pumps and pipes being used to drain out
the ground water so that mining could continue. Therefore, the miners
are mining for silica, but also in the process, mining and destroying
the ground water reserves of the areas.

In times of such water stress and desperation, this water mining is G
nothing less than a gross act of wastage of a key resource. This time
the stress has been further aggravated by the failure of monsoon.
Notices have been issued in the nearby housing colonies stating that
fall in groundwater table due to lack of rains is responsible for water
shortage in the area this season. This only indicates how important it H
I
--(

152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 3 S.C.R.

A is to conserve ground water in the region for long term sustainability
of drinking water sources. Ground water is the only source of drinking
water here."

On the basis of study and visn as well as the report of the Central
Ground Water Board, EPCA made the following recommendations :
B
"I . The ban on the mining activities and pumping of ground water
in and from an area upto 5 kms. from the Delhi-Haryana border
in the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli Hill
must be maintained. /.

c 2. Not only must further degradation be halted but, all efforts must
be made to ensure that the local economy is rejuvenated, with
the use of plantations and local water harvesting based
opportunities. It is indeed sad to note the plight of people living
in these hills who are caught between losing their water dependent
livelihood and between losing their only desperate livelihood to
D break stones in the quarries. It is essential that the Government
of Haryana seriously implements programmes to enhance the
land based livelihood of people - agriculture, animal care and
forestry. Local people must not be thrown into making false
choices, which may secure their present -but will destroy their
future. Already, all the villages visited by EPCA complained of
E
dire and desperate shortages of drinking water. Women talked
about long queues before taps to collect water. Clearly, water
resources of the region are critical inputs to development and
cannot be wasted and destroyed like this. The state government
must come up with strategies to involve local communities in the
F future development of this region.
_,
We have been given to understand that under the mining lease, -<,
I 0 per cent of the royalty is to be given to local villagers. We
have also understood that the turnover is of the mining operations
in this area is substantial - between Rs.50 lakhs to Rs. I crore a
G day were the gross estimates provided to us. However, we do not
have any estimate of the money that has been given to villagers
from this revenue. But there was little evidence in these poor and
destitute villages that any effort had been made to share the
proceeds with them.

H 3. The Central Ground Water Board must be consulted urgently
~·
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.L [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 153

about what should be .done with the huge standing water in the A
' .....
area. This is a valuable national resource and the Board should
be asked if the water is best conserved by covering it to stop
evaporation or should it be used for recharge and storage with
further water harvesting efforts.
4. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) should be B
asked to extend the notification under the Environment
(Protection) Act to the Faridabad part of the Aravalli and ridge
as well. Currently, the notification 'is only for Gurgaon district.
This notification declaring it an ecologically sensitive area will
help to regulate the activities in this region.
c
5. It is not clear to us if adequate planning for water is being done
in the large scale construction activities being undertaken in this
area. This aspect is outside the purview of this report but needs
to be examined carefully.
6. It must also be noted that Gurgaon-Faridabad road is being D
proposed as the major bypass for the city of Delhi. The Hon 'hie
Court will note its directives on the air pollution case in this
regard. It has been said to the court in that matter that the
Government of Haryana is intending to widen the road al)d bids
have even been issued to this effect. Therefore, it is all the more
important that the mining activity along the road must not be E
allowed. The 5 kms. ban from the border of Delhi will take care
of this requirement.
7. EPCA would also recommend that the mining area outside the 5
kms. area must be demarcated and regulated. In this context,
EPCA would like to draw the attention of the court to the F
violations and gross disregard for regulations found in the present
',;
mines. It is not out of place to mention that these mines are
owned by very powerful and highly placed individuals in the
establishment. In a related case the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana has directed on 20.4.200 I a CBI enquiry on the basis of
G
a public interest litigation filed by a journalist. In its order the
Hon'.ble Court maintained that its examination has found evidence
that illegal mining operations are going on in the area. The
Hon'ble Court also noted the bias of the State Government to
"· shield the offenders and has said that because there is prima
facie evidence of the involvement of a 'person who holds the H
,-(,'
I

154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A high position of the cabinet minister in the state', the enquiry ......
should be done by CBI. This enquiry is still ongoing.
During the examination of the case, EPCA was told of other
persons involved in the mining activity who are highly influential
and part of the ruling political parties in the State and Centre.
B In this respect, EPCA would recommend that tighter and constant
monitoring of the area must be done by a Central Government
agency. To increase accountability, EPCA would also recommend
that the environment management plan (EMP) for the mining
j..
area as well as the conditions of the NOC should be made a
c public document. All other subsequent monitoring reports of this
region must be available publicly, preferably on the website of
the monitoring agency."

With the report, a note given by the Chairmen, Central Ground Water
Board on impact of pumping of ground water ·from mines and ground water
D regime in mining area and its buffer zone in Aravalli hills of NCT Delhi,
Faridabad and Gurgaon Districts of Haryana was also annexed. The said note
reads as under :

Based on available data with Central Ground Water Board and a
quick survey in and around mining area in Aravalli hills, following
E observations are made -
"I. The area under consideration forms part of Aravalli range from
where mining of silica-sand and other construction material was
being carried out. The mining of silica sand was mainly carried
out below water table by dewatering the mines whereas mining
F for other construction material is carried out above water table.
The major mining areas are Anangpur, Pali, Manger and
Mohabbatabad.
2. The surface water divide in the area approximately follows Delhi-
Haryana boarder except the catchment of Bhuria Nala flowing in
G Haryana State, which extends in Asola area of Delhi State also.
The formations in the Aravalli hills are highly fractured, jointed
and weathered making it the major recharge zone for the
surrounding areas. The surface water divide may not be ground
water divide in strict sense due to secondary porosity and also
flat-topped nature of the hills.
H
'r· M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. J.] 155
..... 0
-'· The pumping of ground water during mining of Silica sand affects A
ground water regime of surrounding area. During the field visit,
it was reported by local people that during the dewatering of
mines there was decline in ground water levels and reduction in
discharge in surrounding wells whereas after stoppage of pumping
the rise in water levels and increase in discharge has been reported.
Jn few observation wells on down stream side of mines rise in B
ground water levels has been observed in Anangpur, Manger and
villages after stoppage of abstraction of ground water from deep

• mines. The ground water levels in a tube well monitored in
Mew la Maharajpur during mid July 2002 and first week of August
2002 were 24.39 and 24.57 m. below ground level respectively, c
showing a rise of 0.18 m. Ground water levels in tube well
located at temple near Manger mine in second week of July
2002 and first week of August, 2002 were 51.70 and 49.99. m.
below ground level respectively showing a rise of 0.71 m.
Similarly, ground water level in a tube well at Indernagar in
Delhi area near Pali mine in third week of June 2002 and first D
week of August 2002 were 59.68 and 58.90 m. below ground
., level respectively showing a rise of 0.78 m. The stoppage of
dewatering of mines has resulted in rise of ground water levels
in surrounding areas.

4. It has been observed that drainage pattern of the area has been E
modified due to haphazard mining and dumping of waste material
which has bearing on natural path of ground water flow in the
area.

5. It is claimed that abandoned pits act as recharge pits and in some
cases the pumped ground water is put in these pits so there may F
;'
not be substantial modification in the conditions of ground water
regime. All the ground water pumped out from Anangpur mine
has not been put into abandoned adjoining pits resulting in wastage
of ground water by discharge into Bhuria Nala. Observation have
indicated that Bhuria Nala which was ephemeral stream became
G
a perennial stream during mining operations and now flow has
stopped after closure of mining activity. Similarly, pumped out
ground water from Pali mine was being discharged in a easterly
)'J flowing nala to Badkal Lane a~d from Manger mine in a south
westerly flowing nala towards Dhauj lake causing enormous losses
to ground water resources of the area. Further, the pumped .out H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A water cannot be recharged effectively due to its high silt content.
In silica sand mines the water table has been intersected and in
....
presently exposed to the atmosphere causing huge losses to ground
water through evaporation.
6. Studies conducted by Central Ground Water Board have revealed
B that water levels in Faridabad new town which falls in buffer
zone of mine area have declined by 1.44 m/year. The decline of
ground water level in the towns has been attributed to over
development of ground water for domestic and industrial uses
which is totally dependent on ground water. The pumping out of ,,
ground water for mining of silica sand in recharge zone might
c have aggravated the declining trend of ground water levels which
otherwise would have contributed to the buffer zone.
7. Central Ground Water Authority has notified South district of
NCT Delhi and Faridabad and Ballabhgarh Municipal Corporation
area and Gurgaon town and adjoining industrial area in August
D 2000, October 1998 and December 2000 respectively mainly on
consideration of over development of ground water resources
resulting in substantial decline in ground water levels. Regulatory
measures on ground water development have been imposed in
these areas.
E 8. Therefore, it is observed that dewatering of mines in Aravalli
hills has affected ground water regime of the mine area as well
as buffer zone resulting in depletion of ground water resources."

When the aforesaid report came up for consideration, some of the
mine owners submitted that their mines had not been inspected by Bhure Lal
F Committee. Particulars of the mines that were stated to have not been inspected
were filed on 23rd September, 2002. Bhure Lal Committee was requested to
carry out the inspection of the said areas/mines. The Committee was also
permitted to associate such other organizations or persons as it may deem fit
and proper for the purpose of inspection.
G EPCA 2nd Report and Recommendations

In terms of the aforesaid order, 26 mines were inspected and report
dated 2 !st October, 2002 was submitted. The observations made as a request
of inspection in regard to each mine are as follows :
H
M.C.MEHTAv.U.0.1. [Y.K.SABHARWAL.J.] 157

"The numbers indicated in parenthesis are serial number of mines A
given in the list of mines furnished by Kailash Vasudev, senior
advocate to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was forwarded to EPCA.

I. (no.9)

Name of Mine/Area : New Anangpur Silica Sand Mines Mis S.P. B
Sethi,

Location : Village New Anangpur, Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 186.52
hec.
c
Mineral Extracted : Silica Sand Mines

Status of Mining : Above groundwater level

Whether groundwater is extracted : No.
D
Status of environmental clearances No clearance given. No
environmental management plan.

This mine is located very close to the Delhi border (in close proximity
to the Asola sanctuary). EPCA members were shown two pits, which
were not being worked currently. There was no groundwater E
exploitation seen in these pits. Only brown stagnant rain water was
seen. But what was very clear was that this mining lease was adjoining
the boundary of Delhi. Only recent plantation of sapling was noticed
along the path.

2. (13) F
•. Name of Mine/Area: Anangpur Silica Sand Mines Mis. Mohan Ram
and Co.

Location : Village Anangpur, Distt. Faridabad.
G
Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity : 175.00
Hee.

Mineral Extracted: Silica Sand Mines.

Status of Mining : Below groundwater level
H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Whether ground water is extracted :. Yes _,.. .

Status of environmental clearances : NOC granted by state pollution
control board for renewal of lease in 1999. No environmental
management plan.

B This mine has large pits where sand and silica was being extracted.
This was a working mine and had large amount of water in the two
pits. EPCA members also saw a pipe, which was currently unused,
meant for pumping out the water from the pits. The pits were at least
I 00-150 feet deep and the groundwater had been clearly exploited for
some time. Large amount of overburden were also seen in the area.
c
3. ( 12)

Name of Mine/Area: Anangpur Silica sand mines, Mis. S.P. Sethi,
Anangpur.

D Location: Village Anangpur Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 489.34
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, China clay, ordinary sand, stone road
E material (RM) and masonry stone (MS)

Status of Mining : Below groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : Yes.

Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
F environmental management plan.

The mining pit here has tuned into a huge groundwater lake, ,
Groundwater is fully exposed. Extensive oberburden could be seen °'
near the pits. It was very evident that no major efforts were made to
create plantation in the area. Some new and young saplings could be
G seen along side the paths leading to the pits. Clearly these were
planted very recently.

4. (8)

Name of Mine/Area: Anangpur Silica sand mines, Mis. Rajdhani
H Minerals Corporation.
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 159
Location: Village Anangpur Distt. Faridabad. A
Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 188.47
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, China clay, ordinary sand, stone RM
and MS B
Status: seen one closed pit. Did not see any water.

Status of environmental clearances: NOC granted by State Pollution
Control Board.

5. (7) c
Name of Mine/Area: Mewla Maharajpur Silica sand mines, Mis K.C.
Ahuja & Co.

Location: Village Mewla Maharajpur Distt .. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 162.905 D
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, China clay, ordinary sand, stone road
material (RM) and masonry stone (MS)

Status : surface mining from the rocks E
Whether ground water is extracted : No.

Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
environmental management plan.

One pit seen, Mostly stone being quarried. Some water seen. No F
• evidence of tree plantation seen in the area. But mine pits are adjoining
road.

6. (19)

Name of Mine/Area: Mis. Ramkrishna Pumi Devi. G
Location: Village Badkal Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 369.4
hec.
H
I

1
I

160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A (Of this 121 hec. Falls within 2 km ofBadkal Tourist Complex where
mining has been banned)

Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, ordinary sand, road metal, masonry
stone and minor mineral

B Status: mining above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted :

No. Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
environmental management plan.

C EPCA members saw one pit located next to the border of Delhi. The
mining area is hard rock and the pit was being worked for stone. The
mining site was at the boundary of Delhi and the Aso la sanctuary was
seen at a close distance. This mine is also adjoining the road.

7. (2)
D
Name of Mine/Area: Mohan Ram & Co. Proprietor Kartar Singh.

Location: Village Pali Distt. Faridabad.

Mineral extracted : Ordinary stone, road metal, masonry stone

E Under litigation in High Court of Delhi.

8. (11)

Name of Mine/Area: Pali Silica Sand Mines, M/s Goodwill Mineral
Corporation.
F Location: Village Pali, Distt. Faridabad.
,.
Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 50.5 ·1.
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, China clay, sand
G Status of Mining : Below water table.

Whether ground water is extracted : Yes.

Status of environmental clearances: NOC granted by State Pollution ·~·
Control Board in 1999 for renewal of lease. Asked to comply with
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1 [Y.K. SABHARWAL. .I.] 161

conditions laid down by CPCB as well. No environmental management A
plan as yet.

A deep pit with extensive water body. Pipes pumps and generators
could be seen at the site. Water is extracted from the pit. Very little
plantation could be seen at the site. The pit is contiguous to other
mines in the area and the extent of groundwater being exploited is B
massive and the expanse is vast. Some trees have been planted along
the roadside. This mine is adjoining the main Delhi bypass of
Faridabad-Gurgaon, which is being tendered for a four-lane highway.

9. (17)

Name of Mine/Area: Mis. Sheeshpal Singh
c
Location: Village Pali, Dist!. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 127.95
hec.
D
Mineral Extracted : Silica, China clay, sand, quartzite

Status: Below groundwater table.

Whether ground water is extracted : Yes.

Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No E
environmental management plan.

Large lake of ground water could be seen at the site. The lake
apparently covers a few contiguous mining pits. No efforts to create
plantation in the area except a few young saplings which seemed to F
have been planted very recently. Huge overburden could be seen near
•
; the pits. This mine is adjoining the main Delhi bypass of Faridabad-
Gurgaon, which is being tendered for a four lane highway.

10. (20)

Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Ram Chandar G
Location: Village Gothra, Mohatabad, Dist!. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 296
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, ordinary sand, road metal and masonry H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A stone.

Status: Below groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : Yes.

Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
B environmental management plan.

Deep mining pits with large water bodies could be seen. The mine is
also contiguous to the other mines so the amount of water that is
being exploited is massive and uncontrolled. Huge amounts of
overburden were also seen in the area. In this mine some efforts have
c been made to create plantations and the trees, unlike those seen in
other areas, were more mature. This mine is adjoining the main bypass
of Faridabad-Gurgaon, which is being tendered for a four-lane
highway.

11. (22)
D
Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Maruti Minerals.

Location: Plot No. I Village Manger, Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 63.225
hec.
E
Mineral Extracted : Silica sand, China clay, ordinary sand, road metal
and masonry stone.

Status: above groundwater.

F Whether ground water is extracted : No.

Status of environmental clearances: clearance given. No environmental
management plan.

Observed surface stone mining. No water seen. New lease and so the
mines have not reached ground water levels as yet. But mine ear
G
Delhi bypass of Faridabad-Gurgaon road.

12A. (1) Name of Mine/Area: Mis. Seven Mines and Minerals Pvt.
Ltd.

Location: Plot No.6, Village Manger, Distt. Faridabad.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. .I.] 163
Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 59.3875 A
;+ hec.

Mineral Extracted : Ordinary sand, road metal and masonry stone.

Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : No. B
Status of environmental clearances: Clearance given. No environmental
management plan.

Observed surface stone mining. No water seen. New lease and so the
mines have not reached groundwater levels as yet. But mine near C
Delhi bypass of Faridabad-Gurgaon Road.

12B.

Name of Mine/Area: Mis. Seven Mines & Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

Location: Plot No.8, Village Manger, Distt. Faridabad. D

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 63.75
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Ordinary sand, .road metal and masonry stone.
E
Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted :

No. Status of environmental clearances: Clearance given. No
environmental management plan.
F
Observed surface stone mining. No water seen. New lease and so the
mines have not reached groundwater levels as yet. But mine near
Delhi bypass of Faridabad-Gurgaon road.

13. (25)
G
Name of Mine/Area: Mis. Ashok Minerals industry

Location: Plot No.7, Village Manger, Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity:67.00
hec.
H
-11
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : No.

Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
environmental management plan.
B Observed surface stone mining. No water seen. New lease and so the
mines have not reached groundwater levels as yet. But mine is on the
Delhi bypass of Faridabad-Gurgaon road.

14. (23)

C Name of Mine/Area: Mis. Jaikrishan Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Location: Plot No.2 & 3, Village Manger, Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 44. 785
hec and 56.4375 hec.
D Mineral Extracted : Stone mining

Status: Below groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : Yes.

Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
E
environmental management plan.

Was shown one pit with small water collection. But at a distance seen
another pit with large amount of groundwater collected. This mine is
being worked and clearly water must have been pumped from the
mine. Deep pits seen. But mine is near Delhi bypass of Faridabad-
F
Gurgaon road. ,,..
15. (I 0)

Name of Mine/Area: Mis. Faridabad Gurgaon Minerals.
'
G Location: Plot No.5 Village Manger, Dist!. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity:33.0375
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Ordinary sand, road metal and masonry stone

H Status: Below groundwater table
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. (Y.K. SABHARWAL, .I.] 165
Whether ground water is extracted : Yes. A
Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
environmental management plan.

Exposed groundwater could be seen. This mine was also been worked.
Deep pits seen in this mine.
B
16. (24)

Name of Mine/Area: M/s. Patram Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd.

Location: Plot No.11, Village Manger, Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 126.75
c
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica sand and stone

' Status: Above groundwater table.
D
Whether ground water is extracted : No.

Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
environmental management plan.

Stone quarry. No water seen. Some efforts have been made to create E
plantation.

17. (18)

Name of Mine/Area: Mis. Sheeshpal Singh

Location: Village Pali, Distt. Faridabad. F
Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 44.48
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica/Ord. Sand & stone, road metal and masonry
stone
G
Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : No.

Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
environmental management plan. H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Recent lease. Mining activity had recently started. New pit seen and
as yet only stone was being quarried.

18. (4)

Name of Mine/Area: Pali Silica Sand Mines, Mis. S.P. Sethi.

B Location: Village Pali, Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 82.20
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica/Ord. Sand, china clay stone (road metal
C and masonry)

Status: Below groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : Yes.

Status of environmental clearances: NOC given by State Pollution
D Control Board in 1999 for renewal of lease. No environmental
management plan.

Pit with little water seen. Being worked. Large amount of overburden
was seen close to mine. 1 hec of plantation created near mine.

E 19. (3)

Name of Mine/Area: Pali Silica Sand Mines, M/s. P.K. Sethi

Location: Pali, Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 162
F hec.

Mineral Extracted : Sand china clay, stone (road and masonry)

Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : No.
G
Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
environmental management plan.

Pit with no water seen. Being worked. Large amount of overburden
was seen close to mine.
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, .I.] 167

20. (5) A
Name of Mine/Area: Pali Silica Sand Mines, M/s. Lucky Minerals

Location: Village Pali, Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 261.36
hec. B
Mineral Extracted : Sand, china clay stone (road metal and masonry)

Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : No.
c
Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
environmental management plan.

Pit with no water seen. Being worked. Large amount of overburden
was seen close to mine. Nominal plantation seen. But area with lessee
is very large over - 261 ha - and no idea if other mines in the area D
have reached water levels.

21. (6)

Name of Mine/Area: Mohabatabad Silica sand mines, M/s. P.K. Sethi
E
Location: Village Mohtabad, Distt. Faridabad.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 399.59
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Sand, china clay, stone (road metal and masonry)
F
Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : No.

Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
environmental management plan.
G
Shown pit where stone is being quarried. But area with lessee is very
large over - almost 400 hec. - and no idea if other mines in the area
have reached water level as yet.

22. (14)
H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Name of Mine/Area: Mis. Tejvir Singh and Co.

Location: Village Bandhwari, Dist!. Gurgaon.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 91.20
hec.

B Mineral Extracted Silica Sand, Ord. Sand, china clay, quartz &
stone mine.

Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : No.
c Status of environmental clearances: Clearance given. No environmental
management plan.

Stone quarry. Very recent lease granted and clearance has only been
done in April 2002. Large seemingly abandoned, pits seen on road.
D Labourer colony near on road near mine and a number of trucks seen
on this road carrying material. No plantation seen.

23. (15)

Name of Mine/Area: Mr. Ashok Gupta

E Location: Village Balola, Distt. Gurgaon.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 19.15
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica Sand and china clay.

F Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : No.

Status of environmental clearances: Clearance given. No environmental
management plan.
G
Stone quarry Recent lease and clearance of January 2002. No plantation
seen. The mine is on the main Delhi bypass - Gurgaon-Faridabad
road, which is being developed as a four-lane bypass.

24. (16)
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 169

Name of Mine/Area: Mr. Ashok Gupta A
Location: Plot No.3, Village Behrampur, Dist!. Gurgaon.

Total Area of Land on lease/ Actual area under mining activity: 94.05
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica sand quartzites. B
Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : No.

Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No. C
environmental management plan.

Stone quarry. Recent lease. No plantation seen. But near village. As
this mine is near the five km radius, other mines with crushers and
blasting seen· at close distance.

(l IB - 22) D
Name of Mine/Area: Mis. Maruti Minerals
--;
Location: Village Haidpur, Dist!. Gurgaon.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 18.125 E
hec.

Mineral Extracted : Stone

Status: Above groundwater table

Whether ground water is extracted : No. F
Status of environmental clearances: No clearance given. No
environmental management plan.

Stone quarry. No plantation seen. Near habitation of Gurgaon town.

25. (21) G
Name of Mine/Area: Mr. Karan Singh

Location: Village Nathpur, Dist!. Gurgaon.

Total Area of Land on lease/Actual area under mining activity: 5.996 H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A hec.

Mineral Extracted : Silica Sand .

Status: Above groundwater level (surface mining)

Whether ground water is extracted : No.
B
Status of environmental clearances: No Clearance given. No
environmental management plan.

Stone quarry. No plantation seen. Mine on main Delhi-Gurgaon road
at the border of Delhi. Mine lease recently awarded at the edge of the
C DLF residential colony. Allegations that illegal mining is being done
at the Delhi side of this mine. Next to the protected area of Delhi
forest.

In respect of the ground water regime the report states that :

D "The key issue to examine is the impact of mining on the ground
water regime in the region. It is evident from the inspection done by
EPCA that ground water reserves are being exploited and destroyed,
it must be stressed that it is not a matter of individual mines reaching
ground water levels or not, the issue to examine is the water regime
of the entire area."
E
The report further states that "during its inspection to the mines, Kar:tar
Singh '1adana, Minister of Cooperatives in the State and also a mine owner
told EPCA members that the impact of ground water abstraction is minimal.
He maintained that the miners were harvesting the water and not allowing it
F to flow to the Yamuna, where it would be lost to the State. A perusal of the
reports of the ground water regime shows that this contention cannot be
upheld."

It is also stated in the report that "the geology and geomorphology of
the area comprises oldest exposed lithology with upland units. The rock type
G is mainly quartzite and these rise 150-200 metres above ground level in the
quartzite's the ground water aquifers occur in the weathered zones and
interspaces within interconnected joints and fractures. According to the CGWB,
the unconfined aquifer is about 50 metres thick. But between the 50-110
metre below ground level (bgi) a thick clay layer ranging in thickness from
25-60 metres separates the top unconfined aquifer from the confined aquifer.
H
M.C.MEHTAv.U.O.L [Y.K.SABHARWAL,J] 171

) ~·
The mines inspected by EPCA were below 150 feet (45 metres) and on A
checking it was found that most mines were further operating at 20-100 feet
(6-30 metres) below water levels. This means that the mines are abstracting
water from the confined aquifer. As annual rainfall mostly replenishes the
unconfined or top aquifer levels, the mining activity is destroying a non-
renewable resource. EPCA saw deep and extensive pits of mines with vast B
waterbodies - stretching at times to a kilometer and more. EPCA also saw
evidence of pumps and pipes being used to drain out the ground water so that
mining could continue. Therefore, the miners are mining for silica, but also
in the process mining and destroying the ground water reserves of the areas.

The NOC given by the Central Pollution Control Board includes an C
explicit condition regarding ground water :

"That the mine owner will ensure that there is no discharge of effluent
or ground water outside lease premises. They must take measures for
rain water harvesting and reuse of water so as not to affect the ground
water table in the areas. Most importantly, it stipulates that there D
should be no mining operations shall be carried out in the water table
area."

The report of the Central Ground Water Board states very categorically
that the ground water table is already at a critical stage in Faridabad. It states,
'The stage of ground water development of Faridabad block is 89.02 percent E
in dark category and no further abstraction of ground water should be carried
out to avoid any adverse environment impact on ground water regimes. Thus
no additional tube wells are advisable to be constructed for community water
supply scheme even though they may not affect the storage in Badkhal lake.'
The report further states that 'The domestic water supply to Faridabad town F
has to be catered and there are no surface water source which can be tapped.'

t' EPCA further observes that most of the mining is happening inside the
municipal area of Faridabad. In fact, Department of Mines and Geology
states in the letter dated October 12, 2002, 'it is submitted that the mineral
rights of the mines vests with the State Government.. .. The surface rights of G
villages Badkhal, Pali, Gothra, Mohabatabad, Anangpur, Mewla Maharajpur
are with municipal corporation, Faridabad, and Manger revenue estate are
with gram panchayat.'

Sensitivity of this region is further accentuated by its close proximity
to the reserved forests of Asola sanctuary located at the border of Delhi and H
-'
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Haryana and other ecologically sensitive areas like Surajkund and Badkhal I' ,
lake.

Even in Gurgaon, the CGWB report indicates that the ground water
scenario is grim. According to CGWB, the 'ground water development of
Gurgaon block is 124 per cent, indicating that the entire block in which
B Gurgaon town is situated is over exploited.' The ground water levels are also
falling dangerously according to the report of CGWB which recommends
strict regulatory measures for ground water use.

The EPCA, while reaffirming the recommendations that had been made
C in its earlier report dated 9th August, 2002, made the following
recommendations : .,._

"The overall assessment of the environmental impact of the mining
activities in the area especially its implication for ground water level
in the region reaffirms EPCA's assessment presented in its earlier
report. EPCA upholds its earlier recommendations made vide the
D
report submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court on August 9, 2002.

EPCA is concerned that if mining is allowed to continue in this area,
it will have serious implications for the groundwater reserve which is
the only source of drinking water in the area. EPCA has also noticed
E uncontrolled construction activities that will expand urban habitation
considerably in future. Unless immediate measures are taken to
conserve and augment water resources in the area acute survival crisis
is expected. Interviews with local villagers in the vicini.ty of mines
confirm that water shortage is already a serious problem in the region.

The extent of degradation in and around mines is the evidence
F
of failure to enforce basic rules for ecological safeguards. Recent
attempts at planting trees are cosmetic. Exposed ground water
lakes observed in mining sites only reconfirms the worst fears.
If mining could not be stopped in so many pits even after reaching
groundwater level there is no guarantee that even some of those
G mines still at the surface level will abide by the stipulated norms
when they reach the water table."

Submissions for Confirming or varying Order dated 6th May, 2002

Having regard to the ground realities as reflected in the aforesaid reports,
H should the order passed on 6th May, 2002 be varied is the question? The
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 173

continuance of the order has been strenuously objected to by the mining lease A
holders and also by the Government of Haryana. Various applications have
been filed seeking vacation of the order and in support thereof, submissions
have been made mainly by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Mr.
Kapil Sibbal, Mr. K.B. Rohtagi and Mr. Dhruv Mehta representing the lease
holders and Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General B
representing the Government of Haryana. We have also heard Mr. Raju
Ramachandran and Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor Generals
for the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, Mr. C.S.
Vaidyanathan and Mr. Kaushik (in support of IA No.1825/2002 filed by the
villagers). Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Amicus and Mr. M.C. Mehta, Advocate/
petitioner-in-person and Mr. Kailash Vasudeva for Government of Delhi have C
made submissions in support of closure of mining activity and for making the
order dated 6th May, 2002 absolute by prohibiting all mining activities and
pumping of ground water in and from an area upto 5 kms. from Delhi-
Haryana Border in the Haryana side of the Ridge and also in the Aravalli
Hills.
D
Notifications Regarding Mining on Aravalli Hills

The notification dated 7th May, 1992 issued by the Ministry of
Environment and Forest, Government of India under Section 3(2)(v) of the
EP Act read with Rule 5 of the Rules made under the said Act has considerable
bearing on the aspect of mining in Aravalli Hills. The notification, inter a/ia, E
bans all new mining operations including renewals of mining leases and sets
out the procedure for taking prior permission before undertaking such an
activity. The notification, in so far as material for the present purposes, reads:

"S.0.3 I 9(E) - Whereas a Notification under Section 3( I) and Section F
3(2) (v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986)
inviting objections against restricting certain activities in specified
area of Aravalli Range which are causing Environmental Degradation
in the Region was published in the Gazette of India Part II-Section
3 sub-section (ii) vide S.O. 25 (E) dated 9th January 1992;
G
And whereas all objections received have been duly considered
by the Central Government;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section
(1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2), of Section 3 of the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), read with rule 5 of the H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 the Central Government hereby
prohibits the carrying on the following process and operations, except
with its prior permission, in the areas specified in the Table appended
to this Notification :

(i)
B (ii) (a) All new mining operations including renewals of mining
\~

leases ....
(b) Existing mining leases in sanctuaries/national Park and areas
covered under Project Tiger and/or ...
c (c) Mining is being done without permission of the competent
authority

(iii) Cutting of trees;
(iv) Construction of any clusters of dwelling units, fa~mhouses, sheds,
community centers, information centers and any other activity
D connected with such construction (including roads a part of any
infrastructure relating thereto);
),,.
(v)

2. Any person who desires to undertake any of the above mentioned
E processes or operations in the said areas, shall submit an application
to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, in
the attached application form (annexure) specifying, inter alia, details
of the area and proposed process or operation. He shall also furnish
an Environment Impact Statement and an Environmental Management
Plan along with the application and such other information as may be
F required by the Central Government for considering the application.
,.
3. The Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and '.
Forests shall, having regard to the guidelines issued by it from time
to time for giving effect to the provisions of the said Act, grant
permission within a period of three months from the date of receipt
G of the application or where further information has been asked for
from the applicant, within a period of three months from the date of
the receipt of such information, or refuse permission within the said
time on the basis of the impact of the proposed process or operation ,A""
on the environment in the said area.
H
M.C. MEHTAv. \J.O.l. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, .I] 175
4. For seeking permission under this Notification, an application in A
the prescribed form (see Annexure), duly filled in, may be submitted
to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Paryavaran
Bhavan, COO Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi.
"'i
/ xx xx xx xx xxxx
B
3. (b) (ii) Erodability classification of the proposed land.

5. (a) Water balance at site surface and ground water availabifity
and demand.

xx xx xxxx xxxx
c
12. (a) Environmental Impact Assessment Report:

(b) Environmental Management Plan : prepared as per Guidelines
of MEF issued from time to time.

(c) Detailed Feasibility Report. D
(d) Proposal for diversion of forest land under Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 including benefit cost analysis.

13. Recommendations of the State Pollution Control Board and/or
the State Department of Environment and Forests."
E
The aforesaid notification, restricting mining activities in Aravalli range
is relevant for mining operation in Gurgaon district wherein part of Aravalli
hills range exist.

The powers vested in the Central Government in terms of the aforesaid
notification dated 7th May, 1992 were delegated to the State Governments F
concerned, namely, Rajasthan and Haryana by issue of notification dated
November 29, 1999 by the Central Government, Ministry of Environment
and Forest. The said notification reads thus :

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
NOTIFICATION
G
New Delhi, the 29th November, 1999

S.0.1189(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 23 of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), (hereinafter
H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12004) 3 S.C.R.
A referred to as the said Act), read with sub-rule (4) of rule 5 of the
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government hereby
delegates the powers conferred on it to take ·measures for protecting
and improving the quality of the environment and preventinab>
controlling and abating environmental pollution, to be exercised also
by the State Governments as notified in the Notification of the
B
Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests
S.O. N0.3 l 9(E) dated 7th May, 1992 subject to certain conditions
which are as follows :

(i) the State Governments concerned, namely, Haryana and Rajasthan
shall constitute an Expert Committee for each state as per the
c composition given in the Schedule-I annexed to this Notification;
(ii) each State Government shall also constitute a Monitoring
Committee, under the chairmanship of the District Collector
concerned (Gurgaon in Haryana and Alwar in Rajasthan) as given
in the Schedule-II annexed to this Notification which shall inter
D alia monitor the compliance of the conditions stipulated while
according environmental clearance by such State Governments
and report to such State Government about the violations, if any,
and the action taken thereon;
(iii) The District Collectors of Gurgaon in Haryana and Alwar in
E Rajasthan shall be authorised by the respective State Governments
to take necessary action under section 5 of the said Act in respect
of cases where the project proponents fail to implement the
conditions.

2. The State Government concerned shall initiate steps to prepare a
F Master Plan for the development of the area covered by the Notification
S.O. 3 J9(E) dated 7th May, 1992 integrating environmental concerns
and keeping in view the future land use of the area. This Master Plan
shall be prepared by the concerned state agency, approved by the
competent authority and finally published within two years from the
G date of issue of this Notification, in accordance with the procedure
laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act or any other similar
Act of the respective State Government. The State Government
concerned shall implement the Master Plan forthwith after its final
publication.

H 3. Any person desirous of undertaking any of the activities mentioned
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL • .l.] 177

in the Notification No.319(E) dated 7th May, 1992 shall submit an A
application to the Secretary, Department of Environment of the
Government of Haryana/Rajasthan, as the case may be. The applicant
shall also furnish environment impact statement and an environment
management plan and such other information as may be prescribed
by such State Governments. The application after due scrutiny shall B
be placed before the Expert Committee for its recommendations. Based
on the recommendations of the Expert Committee, the Department of
Environment in the State Government concerned shall take a final
decision and convey the same to the applicant within three months
from the date of receipt of application or when further information
has been asked for from the applicant within three months from the C
date of receipt of such information.

4. The Ministry of Environment and Forests retains appellate power
against rejection of any proposal and the National Environmental
Appellate Authority constituted under the National Environment
Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (22 of 1997) shall continue as an D
Appellate Authority against approval."

Schedule I and II of the notification sets out the composition of the
Expert Committee and of the Monitoring Committee. Some controversy and
confusion in respect of constitution of committees insofar as it relates to
appointment of an expert from non-government organization, was brought to E
our notice but the delegation in favour of State Governments having been
withdrawn now, it is not necessary to examine this aspect. The Central
Government, in terms of notification dated 28th February, 2003, has withdrawn
the delegation in favour of State Governments.

Notification of 27th January, 1994 Regarding Environment Impact F
Assessment (EIA)

Another notification which is of considerable importance on aspect of
mining is dated 27'h January, 1994, as amended on 4•h May, 1994. The
notification has been issued by Ministry of Environment and Forest, G
Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section ( l) and
clause (5) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the EP Act read with clause (d)
of sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the EP Rules stipulating that expansion or
modernization of any activity (if the pollution load is to exceed the existing
one) or a new project listed in Schedule I of the notification shall not be
undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded environmental H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A clearance by the Central Government in accordance with the procedure
specified in the notification.

The issue in these matters is about the interpretation of the notification,
its applicability also to mining leases granted earlier to the issue of the
notification i.e. at the time of the renewal of such mining lease. The notification
B dated 27•h January, 1994, to the extent material for the present purpose, reads
as under :

"S.0.60(E) Whereas a notification under clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of
rule 5 ot the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 inviting objections
from the public within sixty days from the date of publication of the
c said notification, against the intention of the Central Government to
impose restrictions and prohibitions on the expansion and
modernization of any activity or new projects being undertaken in
any part of India unless environmental clearance has been accorded
by the Central Government or the State Government in accordance
D with the procedure specified in that notification was published as
S.O. No.80(E) dated 28th January, 1993:

And whereas all objections received have been duly considered;
y
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section
(I) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment
E (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) read with clause (d) of sub-rule
(3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central
Govef!lment hereby directs that on and from the date of publication

F
of this notification in the Official Gazette expansion or modernization
of any activity (if pollution load is to exceed the existing one) or a
new project listed in Schedule I of this notification shall not be
-
undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded .
environmental clearance by the Central Government in accordance J •

with the procedure hereinafter specified in this notification.

2. Requirements and procedure for seeking environmental clearance
G of projects:

I .(a) Any person who desires to un .ertake any new project or the
expansion or modernization of any existing industry or project
listed in Schedule I shall submit an application to the Secretary,
Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi.
..
H
~
M.C. MEHTAv. U 0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, .I] 179
'fhe application shall be made in the proforma specified in A
Schedule II of this notification and shall be accompanied by a
project report which shall, inter a/ia, include an Environmental
Impact Assessment Report/Environment Management Plan
prepared in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central
Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests from B
time to time.

(b) Cases rejected due to submission of insufficient or inadequate
data and plans may be reviewed as and when submitted with
complete data and plans. Submission of incomplete data or plans
for the second time would itself be a sufficient reason for the
Impact Assessment Agency to reject the case summarily. c
II. In case of the following site specific projects:

(a) mining;

(b) to (d)
D
(e) prospecting and exploration of major minerals in areas above
500 ha.,
The project authorities will intimate the location of the project
site to the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment
and Forests while initiating any investigation and surveys. The E
Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests
will convey a decision regarding suitability or otherwise of the
proposed site within a maximum period of thirty days. The said
site clearance shall be granted for a sanctioned capacity and shall
be valid for a period of five years for commencing the
construction, operation or mining. F
,Jo.
III. (a) The reports submitted with the application shall be evaluated
) !
and assessed by the Impact Assessment Agency, and if deemed
necessary it may consult a Committee of Experts, having a
composition as specified in Schedule-III of this Notification. The
Impact Assessment Agency (!AA) would be the Union Ministry G
of Environment and Forests. The Committee of Experts mentioned
above shall be constituted by the IAA or such other body under
the Central Government authorised by the !AA in this regard.

(b) The said Committee of Experts shall have full right of entry and
inspection of the site or, as the case may be, factory premises at H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 3 S.C.R.

A any time prior to. during or after the commencement of the ~ .J

operations relating to the project
(c) The Impact Assessment Agency shall prepare a set of
recommendations based on technical assessment of documents
and data, furnished by the project authorities, supplemented by
B data collected during visits to sites or factories, if undertaken,
and interaction with affected population and environmental
groups, if necessary. Summary of the reports, the recommendation
and the conditions, subject to which environmental clearance is
given, shall be made available subject to the public interest to :,
the concerned parties or environmental groups on request.
c Comments of the public may be solicited, if so decided by Impact
Assessment Agency, within thirty days of receipt of proposal, in
public hearings arranged for the purpose after giving thirty days
notice of such hearings in at least two newspapers.
Public shall be provided access, subject to the public interest, to
D the summary of the reports/Environmental Management Plans at
the Headquarters of the Impact Assessment Agency.
The assessment shall be completed within a period of ninety
days fmm receipt of the requisite documents and data from the
project authorities and completion of public hearing where
E required, and decision conveyed within thirty days thereafter.
The clearance granted shall be valid for a period of five years for
commencement of the construct:on or operation.
No construction work preliminary or otherwise, relating to the
setting up of the project may be undertaken till the environmental
F
and/or site clearance is obtained.
..>
J •
IV. In order to enable the Impact Assessment Agency to monitor
effectively the implementation of the recommendations and
conditions subject to which the environmental clearance has been
given the project authorities concerned shall submit a half-yearly
G report to the Impact Assessment Agency. Subject to the public
interest, the Impact Assessment Agency, shall make compliance
reports publicly available.
i;'
v. If no comments from the Impact Assessment Agency are received
within the time limit, the project would be deemed to have been
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.l. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 181

approved as proposed by project authorities. A
3. Nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to :

(a) any item falling under entry nos.3, 18 and 20 of the Schedule I
to be located or proposed to be located in the areas covered by
the Notifications S.O. No. I 02(E) dated I st February, 1989; S.O. B
l 14(E) dated 20th February, 1991, ~.O. ~fo.416(E) dated 20th
June, 1991 and S.O. No.319(E) dated 7th May, 1992.

·(b) any item falling under entry Nos.I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13,
14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25 and 27 of Schedule-I if the investment is
less than Rs.50 crores.
c
(c) any item reserved for Small Scale Industrial sector with
investments less than Rs. I crore.

4. Concealing factual data or submission of faise, misleading data/
reports, decisions or recommendations would lead to the project
being rejected. Approval, if granted earlier on the basis of false D
data would also be to be revoked. Misleading and wrong
information will cover the following :
False information;

False data;
E
Engineered reports;

Concealing of factual data;

False recommendations of decisions;

SCHEDULE-I F
(See paras 1 and 2)

LIST OF PROJECTS REQUIRING
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FROM THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT.

I. Nuclear Power and related projects such as Heavy Water Plants, G
nuclear fuel complex, rare earths.

2 to 19
20. Mining projects (major minerals) with leases more than 5 hectares.

21 to 29 H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A xx xx xx xx xx xx
SCHEDULE III
(See sub-para III(a) of Para 2)
COMPOSITION OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEES FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
B
I. The Committee will consist of experts in the following disciplines:
(i) Eco-System Management
(ii) Air/Water Pollution Control
(iii) Water Resource Management
c (iv) Flora/Fauna Conservation and Management
(v) Land Use Planning
(vi) Social Sciences/Rehabilitation
(vii) Project Appraisal
D (viii)Ecology
(ix) Environmental Health
(x) Subject Area Specialists.

(xi) Representatives ofNGOs/Persons Concerned With Environmental
E Issues.

2. The Chairman will be an outstanding and experienced ecologist
or environmentalist or technical· professional with wide managerial
experience.

3. The representative of IAA will act as Member-Secretary
F
4. Chairman and members will serve in their individual capacities .,I.

except those specifically nominated as representatives. I•

5. The membership of a Committee shall not exceed 15.

EXPLANATORY NOTE REGARDING THE IMPACT
G
ASSESSMENT NOTIFICATION DATED
27TH JANUARY, 1994

I to 3 ....

4. Public Hearing
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K SABHARWAL. l] 183
Public hearings could be called for in case of projects involving A
large displacement or having severe environmental ramifications.

5 to 7....

8. Exemption for projects already initiated
"For projects listed in Schedule-I to the notification in respect of B
which the required land has been acquired and all relevant clearances
of the State Government including NOC from the respective State
Pollution Control Boards have been obtained before 27th January,
1994, a project proponent will not be required to seek environmental
clearance from the !AA. However, those units who have not as yet C
commenced production will inform the !AA."

Reference may also be made to a notification issued by the Haryana
Government on November 28, 200 I with a view to enforce the
recommendations of NEER! contained in para 6.1 of its report so far as
mining operations in the State of Haryana are concerned. In terms of the D
notification, the Designated Authority and the Monitoring Committee were
directed to impose the conditions mentioned in the notification while according
environmental clearance. This notification, it seems, was issued in the purported
attempt to comply with the directions of this Court as contained in the order
dated 10th May, 1996 as reported in MC. Mehta's case (supra).
E
We may also refer to the circular dated May 14, 2002 issued by the
Ministry of Environment and Forest noticing that in the past several units had
come up in violation of the notification dated 27th January, 1994 and a view
had been taken earlier that such units are permitted to apply for environment
clearance by 31st March, 1999. For period of five years, there was no circular
or notification granting any time to apply for EIA under notification dated F
l 27th January, 1994. The period to apply for environment clearance was
fl extended upto 30th June, 200 I which deadline was extended upto 31st March,
2003, stating that it was to give opportunity to defaulting units to avail of the
last and final opportunity to obtain ex post facto environment clearance. The
notification dated 27th January, 1994 is applicable also to construction activity. G
It seems that this circular was issued to give opportunity to those who had
undertaken constructions after issue of notification without compliance of
stipulations therein. We are, however, not concerned in these matters with the
construction which may have come up in breach of the notification. It does
not appear that MOEF intended to legalise the commencement or continuance
of mining activity without compliance of stipulations of the notification. In H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A any case, a statutory notification cannot be notified by issue of ·circular.
Further, if MOEF intended to apply this circular also to mining activity
commenced and continued in violation of this notification, it would also
show total non-sensitivity of MOEF to the principles of sustainable
development and the object behind the issue of notification. The circular has
B no applicability to the mining activity.

Central Empowered Committee (CEC) - Its Suggestions

The notification dated 27th January, 1994 is mandatory. The compliance
of the notification before commencement of any mining operation is essential
C and cannot be dispensed with. The MOEF has not so far conducted
Environment Impact Assessment in respect of any of the mining lease under
the notification dated 27th January, 1994.

Before the order dated 6th May, 2002 was passed, the lease holders had
not made any application before the Ministry for grant of EIA. The applications
D were filed during the pendency of these matters under the order of this Court.
The EIA applications of the lease holders are lying with CEC. CEC was
constituted in terms of notification dated 17th September, 2002, issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest in exercise of y
power conferred by Section 3(3) of the EP Act for the purposes of monitoring
and ensuring compliance of the order of this Court covering the subject
E matter of forest and wildlife and related issues arising out of the said order
and one of the functions of the Committee in terms of the notification is to
monitor the implementation of the orders of this Court and place reports of
non-compliance· before the Court including in respect of encroachment and
removals, working plans, compensatory afforestation, plantations and other
F conservation issues.
,..
In the order dated 31st October, 2002, this Court has observed that no
I•
mining activity can be carried out without remedial measures taking place
and for this purpose, it is necessary that environment impact assessment is
done and the applications dealt with before any mining activity can be
G permitted. It was also observed that the application of lease holders for
environmental clearance can be disposed of them of within a period to be
specified by this Court. In terms of order dated 25th November, 2002, the
Central Empowered Committee was asked to file its suggestions in regard to
the time for considering the applications for grant of EIA. The CEC had
received large number of voluminous Environment Impact Assessment plans
H only in the last few days which are being examined further stating that the
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.L jY.K. SABHARWAL. .I.] 185

process of examination and formulation of suggestions is likely to take some A
more time. On 24th January, 2003, the CEC was granted time to file its
report upto.-8th Tebruary, 2003. CEC has filed three reports, the last h<Jving
ln:en filed on 7th February, 2003.

In an interim report dated 22nd June, 2003 CEC stated that the complete
information had not been supplied to it by the State of Haryana. The report B
states that as per the information provided by the Haryana-State, in Faridabad
district there are 21 sanctioned major mineral mines with the varying size
from 44.48 hectare to 516.518 hectare. In Gurgaon districts 54 mining leases
have been sanctioned varying in size from 5.96 hectare to 802.322 hectare.
All the mines of major minerals were operating in Faridabad district without C
obtaining statutory environmental clearance under the EP Act. It also noticed
that in respect of the Aravalli Hills range being an acknowledged as eco
friendly area under the Aravalli notification, clearances were being granted
on the basis of examination of an expert group without any public hearing
or participation of NGOs or the affected people. As already noticed, the
delegation in favour of the State has been now withdrawn. The report further D
observes that most of the mines are operating in violation of approved plans.
Instead of doing section wise mining (bench mining) the mining operations
are carried on unscientifically with the sole aim to make maximum profits
which has resulted in number of fatal accidents involving labourers, hazards
to the adjoining population, indiscriminate scattering of the over burden,
E
wasteful manner of mining with complete disregard to mineral conservation
aspect, rendering reclamation of mined area impossible. Further it points out
that several mining leases have been granted in areas where plantations were
undertaken with the financial assistance provided by international donor
agencies. Mining activities are permitted in a manner which is destroying the
ground water table and also the deep aquifers thereby causing irreparable F
;., damage to the critical ground water reserves. There is no effective mechanism
'! to ensure compliance of various conditions stipulated while granting statutory
approvals. No deterrent action was taken against mines even in those cases
where during monitoring serious violations and non compliance of conditions
were found. The CEC has made the following suggestions :
G
"(!) For major mineral mines above 5 hectare in Faridabad district,
mini.ng activity may be allowed to be undertaken only after the
required environmental clearances are accorded by the Ministry
of Environment and Forest (MOEF);

(ii) the powers delegated to the State Governmer.t by notification H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A dated 27. I. I 997 to grant environmental clearances in respect of
areas of Gurgaon district falling within Ara val Ii notification dated
7.5.1992 requires to be reconsidered as the presumptions on the
basis of which powers were delegated to the State Government
have been found to be incorrect;

B (iii) mining activity may be allowed in respect of areas notified under
Section 4 and 5 of the PLP Act, which for the purpose of FC Act
are 'forest' even as per the State Government records, only after
obtaining prior approval under the said Act from the MOEF;
(iv) all mining leases granted in respect of areas where plantations
c have been raised under the financial assistance received from
any international donor agencies may be cancelled forthwith.
The concerned authorities may be prohibited from allowing any
mining operations, allowing renewals or grants of fresh leases in
such areas;

D (v) mining activity may be allowed only as per the approved Mining
Plans. Mines which are found to be operating at variance with
the approved Mining Plans may be made liable for cancellation
y-
of lease and payment of exemplary compensation; •
(vi) in view of rampant and indiscriminate mining, which was being
E done, a high level monitoring committee may be constituted
comprising representatives of the State Government, MOEF,
Indian Bureau of Mines, Director General of Mine Safety and
reputed NGOs. This Committee may be empowered to monitor
the implementation of the conditions impo~ed while approving
Mining Plans, grants of environmental clearances and other
F approvals/clearances. Whenever any violation is detected, the
Committee should have the powers to direct closure of the ,I.

I•
defaulting mines and also to impose fines commensurate with
the seriousness of the violation;
(vii) in addition to the above (vi), the Officials of the State Government,
G Indian Bureau of Mines, MOEF, Director General of Mine Safety
may independently monitor, at least once in three months, to
ensure compliance of all statutory conditions;
(viii)the State Government may identify and notify officials, who
would ensure enforcement of the directions given by the
H Monitoring Committee and or the above mentioned officials;
\
I \

M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.] 187
(ix) no mining activity may be allowed without obtaining 'No A
Objection Certificate' from the Central Groundwater Board to
ensure that the water table and the underground aquifers are not
adversely affected;
(x) before allowing resumption of mining activity in any approved
mining lease, the status of compliance of the conditions of the B
approved Mining Plans, approved Environmental Management
Plans, environmental clearances and other statutory conditions/
clearances may be ascertained. Suitable and adequate
compensation/penalty for non-compliance of stipulations may be
recovered, otherwise such stipulations would remain only on
paper; c
(xi) in respect of forest area, including areas notified under Section
4 and 5, net present value of the land leased out for mining may
be recovered as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated
30.10.2002 in I.A. No.566 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202/95
(forest matter); D
(xii) a suitable system of securing adequate bank guarantee, bank
deposit or other personal guarantee from the mine owner may be
worked out to ensure compliance of all statutory and other
conditions;
E
(xiii)after considering the annual approved rate of mining and mineral
deposits in the area, optimum size of the mines may be determined
in respect of approved mines to ensure optimum utilization of
the mineral resources;
(xiv)presently, the over burden is not stacked as per approved Minining F
Plan, which makes it practically impossible to carry out any
,'
.....
reclamation work. The over burden dumping may be allowed
only at identified sites within the mining lease area as per
approved Mining Plans;
(xv) for the purpose of afforestation, the funds may be recovered G
from the mine owners and deposited with the forest department
for undertaking afforestation in a planned manner;
(xvi) the identification of the consultants for preparation of the EIA's
should be done by the regulating ~.gency instead of by the mine
owners to ensure good and credible reports. It is important that H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12004] 3 S.C.R.

A payment to the consultants should also be routed through the
regulating agency and not directly by the mine owners."

The report of CEC dated 7th February, 2003 mentions that the State
Government, despite letters, had not made available to the Committee the
following information :
Jll
B
(i) mine wise details of stipulated conditions, which have been
fulfilled and those which have not been fulfilled
(ii) details of five major mineral mines in Faridabad and Gurgaon
Districts which have fulfilled all the conditions stated in the
approved mining plans, environmental and other clearances;
c
(iii) details of the mines where mining activity has been undertaken
without obtaining requisite environmental clearance.

In the absence of the information as aforesaid the CEC gave its
suggestions on the basis of information available to it which are as under:
D
(i) the ban on mining activity may continue up to 2 km from
Surajkund and Badkal Lakes, as per the Hon'ble Court's order
dated 10.5.1996; r
(ii) each of the existing mines may be physically inspected by
E Inspection Team(s) comprising officials of the State Government,
Indian Bureau of Mines, Director General of Mines Safety and
the Ministry of Environment and Forest to report the specific
conditions which have not been fulfilled/violated especially in
respect of:

a. section wise (benchwise) mining to be done as per approved
F

.
Mining plan; ,..
b. storage of top soil as per approved mining plan; '
c. dumping of over-burden in identified area as per the approval
mining plan;
G
d. plantations as per Environmental Management Plan;

e. observance of mines safety Rules and Regulations;

f. damage to the plantations raised under externally aided
•..
projects (foreign funding);
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.L [Y.K. SABHARWAL. J.] 189
g. damage if any to the water table/underground acquifers; and A
h. compliance of environmental clearance stipulations;

The Inspection Team(s) may submit the reports to the State
Government and the Ministry of Environment & Forest (MOEF)
with copies to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) for B
their comments and for carrying out verification, if found
necessary.

(iii) suitable penalties for non-compliance/violation of various
conditions, as found by the above Inspection Team(s) or by the
CEC may be imposed. Norms for quantifying the penalties for C
violation of various conditions may be formulated by the State
Government with the concurrence of the CEC. No mine may be
allowed to resume mining activity without first paying the penalty
imposed on it.

(iv) mining activity may completely be prohibited in area where
plantations have been undertaken with the foreign assistance/ D
funding (externally aided projects). Mining leases already granted/
approved in all such areas may be cancelled;

(v) yearwise requirement of funds for implementation of various
conditions under which mining has been approved may be
computed for each mine. To ensure compliance of these E
conditions, adequate safeguards by way of bank guarantee,
mortgage of immovable assets, pledge of movable assets,
personnel guarantee of the lessee or others (supported by adequate
assets) may be put in place;

(vi) MOEF may examine the Environment Impact Assessment Report/ F
Environment Management Plan of individual major mineral mines
and proposals for approval under the FC Act, if the mining lease
is in 'forest' as per the Hon 'ble Supreme Courts- order dated
12.12.1996 in Writ Petition (C) No.206/95, and take decision(s)
thereon, including regarding measures for protecting the water G
table and underground acquifers, in a time bound manner; and

(vii) regular inspection of the mines may be undertaken by the
identified officials of the State Government, Indian Bureau of
Mines and Director General of Mines Safety. Mines which are
found to have violated the conditions may be made liable to pay H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A stiff penalties including closure of the mines."

Some mining leases were granted prior to notification dated 27th January,
1994 and some after the issue of that notification. Even in respect of the
leases granted prior to 27th January, 1994, the renewal of most of the leases
has come up after issue of notification. Some of the leases are for extraction
B of major mineral, some for extraction of minor mineral and some for extraction
of both major and minor mineral. In respect of none of the leases, before
commencement of mining activity, EIA was obtained from the MOEF. In
respect of mining in Aravalli Hills in Gurgaon, the relevant notifications
dated 7th May, 1992, 29th November, 1999 and 28th January, 2003 have
C been noticed earlier. Under the notification dated 7th May, 1992, no permission
was granted by the MOEF though some applications were pending before it
when power was delegated to the State Government. Pem1issions were granted
'by the State Government after the powers were delegated to it The delegation
in favour of the State has since been withdrawn.

D Legal Parameters
The natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the
utilization results in irreversible damage to environments. There has been y
accelerated degradation of environment primarily on account of lack of
effective enforcement of environmental laws and non-compliance of the
E statutory noffi1S. This Court has repeatedly said that the right to live is a
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the .
right to of enjoymeilt of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of
life. See Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR (1991) SC 420.

Further, by 42nd Constitutional Amendment, Article 48-A was inserted
F in the Constitution in Part IV stipulating that the State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and wildlife ,.
I I
of the country. Article 5 IA, inter alia, provides that it shall be the duty of
every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including
forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.
G Artide 47 which provides that it shall be the duty of the State to raise the
level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health is
also relevant in this connection. The most vital necessities, namely, air, water
and soil, having regard to right of life under Article 2 l cannot be permitted
to be misused and polluted so as to reduce the quality of life of others.
Having regard to the right of the community at large it is permissible to
H encourage the participation of Amicus Curiae, the appointment of experts

,:
M.C. MEHTAv. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL . .I.] 191

and the appointments of monitory committees. The approach of the Court has A
to be liberal towards ensuring social justice and protection of human rights.
In M.C. Mehta v. Union o.flndia, [1987] 4 SCC 463, this Court held that life,
public health and ecology has priority over unemployment and Joss of revenue.
The definition of 'sustainable development' which Brundtland gave more
than 3 decades back still holds good. The phrase covers the development that B
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future
generation to meet their own needs. In Narmada Bachao Ando/an v. Union
of India and Ors., [2000) l 0 SCC 664, this Court observed that sustainable
development means the type or extent of development that can take place and
which can be sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation. In these
matters, the required standard now is that the risk of harm to the environment C
or to human health is to be decided in public interest, according to a
"reasonable person's" test. See Chairman Barton : The Status of the
Precautionary Principle in Australia : (Vol. 22) (1998) (Harv. Envtt. law
Review, p. 509 at p.549-A as in AP Pollution Contr.ol Board vs. Prof M. V.
Nayuder (Retd) and Ors., [I999) 2 SCC 7I8.
D
The mining operation is hazardous in nature. It impairs ecology and
people's right of natural resources. The entire process of setting up and
functioning of mining operation require utmost good faith and honesty on the
part of the intending entrepreneur. For carrying on any mining activity close
to township which has tendency to degrade environment and are likely to E
effect air, water and soil and impair the quality of life of inhabitants of the
area, there would be greater responsibility on the part of the entrepreneur.
The fullest disclosures including the potential for increased burdens on the
environment consequent upon possible increase in the quantum and degree of
pollution, has to be made at the outset so that public and all those concerned
including authorities may decide whether the permission can at all be granted F
for carrying on mining activity. The regulatory authorities have to act with
utmost care in ensuring compliance of safeguards, norms and standards to be
observed by such entrepreneurs. When questioned, the regulatory authorities
have to show that the said. authorities acted in the manner enjoined upon
them. Where the regulatory authorities, either connive or act negligently by G
not taking prompt action to prevent, avoid or control the damage to
environment, natural resources and peoples' life, health and property, the
principles of accountability for restoration and compensation have to be
applied.

The development and the protection of environments are not enemies. H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200~] 3 S.C.R.

A If without degrading the environment or minimising adverse effects thereupon
by applying stringent safeguards, it is possible to carry on development activity
applying the principles of sustainable development, in that eventuality, the
development has to go on because one cannot lose sight of the need for
development of industries, irrigation resources and power projects etc.
B including the need to improve employment opportunities and the generation
of revenue. A balance has to be struck. We may note that to stall fast the
depletion of forest, series of orders have been passed by this Court in T.N.
Godavarman 's case regulating the felling of trees in all the forests in the
country. Principle 15 of Rio Conference of 1992 relating to the applicability
of precautionary principle which stipulates that where there are threats of
C serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be
used as a reason for proposing effective measures to prevent environmental
degradation is also required to be kept in view. In such matters, many a
times, the option to be adopted is not very easy or in a straight jacket. If an
activity is allowed to go ahead, there may be irreparable damage to the
environment and if it is stopped, there may be irreparable damage to economic
D interest. In case of doubt, however, protection of environment would have
precedence over the economic interest. Precautionary principle requires
anticipatory action to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented
even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary that there should
be direct evidence of harm to the environment.
E
Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles, we have to consider the main
question: should the mining activity in areas ir! question be banned altogether
or permitted and, if so, conditions ro be provided therefor? The reports and
suggestions ofNEERI, EPCA and CEC have already been extensively noted.
The effect of mining activity in area upto 5 km. from Delhi-Haryana border
F on Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli Hills is to be seen in
light of these reports and another report dealt later. One of the aspect stated
in these reports is about carrying on of mining activity in close proximity to I ,
the residential area and/or main roads carrying traffic.

Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and Rules
G thereunder
The grant of mining lease is governed by the Mines and Minerals
(Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the MMRD Act') which
was enacted to provide for the development and regulation of mines and )l -
minerals ullder the control of the Union. Section 13 is the rule making power
H of the Central Government. The ·central Government is empowered to make
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL . .I.] 193

'-¥ rules to provide for the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other A
vegetation. such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reason of any
mining operation shall be made in the same area or in any other area selected
by the Central Government (whether by way of reimbursement of the cost of
rehabilitation or otherwise) by the person holding the mining lease. Section
18, inter alia, casts a duty upon the Central Government to take all such steps B
as may be necessary for the conservation and systematic development of
minerals in India and for the protection of environment by preventing or
controlling any pollution which may be caused by mining operations and for
such purposes, the Central Government may, by notification in the official
gazette, make such rules as it thinks fit.
c
The Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 have been framed by the Central
Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 13 of the MMRD
Act. Chapter JV of these Rules relate to grant of mining leases in respect of
land in which the minerals vest in the Government. Rule 22(4), inter alia,
provides that on receipt of the communication from the State Government of
the precise areas to be granted for mining purpose, the applicant shall submit D
a mining plan, within the period stipulated in the Rules, to the Central
-. Government for its approval. The applicant, on approval of the mining plan
by the Central Government, shall submit the same to the State Government
to grant mining lease over that area. Rule 4A, inter a/ia, provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rule(4), the State Government E
shall be competent to approve mining plan of open cost mines (mines other
than underground mines) in respect of now metallic or industrial minerals,
named therein, one of it being Silica sand. The mining plan, as provided in
sub-rule (5) of Rule 22, shall, inter alia, incorporate the mineral reserves of
the area and the plan of area showing, inter a/ia, water courses, limit of F
.._ reserves and other forest areas and density of trees, if any, assessment of
f' impact of mining activity on forest, land surface and environment including
air and water pollution; details of the scheme of restoration of the area by
afforestation, land reclamation, use of pollution control devices and such
other measures as may be directed by the Central Government or the State
Government from time to time. A tentative scheme of mining and annual G
· programme and plan for excavation from year to year for five years is also
required to be incorporated in the mining plan. Rule 22(5) was inserted in the
Rules by notification dated 27th September, 1994 to which certain amendments
were made in terms of notification dated 17th January, 2000 also inserting by
same notification Rule 22(4A). Sub-rule(4) to Rule 22 had been earlier inserted H
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004! 3 S.C.R.

A by notification dated 27th September, 1994.
The grant of permission for mining and approving mining plan and the
scheme by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India by itself does not
mean that mining operation can commence. It cannot be accepted that by
approving Mining Plan and Scheme by Minisn·y of Mines, Central Government
B is deemed to have approved mining and it can commence forthwith on such
approval. Section 13 of the MMRD Act and the Rules made in exercise of
powers under the said section, deal, inter alia, with the aspect of grant of
mining of lease and not commencement of mining operations. Rules made
under Section 18, however, deal with commencement of mining operations
C and steps required to be taken for protection of environment by preventing
or controlling any pollution which may be caused by mining operation. A
mining lease holder is also required to comply with other statutory provisions
such as Environment (protection) Act, 1986, Air (Prevention and control of
Pollution) Act, 1981, The Wate, (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Mere approval of the mining plan by
D Government of India, Ministry of Mines would not absolve the lease holder
from complying with the other provisions.

Rules 31 to 41 contained in Chapter V of the Mineral Conservation and
Development Rules, 1988 framed under Section 18 of the MMRD Act deal
E with the measures required to be taken by the lessee for the protection of
environment from any adverse effect of mining or irreversible consequences
thereof. These Rules, inter alia, provide that every holder of a mining lease
shall take all possible precautions for the protection of environment and
control of pollution while conducting mining operations in the area; shall,
wherever top soil exists and is to be excavated for mining operations, remove
F it separately and utilize for restoration or rehabilitation of the land which is
no longer required for mining operations. The holder is also required to take >
l I
steps so that the overburden, waste rock, rejects and fines generated during
prospecting and mining operations or tailings, slims and fines produced during
sizing salting and benefication or metallurgical operations shall be stored in
G separate dumps which shall be properly secured to prevent escape of material
therefrom in harmful quantities which may cause degradation of environment.
Wherever possible, the waste rock, overburden etc. shall be back-filled into
the mines excavation with a view to restoring the land for its original use as
far as possible and wherever it is not feasible during mining operation, the
waste dumps shall be suitably tarraced and stabilized through vegetation or
H otherwise. It is also required thnt the phased restoration, reclamation and
M.C. MEHTA''· U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. .I.) 195
rehabilitation of lands affected by mining operation shall be undertaken which A
work shall be completed before the conclusion of mining operations and the
abandonment of mine. Air pollution due to fines, dust and smoke or gaseous
emissions during mining operations and related activities shall be controlled
and kept within 'permissible limits' specified under various environmental
laws of the country including the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) B
Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 by the holder of
mining lease. Further, noise arising out of such operations shall be abated or
controlled by the lessee at the source so as to keep it within the permissible
limit. The mining operations shall be carried out in such a manner so as to
cause least damage to the flora of the area and nearby areas. Every holder of
mining lease shall take immediate measures for planting in the same area or C
any ether area as selected by the authorized officer and not less than twice
the number of trees destroyed by reason of any mining operation and look
after them during the subsistence of the licence/lease and restore, to the
extent possible, other flora destroyed by mining operations.

The aforesaid measures are not required to remain only on paper but D
strictly complied for the protection of environment and control of pollution
as a result and consequence of mining operations.

National Forest Policy

In respect of mining in the forest area, we may also refer to the National E
Forest Policy, 1988 issued by Ministry ofEnviromnent and Forest, Government
of India which, inter alia, notices that over the years, forests in the country
have suffered serious depletion. One of the reason of it is· inadequacy of
• protection measure and diversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Without
ensuring compensatory afforestation and essential environmental safeguards; F
and the tendency to look upon forests as revenue earning resource. The basic
J..
'. objectives of the policy, inter alia, are maintenance of environment stability
through preservation and, where necessary, restoration of the ecological
balance that has been adversely disturbed by serious depletion of the forests
of the country and checking the soil erosion and water conservation and G
increasing substantially the forest/tree cover through massive afforestation
and social forestry programmes. It provides that the National goal should be
to have a minimum of I/3rd of the total land area of the country under forest
or tree cover. In the hills and in mountains regions, the aim should be to
maintain 2/3rd of the area under such cover in order to prevent erosion and
land degradation and to ensure the stability of the fragile eco-system. It also H
196 Slll'REME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A provides that a massive need based and time bound programme of afforestation
and tree planting, with particular emphasis on fuel wood and fodder
development, on all degraded and denuded lands in the country, whether
forest or non-forest land, is a national imperative.

Mining in Forest Area
B
The question of permitting mining in the area where large scale of
afforestation with foreign funding has taken place is required to be examined
keeping in view the National Forest Policy which also provides that forest
land or land with tree cover should not be treated merely as a resource
C readily available to be utilized for various projects and programmes but as a
national asset which requires to be properly safeguarded for providing
sustained benefits to the entire community. Diversion of forest land for any
non-forest purpose should be subject to the most careful examinations by
specialists from the standpoint of social and environmental costs and benefits.
The mining and industrial development should be consistent with the needs
D for conservation of trees in forest. It provides that no mining should be
granted to any party, private or public, without a proper mine management
plan appraised from the environmental angle and enforced by adequate
machinery.

Our attention was drawn by learned counsel appearing for lease-holders
E to the part of national policy which provides that beneficiaries who are allowed
mining and quarrying in forest land and in land covered by trees should be
required to repair and re-vegetate the area in accordance with established
forestry practices to submit that the policy itself contemplates mining
operations in the forest area. For present, we are not suggesting a complete •
F ban of mining operations on forest land so long as it is possible to undertake
the said operation on the sustainable development principles and after obtaining
due approvals under various statutory provisions including Section 2 of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. At the same time, we are unable to appreciate
the commencement and continuation of mining over areas on which crores
G of the foreign funds have been spent for afforestation and plantation. Further,
it is also not possible to accept the contention urged on behalf of the lease
holders that only that part of such leased land where allegedly damage has
been caused to plantation as a result of mining operations, be excluded from
mining and not the entire area of the lease. For example, if the mining area
is 5 hectare and damages as a result of mining is to plantation in an area of
H I hectare, it is not practicable or reasonable to exclude only that I hectare
\

M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL . .l.J 197

and permit the mining operation on the rest of the mining area. Reference can A
·-+ also be usefully made to the part of the State of Forest Report. 1999 issued
by Forest Survey of India in relation to Haryana. It, inter alia, provides that
large scale plantations were carried out under Aravalli project since 1992.
The document claims increase of the forest cover in the State as a result of
plantation under the Aravalli project. It, inter alia, mentions that forest cover
increase in Gurgaon and Faridabad is mainly due tv plantation raised under
B
the Aravall_i project which was started in early 1990s. In these matters, neither
the State nor the leaseholders can be permitted to turn round and now take
-1. a stand that the areas covered under the Aravalli project is not forest. The
National Forestry Action Programme of December 2000 issued by the Ministry
of Environment and Forest, Government giving project profile also makes c
detailed reference to the institution building and integrated natio11al resource
development in the Aravalli region, Haryana under the project implementing
agency of Forest Department, Government of Haryana. The project profile,
inter alia, states that the Central to such a policy is rehabilitation of common
lands to meet the needs of the rural poor and to reduce soil and water erosion
D
and the proposed programme was envisaged to bring the benefit of integrated
development of the Aravalli eco-system to the whole community, pat1icularly,
-~ to the poorer sections. The project, it is stated, has been implemented in
Aravalli hills situated in the five districts of Haryana including Gurgaon. One
of the expected outcome of the project is the reduced soil erosion and improved
water regime in the rehabilitated area will be drastically reduce and run-off E
leading to recharge of constantly depleting ground water resources. It records
that Haryana Forest Department has implemented a project on the eco-
restoration of common lands in the Aravalli hills. from June 1990 to October
I999. The project is being funded by Delegation of European Communities.
The total cost was 28.8 million ECU in which external assistance was to the
F
extent of 23.2 million EUC.
~.

Aravallis Hill Range

The Aravallis, most distinctive and ancient mountain chain of peninsular
India, mark the site of one of the oldest geological formations in the world. G
Heavily eroded and with exposed outcrops of the slate rock and granite, it
has summits reaching 4950 feet above sea level. Due to its geological location,
the Aravalli range harbours a mix of Saharan, Ethiopian, Peninsular, oriental
and even Malayan elements of flora and fauna. In the early part of this
century, the Aravallis .were well wooded. There were dense forests with
waterfalls and one could encounter a large number of wild animals. Today, H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) 3 S.C.R.

A the changes in the environment at Aravalli are severe. Though one finds a
number of tree species in the hills, timber quality trees have almost disappeared.
Despite the increase of population resulting in increase of demand from the
forest, It cannot be questioned nor has been questioned that to save the
ecology of the Aravalli mountain, the laws have to be strictly implemented.
..
B The notification dated 7th May, 1992 was passed with a view to strictly
implement the measures to protect the ecology of the Aravalli range. The
notification was followed more in its breach.

In the aforesaid background, any mining activity on the area under
plantation under Aravalli project cannot be permitted. The grant of leases for
C mining operation over such an area would be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable
and illogical.

Report of CMPDI on Araval/i

The Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Limited (CMPDI) on
D being asked by the Central Pollution Control Board to conduct a study of
environmental problems of Aravalli hills and preparation of action plan for
restoration of environmental quality in Gurgaon district, after extensive
examination, has submitted to CPCB its final report in July 2003. CMPDI is
a subsidiary of Coal India Limited (Government of India Enterprise). The
E report in respect of Aravall i range in Gurgaon district has been prepared by
CMPDI with the following objectives :

l. To prepare status report of the pollution problems in the Aravalli
Hills.
2. To prepare environmental management plan to abate various
F environmental problems.
3. To prepare action plan for restoration of environmental quality. ,.
''
The environmental problems in the Aravalli Range in Gurgaon district
have been identified and remedial measures including the pollution control
G guidelines and action plan for various stakeholders have been suggested by
CMPDI. It has been noticed that in large scale mining projects what is still
required is a proposal on district level as to what will be mined, how it will
be mined and with what method and many such areas of environmental
concern which had not been adequately addressed keeping in view the
environmental degradation of the Aravalli Hills. It has also been noticed that
H the Aravalli notification restricts process and operations under certain
M.C. MEHTAv. U.0.J. [Y.K. SABHARWAL . .!.] 199

categories of the land in district. Though the records of such lands are available A
at every village level map, there is no record available in the district level in
respect of these areas to undertake realistic appraisal and effective monitoring
of mining and other projects at the macro level on such lands. While noticing
that, notification dated 29th November, 1999, inter alia, made provision for
preparing a master plan integrating the environmental concerns and the future B
land use of the area, but the master plan prepared un Uth August, 2002 does
not, inter a/ia, address the issue of natural resource assessment and water
Resource status; the areas near crushing zone and acfr1e mining zone remain
a matter of concern and concerted efforts have not been given to the quality
of roads and the dust suppression measures to maintain the air quality within
safe limits. The guidelines of operation in an eco-friendly manner have been C
issued by the State Government but the compliance is only partial. inasmuch
as wind breaking walls are not proper, pollution control devices are not
operating and the green belt around the crushing zones are not maintained.
Identification of mines in the district is difficult. There does not seem to be
mechanism to upgrade the mining technologies and methodologies to minimize
the impact due to mining in the eco-sensitive zones in the district. There is D
no identified land where overburden could be temporarily dumped prior to
being utilized for void filling and for other purposes. There does not seem to
adequate awareness among the people in respect of the environmental
problems. In some parts of the district, the ground water potential is already
in the dark category. Lack of water conservation measures and rainwater E
harvesting may ultimately lead to water scarcity in the near future.

Having identified the environmental problems, various actions have
been recommended by CMPD! for the eco restoration in the Aravalli Range
in Gurgaon district. It has been, inter alia, recommended that it is imperative
on the part of the State Government to improve inter-departmental co- F
' ordination among various Government departments to achieve the common
·' I
objective, i.e., ecological restoration of Aravalli Hills in the district. The
master plan should indicate the proposed eco-restoration plan to compensate
the environmental degradation by the proposed activities in the master plan.
Rehabilitation programmes for the abandoned mines areas either to convert G
these to water reservoirs and eco-parks or reclamation by filling by rural
waste, urban waste or fly ash. The master plan should be detailed to show the
areas where overburden could be dumped, areas where waste material could
be stocked, areas where plantation could be carried out, etc.etc. The planning
·should, inter alia, include environmental impact and concern& of activities of
one sector on the other sectors in the district, e.g., afforestation should be H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A planned not only with a view to increase vegetation on the hills but also to .\--•
be supplement for fuel, fodder etc. in the district. All efforts should be made
to preserve the ground water resources. Water shed management and rainwater
harvesting to be implemented in the Aravalli hills regions on war footing. In
the areas where mining deeper than the ground water table of the area is to
be carried out, adequate provision of pollution control and conservation of
B water resources should be made. There should be frequent inspections of the
mining operations to ensure that these are in line with the requirement for
sustainable development. The inspections may be carried out at an interval of
three months. There should be continual source of revenue from the mining
operations to the fund, recommended to be created, for the eco-restoration of
c the Aravalli hills. The minimum period of lease should be for 15-20 years.
This will induce the mine operators to take environmental protection measures
more eriously. The State Pollution Control Board shall undertake regular
monitoring to check compliance and to assess the ambient air quality, water
quality and other environmental protection measures. The Ministry of
Environment and Forest should take initiative to appoint a Central Agency to
D monitor the eco-restoration efforts and to provide technical support to the
implementing organizations. The renewal of mining lease and granting new
leases should be effected after examining the environmental protection
measures taken by the lessee. Requisite data should be displayed on the
internet to arouse awareness in public and for further usage. Stringent action
E should be taken for water conservation. The Forest Department may even
carry out the afforestation on behalf of mine operators. Expenses should,
however, be borne by the mine operators. The afforestation shall be carried
out keeping in view, inter alia, the consideration of checking the soil erosion.
The mine lessee should. implement the environmental management plan and
mining plan approved by the concerned authority. In future, efforts in respect
F of search for sustainable development should broadly take into consideration ,.
resource potential in the region, the demand of the products and the supply I .

options. Though the demand for the niche products existing in the AravalJ:i
range which is one of the oldest mountain ranges in India will continue to
grow, the supply options need to be given a closer look due to eco-sensitivity
G of the region. The environmental cost needs to be internalized in the cost of
the product and there is need to limit the supply options. Noticing that the
Aravalli range prevents the desert from spreading into Indo-Gangetic plains,
it has been suggested that all future planning should not only concentrate to
'>ol
meet the ever growing demand of the products but due consideration should
also be given to proteci the chain. All the developmental activities should,
H therefore, be planned in a coherent manner and there should be integrated
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. IY K. SABHARWAL. J] 201

approach for sustainable development. A
CM PD I has noticed that in the Aravalli Hills, a large number of activities,
operations of stone crushers and deforestation besides other activities are
causing environmental degradation. These mines are usually located in the
clusters in remote mineral rich districts/areas where living standards is lower
and understanding of people towards environmental impact is also poor. In B
the past, the mine operators took no note of environmental damage. In fact,
they were not even conscious about it. The attitude of mining community is
to ignore the environmental concerns. In majority of the cases, the
environmental concerns arc ignored for making quick profits. The small mines
(less than 5 hectares) and the mining of minor minerals which are no doubt C
small individually but have damaging characteristics when in clusters, e.g.
the mines of granite, marble. slates, quartzite etc. (falling under minor minerals)
are no Jess damaging than the others, especially when the processing is taken
into consideration. The mining activities results in disturbance of land surface,
altering drainage pattern and land use, besides the pollution problems, which
may lead to the environmental problems of air, water and noise pollution and D
solid waste pollution.

It has been suggested that the short term and long term action plan for
the restoration of environmental quality of the area shall be prepared separately.
The action plan shall be prepared in such a way that it should be a guiding
tool also in the hands of the state pollution control boards and Government E
age11cies for enforcement of the environmental laws for the restoration of
environmental quality of the area. Monitoring programme shall include
frequency of monitorit)g for air quality, water quality, ground water, solid
wastes, noise level etc.
F
In respect of water resources, it has been, inter alia, suggested that in
order to draw water resource management plan, it is essential to assess the
water quality of the various components of the hydro logic cycle, i.e., stream,
ground water, surface water etc. It has been pointed out that since the surface
water potential is not promising in the district, there is increased dependence
on the ground water for meeting the agricultural, domestic and industrial G
requirement resulting in depletion of ground water resources in the district.
It has been suggested that utmost care is required for further development of
ground water in the areas where the recharge of the ground water is low ..

Dealing with the flora and fauna, it has been pointed out that the earliest
account shows· that at one time the Aravalli hills were well covered with H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12004] 3 S.C.R.

A dhauk (Anogeissus pendula). Now, except in few places, viz., the Jhir Forest
in Firozpur Jhirka (dedicated to Mahadeo Temple) and near Bhondsi recently
regenerated with dhauk, the Aravallis are by and large, bereft of vegetation
in the district.

It has been noticed that in order to take stock of the environmental
B problems, CPCB and CMPDI team made several visits to Aravalli hills and
held discussion with the mine operators, State officials and local people.
There are number of mining projects etc. which are already existing and there
is also tremendous potential to further increase the industrial and the other
)r·
development activities. The environmental impact due to mining projects on
C air quality, water quality, noise level, overburden etc. have been noticed and
it has been pointed out that the opening of new projects will further affect
some of the environmental attributes.

The report notices that the environmental degradation has taken place
due to mining activities. The existing crusher units are also not functioning
D on the environmental sound systems. The situation warrants closer look on
various components of the systems affecting the environmental attributes in
the area, devising pragmatic approaches to facilitate eco-restoration of the
Aravall i hills and offering broad framework to the industrial units to function
under environmentally sustainable framework. The suggestions also include
the enactment of rules for grant of mine leases to levy a separate charge for
E dump removal, ecological restoration in the area, the technology to be us<~d
for mining operations and post mining land use and mine decommissioning.
As far as environmental protection in the Aravalli hills is concerned, planning
and provisions must start from the stage of grant of mine lease and what a II
it should include have been set out. It has been, inter alia, suggested that the
p environmental framework shall include the framework for environmental
clearance such as depth of cutting, area of plantation and the type of plantation, ,_
which are attributes related to closure planning as also framework for '.
monitoring and for forestry besides air quality, land use pattern etc. In nutshell,
it has been suggested that it is imperative on the part of the mine operators
to carry out the mine operations in such a fashion that it has least impact on
G the ecology of the area. The pollution prevention guidelines have been
suggested in para 7. l.1.2

Having regard to the detailed study, the recommendations and action
plan h\IS been d,ealt with in Chapter VIII of the report, inter alia, sugge§ting
H that concerted efforts from various departments are needed. The report states
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.L fY.K SABHARWAL ..1.\ 203
that though the environmental upgradation measures need to be taken more A
seriously by the mine and other industrial operators, there is need on the part
of the State Government to immediately start these measures in the areas
where degradation has already taken place. The other recommendations have
already been broadly noticed.

No one has raised any objection to the recommendations contained in B
the report of CMPDI. We accept the recommendations in principle.

Modification of Order dated 6th May, 2002 Regarding Mining in Aravalli

Now, the question is should mining activities in the Aravalli range in
Gurgaon district be permitted to restart and, to that extent, the order dated 6th C
May, 2002 be modified, meanwhile directing implementation of
recommendations in the report of CMPDI and earlier referred reports. The
other option is to first constitute a monitoring committee directing it to
individually examine and inspect mines from environmental angle in the
light of the said recommendations and file a report in this Court in respect D
of individual mines with its recommendations for restart or otherwise as also
recommendation, if any, for the payment by the mine operators and/or by
State Government towards environmental fund having regard to the
precautionary principles and polluter pays principle and on consideration of
that report, to decide the aspect of modification of the order dated 6th May,
2002, partially or entirely. We are of the view that the second option is more E
appropriate. We are conscious of observations in CMPDl that measures for
protecting the environment can be undertaken without stopping mine
operations and also the suggestions of MOEF to permit mining subject to the
mine lease holders undertaking to comply with sucli° conditions which remain
to be complied, but, having regard to the enormous degradation of the
F
environment, in our view, the safer and the proper course is to first constitute
a Monitoring Committee, get a report from it and only thereafter consider, on
individual mine to mine basis, lifting· of ban imposed in terms of order dated
6th May, 2002. Before concluding this aspect, we may note that assuming
there was any ambiguity about the applicability of order dated 6th May, 2002
to mining in Aravalli Range, it is clarified that the said order would be G
applicable to all the mines in Aravalli hill range in Gurgaon district.

Applicability of notification dated 27th January, 1994

The notification has been· reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment.
It, inter a/ia, applies to mining projects (major minerals) with leases of more H
204 SLIPRE:>IE COURT REPORTS 12004] 3 S.C.R.

A than 5 hectares. It can neither be disputed nor has been disputed that the
notification is mandatory. It, inter a/ia. provides that on and from the date
of its publication in official Gazette expansion or modernization of any activity
(if pollution load is to exceed the existing one) or a new project listed in
Schedule A of this notification shall not be undertaken in any pa1i of India
B unless it has been accorded environmental clearance by the Central
Government in accordance with the procedure specified therein. The contention
urged on behalf of the lease-holders is that the leases in question do not
relate to expansion or modernization of any activity as postulated by the
notification. Further, it is contended, that the notification applies to 'a new
project' which means that it will apply to mining lease granted after issue of
C notification. It has been strenuously contended that the renewal of existing
mining lease is neither 'an expansion' nor 'modernization' nor is it a 'new
project' and, therefore, the notification will have no applicability at the time
of consideration of the renewal of the lease. Reliance has been placed on a
decision of this Court in Narmada's case (supra) holding that the notification
is clearly prospective and, inter alia. prohibits the undertaking of a new
D project listed in Schedule I without prior environmental clearance from the
Central Government. The contention urged was that since in Narmada's
case, where construction had commenced nearly 8 years prior to the
notification, same very notification was not held applicable. On the same
analogy, it cannot have any applicability to the leases granted prior to the
E issue of notification.

No doubt. the notification is prospective but the question here is whether
it would be applicable when the aspect of renewal comes up for consideration
after the issue of the notification. In Narmada's case, it was not held that this
notification will not apply at the stage of renewal. The observations made in
F para 129 of the said decision and relied upon by learned counsel for the lease
holders have no r...!evance to determine the applicability of the notification ,..
at the stage of renewal. In Narmada's case, the environmental clearance had I '

been granted in the year 1987 and this Court noticing that when it was
granted by the Prime Minister, whatever studies were available were taken
G into consideration, it was known that the construction of the dam would
result in submergence and the consequent effect which the reservoir will
have on the ecology of the surrounding areas and various studies relating to
environmental impact had been taken into consideration and that there was
no obligation to obtain the statutory clearance under 1994 notification.

H In the present case, regarding the manner of grant of no objection
M.C. MEHTA v. LLO.I. [Y.K. SABl-IARWAL. L] 205

certificate from environmental angle for proposed mining activity, by way of A
illustration, we may refer to the order dated 18th January, 1999 issued by
Haryana State Pollution Control Board whereby no objection certificate for
renewal of lease was granted stipulating that the applicant Som Prakash Sethi
in respect of mining activity at village Anangpur, district Faridabad shall also
seeking environmental clearance of its mining project in compliance with B
this notification without even mentioning any time limit for it and admittedly
till date that had not been done. None bothered to find out whether conditions
in the order has been complied or not. Further the letter dated 25th January,
2003, sent to Principal Secretary of Central Empowered Committee by Director
Mines and Ecology, Haryana shows how the State Government has been
circumventing the legal requirements and permitting mining. In that letter, it C
has been stated that pending approval of the environmental plan, the mining
lessees undertook the mining operation of the minor mineral on issue of short
term permit, in cases where the fresh mining leases were granted and in case
of renewal of mining leases, the mining activities were going on. This is
despite conditions in the judgment dated 10th May, 1996 by this Court that
the Director Mining and Ecology Haryana would be responsible for mining D
in the State of Haryana.

Be that as it may and reverting to legal position, in Ambica Quany
Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors., (1987] l sec 213, though a case under
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 rejecting the contention that approval at the E
stage of renewal was not necessary and also the plea that since the leaseholders
had invested sum of money in mining operation, it was the duty of the
authorities to renew the lease, it was held that having regard to the awareness
that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation have
become social menaces and the same should be prevented and that the concept
that power coupled with the duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the F I
lease stood eroded by the mandate of the FC Act. It was held that The
primary duty was to the community and that duty took precedence. In such
cases, the obligation to the society must predominate over the obligation to
the individuals. It would be apposite to reproduce what was said by Justice
Mukherjee (as he then was) in paras 14 and 15 which read thus :
G
"14. Here the case of the appellants is that they have invested large
sums of money in mining operations. Therefore, it was the duty of
the authorities that the power of granting permission should have
been .so exercised that the appellants had the full benefits of their
investments. It was emphasized that none of the appellants had H
206 SUPREME COllRT REPOR IS (2004 J 3 S.C.R.

A committed any breach of the terms of grant nor were there any other
factors disentitling them to such renewal. While there was power to
grant renewal and in these cases there were clauses permitting
renewals, it might have cast a duty to grant such renewal in the facts
and circumstances of the cases specially in view of the investments
made by the appellants in the areas covered by the quarrying leases,
B but renewals cannot be claimed as a matter of right for the following
reasons.

15. The rules dealt with a situation prior to the coming into operation
of 1980 Act. '1980 Act' was an Act in recognition of the awareness
that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation
c have become social menaces and further deforestation and ecological
imbalances should be prevented. That was the primary purpose writ
large in the Act of I 980. Therefore the concept that power coupled
with the duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease stands
eroded by the mandate of the legislation as manifest in 1980 Act in
D the facts and circumstances of these cases. The.primary duty was to
the community and that duty took precedence, in our opinion, in
these cases. The obligation to the society must predominate over the
obligation to the individuals."

In Rural litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of UP., [I 989]
E Supp. I SCC 504, agreeing with views expressed in Ambica Quarry Workers,
"
it was held that the FC Act applies to renewals as well and even if there was
a provision for renewal in the lease agreement on exercise of lessee's option,
the requirement of the Act had to be satisfied before such renewal could be
granted. In State of M. P. and Ors. v. Krishnadas Tikaram, [l 995] Supp. I
SCC 587, these two decisions were relied upon and it was held that even the
F
renewal of lease cannot be granted without the prior concurrence of the
Central Government. It is settled law that the grant of renewal is a fresh grant
and must be consistent with law.
' .
We are unable to accept the contention that the notification dated 27th
G January, 1994 would not apply to leases which come up for consideration for
renewal after issue of the notification. The notification mandates that the
mining operation shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless
environmental clearance by the Central Government has been accorded. The
clearance under the notification is valid for a period of five years. In none .., ·
of the leases the requirement of notification was complied with either at the
H stage of initial grant of the mining lease or at the stage of renewal. Some of
M.C. Ml:llli\' U.0.1. \Y.K. SAl'HARWAI. . .1.j 207
, ..( the leases were fresh leases granted after issue of the notification. Some wer~ A
cases of renewal. No mining operation can commence without obtaining
environmental impact assessment in terms of the notification.

The Applicability of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to areas treated as
forest by State Forest Department
B
The provisions of the Act provide for the conservations of forest and
for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. Any forest
land or portion thereof cannot be used for any non-forest purposes or assigned
by way of leases or otherwise to any private person or to any authority,
corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or C
controlled by the Government, except with the prior approval of the Central
Government. Mining activity within forest area cannot be permitted in
contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Act makes the contravention
of any of the provisions of Section 2 as an offence punishable in the manner
provided in the Act.
D
The controversy is in respect of certain leases where area under the
lease is covered under notification issued under Section 4 and/or 5 of the
- Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. The question is whether such area is
'forest' of any kind.

Under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act, whenever it appears to the State E
Government that it is desirable to provide for the conservation of sub-soil
water or the prevention of erosion in any area subject to erosion or likely to
become liable to erosion, such Government may by notification make a
direction accordingly. Under Section 4(b), the State Government has power
to regulate, restrict or prohibit the quarrying of stone or the burning of lime
at placed where such stone or lime had not ordinarily been so quarried or F
.... burnt prior to the publication of the notification under section 3. Section 5(b)
• l

in respect of any specified village or villages, or part or par.ts thereof,
comprised within the limits of any area notified under section 3, the State
Government may, by special order, temporarily regulate, restrict or prohibit
the quarrying of any stone or the burning of any lime at places where such G
stone or lime had ordinarily been so quarried or burnt prior to the publication
of the notification under section 3. In respect of some mining areas notifications
have been issued under Section 4 and in respect of some notifications have
been issued both under Sections 4 and 5. The submission is that invoking of
Sections 3, 4 and 5 is only to conserve sub-soil water and prevention of the
area from erosion of land and is not to create any forest. It has been pointed H
208 SUPREME COUR I RI: PORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A out that in cases where the notifications have been issued, only felling of
;» •
trees had been prohibited and not quarrying of stone. ~

It cannot be disputed that the State Forest Department has been treating
and showing the aforesaid areas as 'forest'. The contention urged on .behalf
of the State Government is that it was on account of erroneous view point
B of Forest Depa1tment. In fact and law, such area is not 'forest' and mining
is not prohibited and, therefore the question of seeking permission under
Section 2 of the FC Act does not arise.

In the instant case, it is not necessary to decide the legal effect of issue
of the notification under Section 4 and/or 5 of the Act. Not only in their
c record the area has been shown as forest but the affidavits have been filed
in this Cou1t stating the area to be 'forest'. In TN Godavarman Thirumulkpad
v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 2 SCC 267, this Court held that the term
'forest' is to be understood in the dictionary sense and also that any area
regarded as a forest in Government record irrespective of ownership would

D
be a forest. The State of Haryana, besides having filed affidavits in the forest
matters treating such areas as forest for the purposes of the FC Act has been
·-
seeking prior approval from the Central Government for diversion of such
land for non-forestry purpose. Reference in this connection may also be
made to the affidavit dated 8th December, 1996 filed by Banarsi Das, Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest, Chandigarh, Haryana in Civil Writ No. 171 of
E 1996 Environmental Awareness Forum v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and
Ors. Our attention has also been drawn to letter dated 26th November, 2002
addressed by Divisional Forest Officer, Faridabad to Mining Officer, Faridabad
forwarding to him a list of blocked forest areas of Faridabad district and
requesting him to ensure that the said forest areas are not affected by any
mining operations as also to a letter dated 17th September, 200 I sent by
F Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana (Panchkula) to Director of
Environment, Haryana stating therein that no mining activity can be permitted
in the area. On the facts .and circumstances of the case, we cannot permit the
/. .
• )-

State Government to take a compete summersault in these proceedings and
contend that the earlier stand that the area is 'forest' was under some erroneous
G impressions. In the present case. for the purposes of the FC Act, these areas
shall be treated as forest and for use of it for non-forestry purpose, it would
be necessary to comply with the provisions of the FC Act.

We may also note that assuming that there was any confusion or 'J <
erroneous impres~on, it ought to have been first sorted out at appropriate
H level and where affidavits had been filed in this Court, clarifications/orders
M.C. MEHTA v. U.O.L fY.K SABHARWAL. J.] 209
\ i -I: sought before issue of the mining lease in respect of such area. A
Impact of Mining on Ground Water

Where during mining water level is touched, the Monitoring Committee
shall carve out that area and it was agreed on behalf of the leaseholders that
they would co-operate and not undertake any mining in such an area. B
Non-payment of royalty to the villagers

-1 A controversy has been raised about non-payment of royalty by the
leaseholders to villagers on whose behalf it was contended that the order
dated 6th May, 2002 prohibiting mining should not be varied till the C
leaseholders discharge their liability to pay royalty to the villagers. On the
other hand, mine leaseholders dispute the claim put-forth on behalf of the
villagers and it has been submitted that no amount is payable by them and
the villagers can make their claim, if any, from the State Government. The
dispute of this nature cannot be properly adjudicated in these proceedings.
We leave it open to be adjudicated before appropriate forum in accordance D
with law.

Leases in respect of minor mineral

Though notification dated 27th January, 1994 is not applicable to minor
minerals, but having regard to what we have discussed above in regard to E
degradation of environment and the required standard about the risk of harm
to the environment or to human health to be decided in public interest
according to 'reasonable person's test', and the report of CMPDI, we direct
the Monitoring Committee to examine the leases granted for extraction of
minor mineral in light thereof and file its report. The Committee would, F
.i however, bear in mind that the notification dated 27th January, 1994 as such
I ' is not applicable to these leases.

Mining in Faridabad District

Having examined the matter, we are of the view that though the study G
conducted by CMPDI relates to mining activity in Aravalli Hills in Gurgaon
district, in public interest the general safeguards and suggestions in that report
deserve to be implemented in respect of mining in Faridabad district as welL

We have already extracted the recemmendations of NEERI, as also
violations noticed in the reports submitted by EPCA and the suggestions of H
210 Slll'REME COURI REPORTS [2004 f 3 S.C.R.

A EPC A. CEC and CMPDI. The Monitoring Committee shall inspect the leases
in question in Faridabad District as well in the light of these recommendations
and file its report containing suggestions on recommencement or otherwise
of the mining activity therein.

It may be reiterated that if, despite stringent conditions, the degradation
B of environment continues and reaches a stage of no return, this Court may
have to consider, at a later date, the closure of mining activity in areas where
there is such a risk.

As earlier noticed as well, it would not be expedient to lift the ban on
C mining imposed in terms of the order of this Court dated 6th May, 2002
before ensuring implementation of suggestions of CMPDI and other
recommendations of experts (NEERI, EPCA and CEC). The safer course is
to consider this question, on individual basis after receipt of report of the
Monitoring Committee.

D Environment Impact assessment applications

During the course of hearing environment assessment applications in
terms of notification dated 27th January. 1994 have been filed by some of the ~~
leaseholders. In case, those applications are presently with Central Empowered
Committee, the same shall be forthwith forwarded by CEC to MOEF. The
E adverse effect, if any, and extent thereof on human health and ecology shall
be examined while deciding impact of these activities. There is also the
desirability of transparency in s~1ch matter. The MOEF is directed to consider
the said applications within a period of I0 weeks.

Monitoring Committee
F
With a view to monitor the overall eco-restoration efforts in the Aravalli
Hills and to provide technical support to the implementing organizations and
also to' monitor implementation of recommendations contained in reports
' .
referred herein, it is necessary to constitute a Monitoring Committee. The
heads of the following departments would be members of the Monitoring
G Committee :

I. Regional Officer of State Pollution Control Board.

2. Forest Department
3. District Administration
H
M.C. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [Y.K. SABHARWAL. .I.] 211

4. Department of Mining & Geology A
5. Irrigation Department

6. Regional Officer of CGWB

7. Agriculture Department

8. District Industry Department.
B
9. Chainnan - CPCB.

Besides above, MOEF is directed to appoint an officer from Central
Ground Water Board to be a member of the Monitoring Committee. The
following persons as representatives of public shall also be members of the C
said Committee :

I. Prof. Dilip Biswas,
Ex Chainnan, CPCB.

2. Mr. Valmiki Thapar, D

3. Mr. Bhure Lal.

The MOEF would act as a nodal agency of the Monitoring Committee.
The Secretary of MOEF is directed to appoint an officer not below the rank E
of a Joint Secretary in the Ministry for the said purpose.

The Monitoring Committee is directed to inspect the mines in question
and file a report within a period of three months, inter a/ia, containing
suggestions for recommencement of mining in individual cases. All concerned
individuals and departments are directed to render full co-operation to the F
Monitoring Committee.
.....__

' ' Conclusions

I. The order dated 6th May, 2002 as clarified hereinbefore cannot
be vacated or varied before consideration of the report of the G
Monitoring Committee constituted by this judgment.

2. The notification of environment assessment clearance dated 27th
January, 1994 is applicable also when renewal of mining lease
is considered after issue of the notification.

3. On the facts of the case, the mining activity on areas covered
H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A under Section 4 and/or 5 of Pun jab Land Preservation Act, 1900
cannot be undertaken without approval under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980.
4. No mining activity can be carried out on area over which
plantation has been undertaken under Aravalli project by
B utilization of foreign funds.
5. The mining activity can be permitted only on the basis of
sustainable development and on compliance of stringent
conditions.
6. The Araval!i hill range has to be protected at any cost. In case
c despite stringent condition, there is an adverse irreversible effect
on the ecology in the Aravalli hill range area, at a later date, the
total stoppage of mining activity in the area may have to be
considered. For similar reasons such step may have to be.
considered in respect of mining in Faridabad District as well.
D
7. MOEF is directed to prepare a short term and long term action
plan for the restoration of environmental quality of Aravalli hills
in Gurgaon district having regard to what is stated in final report
of CMPDI within four months.
E 8. Violation of any of the conditions would entail the risk of
cancellation of mining lease. The mining activity shall continue
only on strict compliance of the stipulated conditions.

The matters are directed to be listed after reopening of courts after
summer vacation on receipt of the report from the Monitoring Committee.
F
S.K.S. Petitions disposed of.