RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA DEHRADUN DEVAKI NANDAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHS:UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been argued at great length before us not only because a large number of lessees of lime stone quarries are involved and each 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 and significance not only to the people residing in the Mussoorie Hill range forming part of the Himalayas but also in their implications to the welfare of the generality of people living in the country. 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 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 through blasting have been stopped and the ends of justice require that the lessees of lime stone quarries 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.

(2.) We had by Order dated 11 August 1983 appointed a Committee consisting of Shri D.N. Bhargav, Controller General, Indian Bureau of Mines, Nagpur, Shri M.S. Kahlon, Director General of Mines Safety and Col. P. Mishra, Head of the Indian Photo Interpretation Institute (National Remote Sensing Agency) for the purpose of inspecting the lime stone quarries mentioned in the writ petition as also in the list submitted by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. This Committee which we shall hereinafter for the sake of convenience refer to as the Bhargav Committee, submitted three reports after inspecting most of the 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 mining operations was relatively less pronounced; category B comprised those lime stone durries 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 deficiencies regarding safety and hazards of more serious nature.

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