Holding

No further applications for original permission or extension for removal of mined material shall be entertained, and the Registry is directed not to entertain such petitions, to prioritize afforestation of Doon Valley.

Summary

The Supreme Court revisited the Doon Valley mining dispute, where earlier orders (30 August 1988) had halted all mining except for a few cases and directed afforestation of the valley. Numerous applications were filed thereafter seeking permission to remove stacked material or extensions of time, which the Court had been entertaining on a case‑by‑case basis. After reviewing reports of the Monitoring Committee and joint inspections, the Court held that the broader ecological interest outweighs individual lessees' equities and ordered that no further applications for original permission or extensions be entertained, directing the Registry to reject such petitions. It set a final deadline of 15 June 1990 for removal of any approved material under the supervision of the District Magistrate and the Monitoring Committee, and adjusted the compensation rate to Rs.10 per metric ton. The Court also directed the Monitoring Committee to submit afforestation and rehabilitation reports for further orders, thereby disposing of the pending applications and the writ petitions.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of entertaining further applications for removal of mined material or extensions after the Court's earlier order halting mining in Doon Valley.
Whether individual lessees' equity can override the public interest of afforestation and ecological protection.
The Court's authority to direct the Registry not to entertain certain petitions under Article 32.
The appropriate compensation rate per metric ton of extracted material.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

miningenvironmental lawafforestationArticle 32public interest litigationland useecological protectionleaseremoval of stacked materialequity vs environment

Judgment

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA
A
AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

MAY 4, 1990
B
[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.)

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Doon Valley-Loss -~
caused to ecology-Mining operations to stop-No petition to be enter-
C tained by Registry.

Disposing of on 30.8.1988 Writ Petitions Nos. 8209 and 8821 of
1983 this Court had come to the conclusion that the entire mining
operation in the Doon Valley should come to a halt excepting in the case
of a selected few, for reasons indicated in that order. Since then from time · -
D to time several applications had been moved by the ex-lessees seeking
permission for removing the stacked material or extension of time for
appropriating the mined material. In allowing or rejecting each such
application this Court has been expressing itself clearly that the Dom1
Valley should be made available for afforestation to make good the loss
caused to the ecology.
E
By today's order while disposing of all the pending applications ,
including one fresh Writ Petition in the light of the report of the
Monitoring Committee appointed by this Court, the Court,

HELD: No application either for original permission or for
F extension of time shall hereafter be entertained by this Court and the
Registry is directed by this order not to entertain such petitions. It may
be that such direction may_ affect some one who has not been vigilant or
has on account of some other difficulty or hardship not been able to
remove the stacked material within his leasehold area in the Doon
Valley; bot taking the broad interest of the entire Valley into account
G such individual losses or inconveniences have to be sacriticed and {or
overlooked and equities can no longer be allowed to be invoked. [76A-B)

A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be placed
by the Monitoring Committee by 30th June, 1990 for consideration of
the Court on 23rd July, 1990. The rehabilitation scheme which has
H already been furnished by the appropriate committee should also be

72
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 73

placed before the Court for orders on the said date. [SOB-C] A
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 1, 3 and 10 of 1989
and 12 of 1990.

IN
B
Writ Petition (C) No. 8209 of 1983 etc.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

V.A. Bobde, V. Gauri Shankar, M.K. Ramamurthy, Prashant
Bhushan, T. Sridharan, Ms. Shobha Dixit and M.A. Krishnamurthy for
the Petitioners.
c
Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms. A. Subhashini R.P. Srivastava (NP),
Promod Dayal, R.B. Mehrotra and Raju Ramacl;iandran for the
Respondents.
D
The Order of the Court was delivered by

RANGANATH MISRA, J. On 30th of August, 1988, while
disposing of two writ petitions being Nos. 8209 and 8821 of 1983, this
Court came to the conclusion· that the entire mining operation in the
./ Doon Valley should come to a halt. With a view to effectuating this E
conclusion all mining activity was directed to be stopped excepting in
the case of a few for reasons indicated in that order.

Several applications thereafter came before t~is Court for per-
mission to remove stacked material and almost for one and a half years
now, many rounds of such applications have been filed before this F
Court which have led to inquiries being made by executive authorities,
a joint inspection by the District Judge and the District Magistrate as
also separate reports from the Monitoring Commi:tee appointed by
this Court. After hearing parties in some cases the court has granted
permission for removal and extended time for approJriating the mined
material. On the plea that within the time given by the Court removal G
was not possible, fresh extensions of extended da'es have also been
asked for.

At one stage, the Monitoring Committee cported that taking
advantage of such extensions further mining was l:eing illegally under-
taken. The Monitoring Committee also pointed ~ut that where the H
I
''\
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990) 3 S.C.R..
. , ~ . \ - .
. A mined material was spread over it had consolidated and grass as also
other vegetations have started growing. In'these circumstances, while
either allowing or rejecting the applications for removal or extension
or allowing removal under restrictions, this Court has been expressing
itself clearly that ·the Doon Valley should be made available for
afforestation ·to. make good the Io.ss that had been caused to the
B ecology and that work should no longer be interfered with .

. A fresh set of applications have now been made for permission to
remove the mined material, machinery and/or extension of time for
the same; This Court had called for a report on the basis of joint
inspection by the District Judge and the District" Magistrate of
C Dehradun and after the said report was received, the Monitoring
Committee has made its report on the basis of this Court's direction. A
group of these applications had been heard on Uth of February, 1990;
but as some other applications remained to be disposed of on the basis
of the report of the Monitoring Committee which was yet to be
received, no orders had then been made. The Monitoring Commi~tee
D · sent its report dated 6th of April, 1990, and the other group of appli-
cations which were .then pending have in the meantime been heard on
26th of April, 1990; We proceed to dispose of all the pending appli-
cations by this order;

We have considered the submissions with some amount of·
E anxiety particularly as we are of the definite view that the Doon Valley' ~
should be ·left free to the planters for reafforestation and the mine''
owners should be put out in every respect of the same. Two or three·
aspects have, however, to be borne in mind while dealing with a case:
of this type. Mining was stopped by our order all of a sudden within a;
month from 30th· of August, 1988. Though fresh mining is stopped,
F mined material which had been appropriated by the mine-owner by his
own efforts should.ordinarily be allowed to be taken by him. There is 1
no doubt that the mined material has been loosened from the original•--/
place by digging and even if it is allowed to be stacked, consolidation.
of such material is bound to take quite some time and within one year·
it is not likely to consolidate approplately. The mined material has a:
G market and with the closure of the mining operation substantially int
the Doon Valley, this material seems to have been fetching good price;
as there is demand for the same. When mining was .stopped, no i
compensation was provided and the only hope our order held ciut was·i ..
rehabilitation. · · · " •:
''-~ [; ()

H At this stage,.,,it is appropriate to extract a portion from ~the letter,
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 75

of the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee dated April 6, 1990,
A
addressed to the Registrar of this Court. The Chairman is no other
"')-than the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of
Environment and Forests. He has pointed out:

"The Committee would seek the indulgence of the Court to
submit to the Hon1ble Justices that the areas ravaged by B
these mines including the roads leading to the mine areas
are in immediate need of afforestation to consolidate the
soil and prevent soil erosion. Permission granted to the
miners will inevitably delay the process of afforestation and
will destroy any natural vegetation that has come up along
the roads and the mine areas since the last monsoon. Shri
David Paul (Lease No. 99) in fact broke several check dams c
in the process of lifting material taking advantage of this
Court's orders granting him permission to remove quarried
material. The process of afforestation of these areas cannot
even be started as long as various applications of these
miners for removal of material are pending before ·this D
Hon'ble Court. It is humbly submitted that this Court
must, therefore, once and for all, put an end to such
applications, in order that the Monitoring Committee may
vigorously take up the task of afforestation of these areas."

We can quite appreciate the anxiety of the Monitoring E
_/ Committee that initial permission and extension of time for removal
has disturbed afforestation. The Monitoring Committee must, how-
ever, appreciate that the enthusiasm which it is prepared to exhibit has
. . . to be sobered down in the initial period by such judicial directions as
, . are called for taking the cause of equity and justice into consideration.
F
Even in such of the cases where permission or extension for
.:... removal would be granted now, we are of the view that the mine-
owners should not be permitted to operate and the District Magistrate
should set up a machinery under his control and subject to the super-
vision of the Monitoring Committee to enable removal. We do not
propose to allow the process of removal to continue beyond 15th of G
June, 1990. The process of afforestation for the year would begin only
by that time awaiting the onset of the monsoons. The ex-lessees in
whose c~se original or extended orders permitting removal would now
.-I. be made have, therefore, to contact the District Magistrate within one
week of this order and the District Magistrate would work out removal
on appropriate payment from the respective areas of the ex-lessees of H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990) 3 S.C.R.

the extracted material as mentioned in this Court's order of today on
A or before 15th of June, 1990. We make it clear that no application
either for original permission or for extension shall hereafter be enter- ~
tained by this Court and the Registry is directed by this order not to
entertain such petitions. It may be that such direction may affect some
one who has not been vigilant or has on account of some other diffi-
B culty or hardship been not able to remove the stacked material within
his leasehold area in the Doon Valley; but taking the broad interests of
the entire Valley into account such individual losses or inconveniences _
have to be sacrificed and/or overlooked and equities can no longer be ___..
allowed to be invoked. 4111!1

B
c INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS IN DISPOSED
OF WRIT PETT/ON NO. 82090F 1983

I.A. NO. 1OF1989

D This application is by the former lessee of lease No. 16-Ved Pal
Singh Chaudhary. The mine closed down on 30th of September, 1988
in terms of this Court's direction dated 30.8.1988. The first report on
the record is dated 18th of February, 1989, jointly given by the Addi-
tional District Magistrate, Dehradun, D.P. sharma, Geologist of
Dehradun and the Forest Range Officer, Mussoorie. This report indi-
E cated that limestone extracted was found lying scattered in different ,
marble pits and also heaps of different shapes. The estimated quantity
in the heaps appeared to be 11,500 metric tons. This Court permitted
removal of the mined material and the report of the Monitoring
Committee shows that between March and May, 1989, with extensions .
1111
obtained from the Court, 11,539 metric tons have already been "II
F removed.

The joint inspection report of the District Judge and the District "'
Magistrate has indicated that there was no fresh mining in the area
after 30th of August, 1988, and it appeared that the scattered material
had been collected and· removed while the stack has remained
G untouched. The present petition is for removal of the stack which is
claimed to be more than 11,000 metric tons.

The Monitoring Committee on the basis of the fact that 11,539
metric tons had been removed has assumed that there must have been
fresh mining to justify the presence of the stack. It has also indicated in
H the report that there is no danger whatsoever of any scree or stacked
''•

RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 77

material rolling down and affecting and choking the streams. Accord-
A
ing to the Committee, giving fresh opportunity for removal would
r encourage illicit mining and several mine-owners are likely to carry on
that clandestinely. Keeping the two reports in view, we are inclined to
hold that there has been no fresh mining and the stack now found is the
old one; it would not be appropriate to assume that the stack has
consolidated nor is it possible that the vegetation on such a stack B
would grow within a year. For the reasons we have already indicated
earlier we think it appropriate that ex-mine-owner of lease No. 16
--.; should be permitted to have the existing stacked material of 11,500
r- metric tons removed from the leasehold area but the same shall be
through the agency set up by the district Magistrate on terms of
payment and the removal shall be completed on or before the 15th
,,.,..- June, 1990. It is made clear that the removal shall be supervised by the c
Monitoring Committee.

~.
I.A. Nos. 3 and 10 of 1989 and 12 of 1990

These are applications made on behalf of Punjab Lime & D
Limestone Company for extension of time for lifting the mined
material lying in the first two lease areas held by the aforesaid lessee
and for original permission for the lease No. 96. Under the final order
of this Court dated 30th August, 1988, [1988 3 IT 787] in Paragraph 51
of the decision three mines including lease No. 96 valid up to 12.12.
1989 were permitted to work. Therefore, mining activity in respect of E
/ lease No. 96 must have stopped after 12th December, 1989. The joint
inspection report of the District Judge and the District Magistrate
indicated that 2,269 metric tons of material were lying at the face of

•
the mine in lease No. 14/ii while in regard to lease No. 14/i there was
no material found and the scattered scree was reported to have totally
stabilised. The Monitoring Committee has opposed removal from F
lease No. 14/ii by saying that permission to remove had been given and
utilised.· We are of the view that the petition in regards to lease No.
""' 14/i should be rejected in view of the concurrent reports of the joint
inspection and the Monitoring Committee that the scree has already
consolidated. So far as 2,269 metric tons from lease No. 14/i are con-
cerned there is no particular reason to take a different view and we G
direct that the same shall be removed through the machinery set up by
the District Magistrate upon payment of the cost by the ex-mine-
owner. This removal shall also to be made prior to 15th June, 1990.
_...(

Lease No. 96 closed down operations on 12th December, 1989.
5000 metric tons of limestone are claimed to have been scattered over H
I

78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

the area and reliance is placed upon the rule permitting six months'
A time from. the date of closing for removal of such material. The
Monitoring Committee has reported that there was no scree lying on
the leased area. It found that there is some scattered material on the
surface of the mine which cannot conveniently be stacked up. Since
this is the first application of the ex-lessee after the mining has been
B closed, we would have directed the Monitoring Committee to make a
fresh inspection in the presence of the ex-mine-owner but in view of
the clear report that there was no stacked material found by the
Monitoring Committee and the further fact stated in the report that
the scree has already consolidated even during the currency of the
mining lease, we do not think it will be appropriate at this stage to
permit any removal. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
c ,_
I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989

This petition is by the legal representatives of C.G. Gujral who
wdS lessee of lease No. 76. The first petition is for substitution of his
D legal representatives. It is allowed. So far as. the second one is con-
cerned, the legal representatives of Shri Gujral, ex-mine-owner re-
quests for permission for removal of the extracted mineral as also
some machine parts from the leasehold area. At the instance of Shri
Gujral this Court on 30.1.89 had made the following order:

E "Heard learned counsel in C.M.P. for permission to
remove the mining material already lying at the quarry site.
Subject to the verification by the Collector either per-
sonally or by a responsible officer that the allegation is
correct, removal may be permitted. The entire stock either
near the quarry or stocked in the stacking site 'hould be
F removed within four weeks from the day permission is
granted ..... ".

It is alleged that soon after on 18th September, 1989, C.G.
Gujral, original mine lessee died and his legal representatives had
instituted a suit. The suit has now been dismissed by a separate order
G of this Court and interim relief granted has also been vacated. This
petition filed in July, 1989, seeks permission for removal of the stacked
material and for permission to remove the machinery which comprises
of compressors and tools said to be lying at the mine-site. The joint
inspection report indicates that the mine site was not accessible. 16
kms. pathway had been damaged and even walking was not possible. If
H we permit the roadway to be repaired, there is apprehension of
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.] 79

damage to the land in the locality. If the work is left to the legal A
representatives of the ex-mine-owner they are likely to collect material
"")'-
for the purpose of repair which would.derinitely;affect the ecology.
Yet there are valuable machines apart from the mined material to be
collected. We leave it to the Collector and the Monitoring Committee
to find out if by some convenient path or any. other process by which
B
the machinery and the mined material can be moved out. The legal
representatives of the ex-mine-owner may now contact the Collector
-.;
and the Monitoring Committee to find out the modality of removal
r- and in case some convenient way is found out the stacked material and
the machinery may be removed with the help of the agency of the
Collector subject to the payment of the cost on or before 15th June,
1990. c
.---
C.M.P. No. 18702of 1989
-- ---- This application Is by the ex lessee of lease No. 31. The joint
inspection report indicates that the mining was stopped on 12th March, D
1985 and there has been no fresh quarrying. The report indicates:

"Under the mining faces in the slopes and in the river beds
scree and fine material were seen lying and scattred.
Natural vegetation is overgrown. Plants like ..... were
E
/ growing. At some spots pine plants and fums were also
found growing indicating that there is existence of humus
and the already quarried material has compacted and
settled binding the soil."
'-,.·
In this view of the matter it becomes difficult to entertain this
F
petition at this stage; the petition is accordingly dismissed.
A.
I.A. No. 4 of 1989

This application is by the ex-lessee of mine No. 17 asking for
permission for removal of already extracted mineral lying at the mine G
: site. In the joint inspection report it has been indicated that this Court
had granted some time for removal. The ex-lessee had also obtained
an order from the Addi. District Judge of Dehradun. The report indi-
..J. cated that there was no sign of fresh mining. We have taken all aspects
into account and we are of the view that this application has to be
rejected. H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 3 S.C.R.

C.M.P. No. 18703 of 1989
A
This application is on behalf of the ex-lessee of lease No. 8 for "(.
extension of time for lifting of mined mineral. The joint inspection
report indicates that mining in this area was stopped as early as 12th
March, 1985, and "Natural vegetation has overgrown in and around
B the mining faces. Considerable quarried material was lying scattered in
the slopes, the quantity of which could not be ascertained ar meas;;-
red. The Monitoring Committee in its report dated 10.8.89 assessed
that approximately 7 ,000 metric tons of the mining material was lying _J
scattered in the mining area." We have no intention to permit any
meddling to unsettle the settled situation. As the mining has stopped
for more than five years and the report is that there has been over-
C growth of natural vegetation we do not intend to permit extension of --..
time as prayed for. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

C. M. P. 11756 of 1988

D The two writ petition Nos. 8209 and 8821of1983 clearly relate to
the Doon Valley and mining activity falling within the district of
Tehri-Garhwal was not be the subject-matter of those two writ peti-
tions. The CMP filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh is dismissed leaving
it open to the State to agitate its contentions in regard to mining
activity in Tehri-Garhwal separately.
E ,
W.P. No. 151of 1990

This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution asking
for grant of leases in respect of five mines falling within the 'A' cate-
gory of the Bhargava Committee Report as also Category (1) of the
F Working Group Report to the Calcium Carbonate Manufacturers
Association for carrying out limited mining activity to meet the essen-
tial and captive need of the Calcium Carbonate Industry. When the
main writ petitions were pending, CMP 30707 /87 had been filed for the
self-same relief and it wanted to be impleaded in those two writ peti-
tions. The application was rejected on 30th of August, 1988, by saying:
G
"From time to time, Civil Miscellaneous Petitions
had been moved and orders were made. We do not see any
justification to make any further order in such cases. All
' CMPs are disposed of."

H Thereafter, the petitioner made another application for the same relief
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. {MISRA, J.} 81

but the Registry did not entertain it in view of the final order of 30th A
August, 1988. The present writ petition, in these circumstances, is not
""l' maintainable. That apart, this Court had come to the conclusion on
30th of August, 1988, that mining activity in the Doon Valley area
must ultimately stop. The Court has taken into consideration the need
for availability of minimum supply of the mineral in question and to
make available such supply, controlled and regulated mining activity B
has been permitted. Mining leases are not granted by this Court and in
view of the conclusion already reached that no fresh mining activity
should be carried on, we see no justification for entertaining this writ
petition.

Contempt Petition No. 25 of 1989
c
'
There is already an order that the proceeding for contempt is
misconceived. We do not find any justification to give any further time
- _ _.for lifting or removal. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

I.A. No. 9 of 1989 D

This application is by the Monitoring Committee appointed by
this Court and the prayer is to recall the order of 19th October, 1989,
and to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to sell the material and utilise
the proceeds for the purposes of reafforestation and conservation. In
view of the steps we have taken in the connected matters, no particular E
directions are necessary.

c
The only other question that is left for consideration is the
recommendation of the Monitoring Committee that the payment of F
Rs.5 per metric ton of the extracted material fixed by this Court in
1988 should be raised to Rs.20 per metric ton. We have heard counsel
for the parties. We have also perused the report and the papers
produced on behalf of the lessees who are still running. We are in-
clined, on the materials placed, to take the view that the rate should be
enhanced to Rs.10 from Rs.5 with effect from Ist June, 1990. Since this G
will not have any retrospective effect the liability for such payment
would be only in respect of the lessees who are running by permission
of the Court given in the main judgment of August 30, 1988.

It has been contended by some of the lessees before us that the
money which has been collected on the basis of Rs.5 per metric ton has ·H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

A not yet been utilised for plantation. We hope and trust that there is no
basis for the criticism but would like to advise the Monitoring Com-
mittee to activise its steps in the proper direction. '(

A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be placed
by the Monitoring Committee by 30th June, 1990, for the considera-
B ti on of the Court on the 23rd July, 1990.

The rehabilitation scheme which has already been furnished by ·r
the appropriate Committee should now be placed before the Court for --1
orders also on 23rd July, 1990

R.N.J. Petition disposed of.

·-

'

l- I