Holding

The Court ordered permanent closure of all quarries classified as category C/2, termination of their leases, and appointed a high‑powered Committee to evaluate category B/2 quarries, while permitting category A/1 quarries outside Mussoorie to operate under statutory safeguards.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard writ petitions filed by Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra challenging the continued operation of numerous limestone quarries in the Dehradun‑Mussoorie area, alleging environmental pollution and ecological damage. The Court examined reports of two expert bodies – the Bhargav Committee and a Working Group – which classified the quarries into categories A, B and C (or 1 and 2) based on the severity of impact. It ordered that all quarries placed in category C (or category 2) be permanently closed, terminated any existing leases and dismissed pending suits for lease renewal, and directed immediate reclamation and afforestation of those sites. Quarries in category A (or category 1) outside Mussoorie’s city limits may continue operating subject to compliance with the Mines Act, 1952, the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and other statutes, while those within the city limits are treated like category B and will be dealt with by a newly constituted Bandyopadhyay Committee. The Court also directed that displaced lessees be given priority for future lease grants and that workmen be employed in reclamation activities. These directions constitute a partial grant of the writ petitions, balancing development needs with environmental protection.

Issues considered

Whether the continued operation of limestone quarries violates the right to a healthy environment under Articles 32 and 48A of the Constitution.
Whether the classifications made by the Bhargav Committee and the Working Group are sufficient grounds for closure or continuation of mining operations.
Whether existing leases and pending renewal suits should be terminated in view of environmental concerns.
What procedural mechanism should be adopted for quarries whose status is uncertain (category B).
How to mitigate the economic impact on lessees and workers displaced by quarry closures.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32, s. Article 48A
Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961
Mines Act, 1952

Subjects

environmental lawmininglimestone quarryecological balanceArticle 32Article 48Alease terminationreclamationafforestationhigh‑powered committee

Judgment

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA
DEHRADUN & ORS. A

v.

STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
March 12, 1985
B
[P.N. BHAGWATI AMARENDRA NAfH SEN AND RANGANATH
- MISRA, JJ .)

Constitution of India, Arts.32 and 48A Environmental pollution - Lime-
stone deposits-quarrying and excavation of - ascertainment of pollution-Court.J
}urisdictiori to appoint Committees-Suggestion of remedial measUres by commit-
tees -Necssity of.
c

The present Writ Petitions relate to the mining of lime stone quarries
in Dehradun mining area.~ During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the
Court appointed a Committee known as Bhargav Committee for th~ purpose -
of inspecting the lime· stone quarries mentioned in the writ petitions. The D
Government of India had also appointed a Working Group headed by the
same Sh. D.N. Bhargav who was a member of the Bhargav Committee
appointed by the Court _on mining of lime stone quarries in Dehradun-
Mussooric area, some time in 1983 After the hearing was over, the Court
passed the following order on the Writ Petitions observing that the reas0ns
for the order will be set out in the judgment to follow later. E

I. The Court is clearly of the vieW that so far as the lime stone quarries
classified in category (c) in the Bhargav Committee Reoprt are concerned, which
have already been closed down under the directions of the Bhargav Com-
mittee. should not be allowed to be operated. If the lessees of these lime
stone quarries have obtained any stay order from any court permitting them
to continue the mining operations, such stay order will stand dissolved and F
if there are any subsisting leases in respect of any of these lime stone quarries,
they shaU stand terminated without any liability against the State of Uttar
Pradesh. The lime stone quarries in Sahasradhara Block evea though they
are placed in category (b) by the Bhargav Committee should also not be
allowed to be operatcd~and should be closed down fourthwith. The Court G
would also direct, agreeing with the Report made by the Working Group
that the lime stone quarries placed in category (2) by the Working Group
other than those which are placed in categories (B) and (C) by the Bhargav
Con1mittee should also not be allowed to be operated and should be closed
down save and except for the Jime stonelquarries covered by mining leases
Nos. 31, 36 and 37 for which tho Court would give the same direct!Pn as will H
be given in regard to the Jime stone quarries classified as category B in the
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.
A Bhargav Committee Report. Jf there are subsisting leases in respect of any of
these lime stone quarries they will forthwith come to an end and if any suits or
writ petitions for continuance of expired or unexpired leases in respect of any
of these lime stone quarries are pending, they too will stand dismissed.
[175G-H; 176A]
(2) So for as the lime stone quarries classified as category A in the Bhargav
B Committee Report and/or category 1 in the Working Group Report are con-
cerned, they are divided into two classes, one class consisting of those which
are within the city limits of Mussorie and the other consisting of those
which are outside the city limits. The Jime stone quarries falling within cate-
gory A of the Bhargav Committee Report and/or Category l of the Working
Group Report and falling outside the city limits of rvrussoorie, should be allo~
wed to be operated ~ubject of corrse to the observance of the requirements of
c the 1,1ii1'.'.'; Act 1952, the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961 and other
relev~nt statutes, rules and regulations. Of course, it must be mdd~ clear
that the Court is not holding that if the leases in respect of th:~e lime stone
quanks have expired and suits or writ petitions for renewal of the leases are
pending in the courts, such leases should be automatically ren~ wed. it will Ce
for the appropriate courts to d('cide whether such leases shou 'd be renewed or
not baving regard to the law and facts of each case. So far as the lime stone
' quarries classified in category A in the Bhargav Committ.'~ Report and/or
D cat: gory 1 in the Working Group Report and falling within t'1e city limits of
Mu'>~oorie are concerned, the Court would give the same direclion which is it
giving in regard the lime stone quarrie3 classified as categOry Bin the Bhargav
Committee Report. [176P-H: 177A-Ci

The Court does not propose to clear the lime st0ne quarries classified
as category (B) in the Bhargav Committee Report and category 2 in the
E Working Group Report for continuance of mining operations nor to close
them down permanently witdout further inquiry, and ac~ordingly appoint a
high powered Commitee to be headed by Mr. Bandyopadhyay, Secretary,
Ministry for Rural Development as Chairman. The lessees of the lime stone
quarries classified as category A in Bhargav Committee Report and/or Cate·
gory I in the Working Group Report and falling within the city limits of

F
Mussoorie as also the lessees of the lime stone quarries classified as category B
in the Bbargv Com1nittee Report will be at liberty to submit a fully and detai·
led scheme for mining their lime stone qurries to this Committee (hereinafter
1
called the Bandyopadhyay Committee) and if any such scheme or schemes arc
submitted, the Bandyopadhyay Committee will proceed to eir.amine the same
Without any unnecessary dely and submit a report to this Court whether in
its opinion the particular lime stone quarry can be allowed to be operated in
G accordance with the ~scheme and if so, subject to what conditions and if it can·
not be allowed to be operated, the reasons for taking that view. The report
subn1itted by the Bandyopadhyay Committee in each case will be considerd
by the Court and a dcci~ ion will then be taken. whether the lime stone quarry
or quarries in respect of which the Report has been made should be allowed
to be opcrrited or not. But until then those lime stone quarries will not be
allowted to .. be operated or worked and the District Authorities of Dehradun
H will.take prompt and active steps for the purpo:;e of ensuring that these lilne
RURAL LITIGATION >. iJ .P. STA TE 111
stone quarries are not operated or worked and no mining activity is carried on A
even clandestinely. [177D-H ; 178D.H: 179A]

4. So far as the lime stone quarries at SI.Nos. 17 to 20 in the ~ategory
B in the Bhargav committee Report are concerned, they have already been
closed down and no further direction therefore is necessary to be given in B
regard to them save and except in regard to removal of the lime stone, delornite
and marble chips which may have already been mined and which may be
lying at the •ite. [I 79E-F]

S(i) So far as lime stone quarries classified as category A in the Bhargav
Committee Report and/or category 1 in tJle Working Group Report and falling c
side the city limits of Mu'>soorie are conc~rned, the Court has pern1itted the
lessees of these lime stone quarries to carry on mining operations and hence
they must be allowed to remove whatever minerals are lying at the site of these
lime stone quarries without any restirication whatsoever, ~ave and except those
prescribed by any statutes, rules or regu!ations and subject- to payment of
royalty. [181B-C]
D
S. (ii) So far as the other Jim;! stone quarries are concerned, whether
comprised in category A of Bhargav Committee Report of category 1 of the
Working· Group Report and falling within the City limits of Mussoorie or
falling within category 2 of the Working Group Report, the lessees of these
lime stone buarries are permitted to remove whatever minerals are found
lying at the site of its vicinity, provided of course such minerals are covered
by their respective leases and/or quarry permits. Such removal will be carried
E
out and completed by the lessees within four Weeks from the date of this
Order and it shall be done in the presence of an officer not below the rank of
Deputy Collector to be nominated by the District Magistrate, Dchradun a
gazetted officer from the Mines .Department nominated by the Director of
Mines and a public spirit individual in Dehradun, to be.nomin.ated by Shri D,
Bandopadhyay. No part of the minerals lyiag at the site shall be renioved by
the lessees except in the presence of the above mentioned three persons. The
lessees will, on the expiry of the period of four we~ks, submit a report to this F
Court setting out the precise quantitieS of minerals reinoved by them from the
site pursuant to this Order made by the Court. The lessees shall not be
entitled to remove any minerals after the eA:piration of the period ·of four
weeks. [112E-li ; 113AJ

6 (i) In order to mitigate the hardship that may be caused to the lessees
of lime stone quarries which have been directed to b~ closed down permanen~ G
tly or which may be directed to be closed ,down permanetly after consideration
of the Report of the Bandbopadjay Committee, the Court would direct the
Gover~ment of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh that whenever any other
area in the State of. Uttar Pradesh is thrown open for grant of lime stone or
delomite quarrying, the lessees who are displa_ccd as a result of this.Order
shall be afforded priority in grant of lease of such area and intin1ation that
such area is available for grant of lease shall be given to the lessees who are
H
1'72 SUPREME COuRT REPORTS [! 9851 3 s.c.k.
A displaced so that they can ~ppJy of grant of lease of such area and on the basis
of such application, priority may be given to them sub.ect, of course, to their
otherwise being found fit and eligible. [1790-H; !BOA-CJ

6(ii) The lime stone quarries which have been or which may be directe<l
to be closed down permanently will have to be reclaimed and afforestation and
soil conservation programme will have to be taken up in respect of such lime
B stone quarries and the Court would therefore direct that immediate steps shall
be taken for reclamation of the areas forming part of such lime stone quarries
with the help of the already available Eco-Task Force,~of the Department of
Environment, Government of India and the workmen who are thrown out ot
employment in consequence of this Court shall, as far as practicable and in the
shortest possible time, be provided employment in the afforestation and soil
conservation programme to be taken up in this area. [180E.G)
c
ORIFINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Nos. 8209 & 8821 of 83.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

D M.K. Ramamurthi B. Dutta, Anil Divan, Dr. L.M. Singhvi,
O.P. Rana, S.N. Kackar, M.C. Bhandare, Shanti Bhuslian. Milan K.
Banerji, Additional Solicitor General, M.A. Krishnamoorthy, Rishi
Kesh, K.N. Bhat, M.G. Ramachandran, .Miss A. Subhashini, K.K.
Jain. A.D. Sangar, P. Dayal, C. V. Suhba Rao, Raju Ramachandran
S.M. Suri R.N. Mehrotra, S.M. Suri, C.M. Nayyar, Harjinder Singh,
E G.N. Ruo, M. Karanjawala, Shakeel Ahmed Syed, S.K- Jain, Mrs.
Shobha Dikshit, P.P. Juneja, P.K. Jain, J.B D. & Co.,Jndra lrlakwana,
A. SubbaRao, B.P. Singh, Parijat Sinha, C.P. Lal, Shri Narain,
S.K. Gupta, K.R. Namiar, S.S. Jauhar, D. M. Nargolkar, Mrs Rani
Chhabra, Kapil Sibbal, B.P. Maheshwari, R.P. Singh, S.A. Syed for
the appearing parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered

BHAGWATI, J. This case has been argued at great length
before us not only because a large number of lessees of lime stone
G quarries are involved and eacb of them has pains-takingly and
exhaustively canvassed his factual as well as legal points of view
but also because this is the first case of its kind in the country
involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance
and the questions arising for considerations are of grave moment
H and significance not cnly to the people residing in the Mussoorie
RURAL LITiGATION v. U.P. STATE (Bhagwati, J.) 173

Hill raoge forming part of the Himalayas but also in their A
implicativos to the welfare of the generality of people living in
the conntry. It brings into sharp focus the conflict between
development and conservation and serves to emphasise the need
for reconciling the two in the larger interest of the country. But
since having regard to the voluminous material placed before us B
and the momentous issues raised for decision, it is not possible
for us to prepare a full and detailed judgment immediately and
at the same time, on account of interim order made by us, mining
operations carried out thcough blasting have been stoppe.d and the
ends of justice require that the lessees of lime stone quarries c
)
should know, without any unnecessary delay, as to where they
stand in regard to their lime stone quarries, we propose to pass
our order on the writ petitions. The reasons for the order will be
set out in the judgment to follow later.

We had by Order dated 11th August 1983 appointed a Com-
D
mittee consisting of Shri D.N. Bhargav, Controller General, Indian
Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, Shri M.S. Kahlon, Director General of
Mines Safety and Col. P.Mishra, Head of the Indian Photo·
Interpretation Institute (National Remote Sensing Agency) for
the purpose of inspecting the lime stone quarries mentioned in
the writ petition as also io the list submitted by the Government
of Uttar Pradesh. This Committee which we shall hereinafter for E
the sake of convenience refer to as the Bhargav Committee,
submitted three reports after inspecting most of the lime stone
quarries and it divided the lime ·stone quarries into three groups.
The lime stone quarries comprised in category A were those where
in the opinion of the Bhargav Committee the adverse impact of the F
mining operations was relatively less pronounced; category B
comprised those lime stone duarries where in the opinion of the
Bhargav Committee the adverse impact of mining operations was
relatively more pronounced and category C covered those lime
stone quarries which had been directed to be closed down by the
Bhargav Committee under the orders made by us on account of G
deficiencies regarding safety and hazards of more serious nature.

It seems that the Government of Iodia also appointed a
working Group on Mining of Lime Stone Quarries in Dehradun-
Mussoorie area, some time in 1983. The Working Group was
also headed by the same Sh. D.N. Bhar$av who was a member H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 3 S.C.R.

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

It is interesting to note that the lime stone quarries comprised
in category A of the Bhargav Committee Report were the same
D lime stone quarries which were classified in category 1 by the Work-
ing Group and the lime stone quarries in categories· Band C of the
Bhargav Committee Report were classified in category 2 of the
Report of the Working Group. It wUl thus be seen that both the
Bhargav Committee and the Working Group were unanimous in
their· view that the lime stone quarries classified in category A by
E
the Bhargav Committee Report and category 1 by the Working
Group were suitable for cnntinuance of mining operations. So far
as the lime stone quarries in category C of the Bhargav Committee
Report are concerned, they were regarded by both the Bhargav
Committee and the Working Group as unsuitable for continuance
F of mining operations and both were of the view that they should
be closed down. The only difference between the Bhargav
Committee and the Working Group was in regard to lime stone
quarries classified in category B. The Bhargav Committee Report
took the view that these lime stone quarries need not be closed
down, but it did observe that the adverse impact of mining opera-
G tions in these lime stone quarries was more pronounced, while the
Working Group definitely took the view that these lime stone
quarries were not suitable for further mining.

While making this Order we are not going into the various
rcmifications of the arguments advanceq before us but we may
"
RURAL LITIGATION v. U.P. STATE (Bhagwati, J.) 175

observe straight away that we do not propose to rely on the Report A
of Prof. K.S. Valdia, who was one of the members of the Expert
Committee appointed by us by our Order dated 2nd September
1983, as modified by the Order dated 25th October 1983. This
Committee consisted of Prof. K.S. Valdia, Shri Hukum Singh and
Shri D.N. Kaul and it was appointed to enquire and investigate
into the question of disturballce of ecology and pollution and B
affectation of air, water and environment by reason of quarrying
operations or stone crushers or lime stone kilns. Shri D.N.kaul
and Shri Hukum Singh submitted a joint report in regard to the
·various aspects while Prof. K.S. Valdia submitted a separate
report. Prof. K.S. Valdia's Report was confined largely to the
geological aspect and in the report he placed considerable c
reliance oil the Main Boundary Thrust (hereinafter shortly referred
to as M.B.T.) and he took the view that the lime stone quarries
which were dangerously close to the M.B.T. should be closed down,
because they were in this sensitive and vulnerable belt. We shall
examine this Report in detail when we give our reason but we may
strainght away point out that we do not think it safe to direct D
continuance or discontinuance of mining operations in lime stone
quarries on the basis of the M.B.T. We are therefore not basing
our conclusions on the Report of Prof. K.S. Valdia but while doing
so we may add that we do not for a moment wish to express any
doubt on the correctness of his R,eport.
E

We shall also examine in 'detail the question as to whether
lime stone deposits act as aquifers or not. But there can be no·
gain saying that lime stone quarrying and excavation of the lime
stone deposits do seem to affect the perennial water springs. This
environmental disturbance has however to be weighed in the balance F
against the need of lime stone quarrying for industrial purposes in
the country and we have taken this aspect into account while
making this order.

We are clearly of the view that so far as the lime stone G
quarries classified in category C in the Bhargav Committee Report
are concerned \Jhich have already been closed down under the
directions of the Bhargav Committee, should not be allowed to be
operated. If the leasees of these lime stone quarries have obtained
any stay order from any court permitting them to continue the
mining operations, such stay order will stand dissolved and if there
176 SUPREME COURT RtPORTS (1985) 3 S.C.R.
A are any subsisting leasees in respect of any of these lime stone
quarries they shall stand terminated without any liability against
the State of Uttar Pradesh. If there are any suits or writ petitions
for continuance of expired or unexpired leases in respect of.any of
these lime stone quarries pending, they will stand dismissed.
B
We would also give the same direction in regard to the lime
stone quarries in the Shasradhara Block even though they are
placed in category B by the Bhargav Committee. So far as these
lime stone quarries in Sahasradhara Block are concerned, we agree
c with the Report made by the Working Group and we direct that
these lime stone quarries should not be allowed to be operated and
should be closed down forthwith. We would also direct, agreeing
with the Report made by the Working Group that the lime stone
quarries placed in category 2 by the . Working Group other than
those which are placed in categories B and C by the Bhargav Com·
D mittee should also not be allowed to be operated and should be
closed down save and except for the lime stone quarries covered by
mining leases Nos. 31, 36 and 37 for which we would give the same
direction as we are giving in the succeeding paragrahps in regard to
the lime stone quarries classified as category B in the Bhargav
Committee Report. If there are any subsisting leases in respect of
E any of these lime stone quarries they will forthwith come to an end
and if any suits or writ petitions for continuaee of expired or unex-
pired leases in respect of any of these lime stone quarries are pend-
ing, they too will stand dismissed.

So. far as the lime stone quarries classified as category A in
F the Bhargav Committee Report and/or category 1 in the Working
Group Report arc concerned, we would divide them into two
classes, one class consistir.g of those lime stone quarries which are
within the city limits of Mussoorie and the other consist-
ing of those which are outside the city limits. We take the view
that the lime stone quarries falling withtn category A of the
G
Bhargav Committee Report and/or category 1 of the Working
Group Report and falling outside the city limits of Mussoorie,
should be allowed to be operated subject of course to the, obser-
vance of the requirements of the Mines Act 1952, the Metallferous
Mines Regulations, 1961 and other relevant statutes, rules and
regulations. Of course whon wc say this, we must make it clear
H
RURAL LITIGATION v. U.P. STATE (Bhagwati, J.) 177
that we are .not holding that if the leases in respect of these lime A
stone quarries have expired and suits or writ petitions for renewal
of the leases are pending in the courts, such leases should be auto·
matically renewed. It will be for the appropriate courts to decide
whether such leases should be renewed or not having regard to the
law and facts of each case. So far as the lime stone quarries-classi·
fled in category A in the Bhargav Committee Report and or cate. B
gory I in the Working Group Report and falling within the city
limits of Mussoorie are concerned, we would give the same direc·
tion which we are giving in the next succeeding paragraph in
regard to the lime stone quarries classified as category Bin the
) Bhargav Committee Report.
c
''
That takes us to the lime stone quarries classified as category
B in the Bhargav Committee Report and category 2 in the Working
Group Report. We do not propose to clear these lime stone
quarries for continuance of mining operations nor to close them
down permanently without further inquiry. We accordingly appoint D
a high powered Committee consisting of Mr. D. Bandyopadhyay, Sec·
retary, Ministry for Rural Development as Chairman and Shri H.S.
Ahuja. Director General, Mines Safety, Dhanbad, Bihar, Shri D.N.
Bhargav, Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, New Secre·
lariat Building, Nagpur and two experts to be nominated by the
Department of Environment, Government of India within four weeks
from the date of this Order. The lessees of the lime stone quarries E
classified as category A in Bhargav Committee Report and for
Category I in the working Gronp Report and falling within the
city limits of Mussoorie as also the lessees of the lime stone quarries
classified as category B in the Bhargav Committee Report will be
at liberty to submit a full and detailed scheme for mining their lime F
stone quarries to this Committee (hereinafter called the Bandyopa·
dhyay Committee) and if any such scheme or schemes are submitted
the Bandyopadhyay Committee will proceed to examine the same
without any unnecessary delay and submit a report to this Court
whether in its opinion the particular lime stone quarry can be
G
allowed to be operated in accordance with the scheme and if so,
subject to what conditions and if it cannot be allowed to .be· opera·
ted, the reasons for taking that view. The Bandyopadhyay Com·
- mittee in making its report will take into account the various aspects
which we had directed the Bhargav Committee and the Kaul Com·
mittee ('.) consider while making their respective reports including H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R.

A the circumstance that the particular lime Stone quarry may or may
not be within the city limits of Mussoorie and also give an oppor-
tunity to the concerned lessee to be heard, even though it be briefly.
The Bandyopadhyay Committee will also consider while. making its
report whether any violations of the provisions of the Mines Act
B 1952, the Metalliferous Mines Regnlations, 1961 and other relevant
statutes, rules and regulations were committed by the lessee submit-
ting the scheme or schemes and if so, what were the nature, extent
and frequency of such violations and their possible hazards. The
Bandyopadhyay Committee will also insist on a broad plan of ex-
ploitation coupled with detailed mining management plans to be
0
submitted along with the scheme or schemes and take care to \ j
ensure that the lime stone deposits are exploited in a scientific and
systematic manner and if necessary, even by two or more lessees
coming together and combining the areas of the lime stone quarries
to be exploited by them. It should also be the concern of the
D Bandyopadhyay Committee while considering the scheme or schemes
submitted to it and making its report, to ensure that the lime stone
on exploitation is specifically utilised only in special industries
having regard to its quality and is not wasted by being utilised in
industries for which high grade lime stone is not required. The
necessary funds for the purpose of meeting the expenses which may
E
have to be incurred by the members of the Bandyopadhyay Com-
mittee will be provided by the State of Uttar Pradesh including
their travelling and other allowances appropriate to their office. The
State of Uttar Pradesh will also provide to the members of the.
Bandyopadhyay Committee necessary transport and other facilities
for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their funchons under
this Order. If any notice, are to be served by the Bandyopadhyay
F
Committee the District Administration of Dehradun will provide the
necessary assistance for serving of- such notices on the lessees or
other interested parties. The Bandyopadhyay Committee will also
be entitled before expressing its opinion on the scheme or schemes
submitted to it, to hear the petitioner, the interventionists in this
case and such other persons or organisations as may be interested
G in maintenance and preservation of healthy environment and ecolo-
gical balance. The Indian Bureau of Mines will provide secretarial
facilities to the Bandyopadhyay Committee. The report submitted
by the Bandyopadhyay Committee in each case will be considered
by the Court and a decision will then be taken whether the limit
H stone quarry or quarries in respect of which the report has been
RURAL LITIGATION v. U.P. STATE (Bhagwati, J,) 179

made should be allowed to be operated or not. ·But until then A
these lime stone quarries will not be allowed to be operated or
worked and the District Authorities of Dehradun will take prompt
and active steps for the purpose of ensuring that these lime stone
quarries are not operated or worked and no mining activity is
carsied.on even clandestinely. This order made by us will super-
sode any stay or any other interim order obtained by the lessee of B
any of these lime stone quarries permitting him to carry on miniag
operations and notwithstanding rnch stay order or other interim
order or subsisting lease, the lessees shall not be entitled to carry on
any mining activity whatsoever in any of these lime stone quarries
and shall desist from doing so. The lessees of these limestone
quarries will also not in the meanwhile be permitted to rectify the c
defects pointed out in the orders issued by the District Mining
Vuthority but they may include the proposal for which rectification
in the s~heme or schemes which they may submit to the Bandyo-
padhyay Committee. We may however make it clear that non
rectification of the defects pursuant to the notices issued by the
District Mining authorities shall not be taken advantage of by the D
State of Uttar Pradesh as a ground for terminating the lease or
leases.

We may point out that so far as the lime stone quarries at SI.
Nos. 17 to 20 in er 'ogory Bin· the Bhargav Committee Report are E
concerned we are informed that they have already been closed
down and no further direction therefore is necessary to be given
in regard to them save and except in regard to removal of the lime
stone, dolomite and marble chips which may have already been
mined and which may be lying at the site for which we are giving
separate directions in one of the succeeding paragraphs in this F
order.

The consequence of this Order made by us would be that the
lessees of lime stone quarries which have been directed to be closed
down permanently under this Order or which may be directed to be G
closed down permanently after consideration of the report of the
Bandopadbyay ( ommittee, would be thrown out of business in which
they have invested large sums of money and expanded considerable
time and effort. This would undoubtedly cause bard sbip,to the
. but It is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding
the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 s.c.R.
A disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to
them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undne
affectation of air, water and environment. However, in order to
mitigate their hardship, we would direct the Government of India
and the State of Uttar Pradesh that whenever a&y other area in the
State of Uttar Pradesh is thrown open for grant of lime stone or
B dolomite quarrying, the lessees who are displaced as a result of this
order shall be afforded priority in grant of lease of such area and
·intimation that such area is available for grant of lease shall be
given to the lessees who are displaced so that tqey can apply for
grant of lease of such area and on the basis of such application,
0 priority may be given to them subject, of course, to their otherwise
being found fit and eligible. We have no doubt that while throwing
open new areas for grant of lease for lime stone or dolomite quarry-
ing, the Government of India and the StEte of Uttat Pradesh will
take into account the considerations to which we have averted in
this order,
D
We are conscious that as a result of this Order made by us, the
workmen employed in the lime stone quarries which have been
directed to be closed down permanently under this Order or which
may be directed to be closed down permanently after consideration
of the report of the Bandopadhyay Committee, will be thrown out
E of employment and even those workmen who are employed in the
lime stone quarries which have been directed to be closed down
temporarily pending submission of scheme or schemes by the lessees
and consideration of such scheme or schemes by the Bandyopadhyay
·Committee, will be without work for the time being. But the lime
F stone quarries which have been or which may be directed to be
closed down permanently will have to be reclaimed and afforestation
and soil conservation programme will have to be taken up in respect
of such lime stone quarries and we would therefore direct that
immediate steps shall be given for reclamation of the areas forming
part of such limestone quarries with the help of the already available
Eco-Task Force of the Department of Environment, Government of
G
India and the wor~kmen who are thrown out of employment in con-
sequence of this Order shall, as far as practicable and in the short-
est possible time, be provided employment in the afforestation and
soil conservation programme to be taken up in this area.

ff There are several applications before us for removal of lime
RURAL i..ITIGATioN ;, U.P. STATE (Bhagwati, },) i8i
stone, dolomite and marble chips mined from the quarries and lying A
at the site and these applications also are being disposed of by this
Order. So far as lime stone quarries classified as category A in the
Bhargav Committee Report and for category 1 in the Working
Group Report and falling outside the city limits of Mussorrie are
concerned, we have permitted the lessees of these lime stone quarries B
to carry on mining operations and hence they must be allowed to
remove whatever minerals are lying at the site of these lime stone
quarries without any restriction whatsoever, save and except those
prescribed by any statutes, rules or regulations and subject to pay-
J ment of royalty. So far as the other lime stone quarries are
concerned, whether comprised in category A of Bhargav Committee c
Report or category I of the Working Group· Report and falling
within the city limits of Mussoorie or falling within category B ·or
category C of the Bhargav Committee Roport or category 2 of
the Working Group Report, there is a serious .dispute between
the lessees of these lime stone quarries on the hand and the D
petitioners and the state of Utter Pradesh on the other as to what is
the exact quantity of minerals mined by the lessees and lying at the
site. We had made an order on 15th December 1983 requiring the
District Magistrate Dehradun to <;!epute some .offickr either of his
Department or of the Mining Department to visit the site of these
lime stone quarries for . the purpose of assessing the exact quantity
E
of lime stone lying there and to report in this connection. The
District Magistrate, Dehradun deputed the Sub-Divisional Magis-
trates of Mussoorie and Tehsildar (Quarry) Dehradun to inspect
the 20 stone quarries comprised in category C of the Bhargav
Committee Repart which had been ordered to be closed <!own •
nnder the directions of the Bhargav Committee and an affidavit F
was filed on behalf of the District Magistrate Dehradun, by Kedar
Singh Arya, Tehsildar (Quarry) Dehradun, annexing a chart showing
the details of the minerals mined by the lessees of those lime stone
quarries and lying at the site. Thereafter, when again the case came
up for hearing before '.us an 5th January 1984, we, in order to allay
any apprehensions on the part of the lessees that the District
Authorities had not done their job correctly in assessing the quan- G
tity of minerals lying at the site, appointed a Committee of two
officers, namely, Shri D. Bandophadyay and Director of Geology
(Mines) Lucknow for the purpose of visiting the time stone quarries
which had been directed to be closed down and to assess the
quantity of minerals lying on the site of those limestone quarries H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985J 3 S.C.R.

A after giving notice to the concerned lessees as also to the District
Magistrate Dehradun and the repesentatives of the petitioners.
Pursuant to this order made by us, Shri D, Bandhopdhyay and
the Director of Guology (Mines) Lacknow visited the lime
stone quarries comprised in category C of the Bhargav Committe
Report and directed to be closed down anc! assessed the quantity
B of minerals lying at the site of each of these lime stone quarries.
The quantity of minerals lying at the site, according to Shri D.
Bandophadayay and the Director of Geology (Mines), was very
much less than what was claimed by the lessess and it does appear
that though these lime stone q ·,arriess were directed to be closed
down, illegal mining was being carried on clandestinely, because
c otherwise it is difficult to understand how the figures of the quantity
of the minerals lying at the site as assessed in Decemb•. 1983 by
the DiStrict Authorities became inflated when Shri D: Bandophadyay
and Director of Geology (Mines) made tneir assessment in January
1984 and thereafter the figures again got inflated if the quantity
D now claimed by the lessees as lying on the site is correct. We do
not, however, propose to go into the question as to what was the
precise quantity of minerals mined by the lessees of these limestone
quarries and lying at the site at the time when these lime stone
quarries were closed down under the directions of the Bhargav
Committee. We would permit the lessees of these lime stone
E quarries to remove whaever minerals are fotind lying at the site
or its vicinity provided and of course such minerals are covered by
their re•pective leases or quarry permits. Such removal will be
carried out and completed by the lessees within four weeks from the
date of this Order and it shall be done in the presence of an officer
• not below the rank of Deputy Collector to be nominated by the
F District Magistrate, Dehradur, a gazetted officer from the Mines
Department nominated by the Diroctor of Mines and a public spirit
1
individual in Dehradun, other than Mr. Avdesh Koushal, to be
nominated by Shri D. · Bandopadhyay. These nomination shall
be made within one week from today and they may be changed
G from time to time depending on the exigencies of the situation.
Notice of intended removal of minerals lying at the site shall be
given by the lessees to the District Magistrate Dehradun, Director
of Mines Dehradun and the person nominated by Shri D. Bando-
phadyay. No part of the minerals lying at the site shall be removed
by the lessees except in the presence of the above mentioned three
H persons. The lessees will on the expiry of the period of four weeks
RURAL LITIGATION v. U.P. STATE (Bhagwati, J.) 183

submit a report to this Court setting out the precise quantities of A
minerals removed by them from the· site pursuant to this Order
made by us. The lessees shall not be entitled to remove any
minerals after the expiration of the period of four weeks.

Before we close we wish to express our sence of appreciation
for the very c6mmendable assistance rendered to us by Shri Pramod B
Dayal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of some of the lessees.
He undertook the responsibility of arranging the various affidavits
and written submissions in a proper and systematic manner and we
must confess that but. for the extremely able assistance rendered by
him, it would not have been possible for us to complete the hearing c
of this cas~ satisfactorily and to pass this order within such a short
time. We would direct that the Government of India and the State
of Uttar Pradesh should each pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 to Shri Pramed
Dayal for the work done by him. We may point out that this pay-
ment to Shri Pramod Dayal is not in lieu of costs but is an additio-
nal remuneration which we are directing to be paid in recogni- D
tion of the very valuable assistance rendered by him to the
Court.

M.L.A.