Important points
1. Time period fixed by the First Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, is proper and is accepted i.e., the mining should be allowed till the end of 2005, subject to fulfillment of the recommendation made by the committee on ecological and other aspects.
2. Sustainable development is essentially a policy and stratrgy for continued economic and social development without detriment to the environment and natural resources on the quality of which continued activity and further development depend.

Headnote:(i) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 —Interlocutory Application in C.W.P. No. 202 of 1995 challenging the correctness of order of State of Karnataka regarding mining operations in Kudremukh National Park—Reliefs sought, inter alia, to direct the MoEF to withdraw illegal ‘temporary working permission’ issued by it and stop mining activities and to take action against the concerned mining company for illegal encroachment in the forests and for destruction of forests—Supreme Court in its order dated 10.5.2001 had passed an order asking the Union Government as to why the Government when once notified the area as a National Park then permitted mining activity to be carried out—Matter referred to the Central Empowered Committee constituted under Section 3 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which recommended winding up of the company’s operations within a period of five years or on the exhaustion of the oxidized weathered secondary ore, whichever is earlier, in the already broken up area subject to rehabilitation and reclamation and proper eco-restoration plan prepared by MoEF at company’s cost and monetary compensation—Contended by the company (1) that notwithstanding anything provided under Wild Life (Protection) Act, on an application made the lease was to be renewed for twenty years as per Rule 24(B) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, (2) that land under mining was excluded by virtue of Notification dated 16th June, 2001 u/s 35(4) of the Act, (3) that the company had subsisting contracts with foreign buyers and therefore abandoning the mining operations could lead to large financial implications—No consent necessary as an existing right is only to be extended further, (5) that discontinuing the business would stop earning of valuable foreign exchange and would render large number of employees jobless, and (6) that all possible steps were taken to preserve and conserve nature in its pristine glory.
       Held : So far as the effect of Rule 24B of the Minerals Rules is concerned, it is to be noted that Section 2(ii) of the Conservation Act rules out non-forest activities. The Section begins with a non-obstante clause providing that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government any order of the nature enumerated in the provision. Section 3 of the Conservation Act deals with constitution of Advisory Committee and Section 4 deals with power to make rules. Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Forest Conservation Rules, 1981 (in short Conservation Rules ) are relevant. Rule 4 deals with procedure to make proposal by a State Government or their authority. Rule 5 deals with the powers of the Committee to advise on proposals received by the Central Government. The Committee referred to therein is the one constituted under Section 3 of the Act. Rule 6 deals with action of the Central Government on the advise of the Committee. Admittedly, the Central Government has not accorded the approval for use of any forest land or any portion thereof for being used for any non forest purpose. That being so, Rule 29(b) of the Mineral Rules cannot be of any assistance to the company. So far as the order dated 14.11.2000 in W.P. 337/2000 is concerned, it is clear therefrom that de-reservation of forests, sanctuaries and national parks was prohibited. Therefore, exclusion of company s land in terms of the Notification under Section 35(4) of the Act though same was being used for mining by the company, was not in order to that extent. (Para 45)
       Held : Coming to plea that in case of a renewal there is no requirement of compliance of Section 2 of the Conservation Act, the stand is clearly untenable in view of decisions in Ambica Quarry s case (supra) and Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1988 SC 2187) where at page 2201 it was observed that whether it is a case of first grant or renewal following exercise of option by the lessee, the compliance of Section 2 of the Conservation Act is necessary as a condition precedent . It may be noted here that the area in question was declared to be a reserved area in 1960 and in 1987 the Notification under Section 35(1) was issued. (Para 48)
       It is of significance that in the present case the Forest Advisory Committee under the Conservation Act on 11.7.2001 examined the renewal proposal in respect of the company s mining lease. It recommended that the mining may be allowed for a period of four years i.e. upto the year 2005 by which time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken up area would be exhausted. The Ministry of Environment and Forests deferred a formal decision on the said recommendation as the matter was pending before this Court. On consideration of the materials on record we find no reason to vary the majority view of the Committee, a statutory one when its findings and conclusions are based on assessments of the factual aspects and after duly considering the materials and Reports placed before it by the parties. We have also taken note of the period indicated by the Forest Advisory Committee, which is also a statutory Committee. Taking note of the factual background and the legal position highlighted above, we think it proper to accept the time period fixed by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Conservation Act. That means mining should be allowed till the end of 2005 by which time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area should be exhausted. This is, however, subject to fulfillment of the recommendations made by the Committee on eco-logical and other aspects. The modalities as to how these have to be worked out shall be done in the manner recommended by the Committee. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the State of Karnataka that the recommendation made about transfer of buildings and other infrastructure to the Forest Department of the State Government at book value is not acceptable to it. This is a matter which can be considered by the Committee on an appropriate motion being made by the State before it. The modalities to be adopted to effectuate the order passed by this Court and recommendations of the Committee shall be worked out by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the State Government and the company under the supervision and guidance and monitoring of the Committee. (Paras 49 to 51)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—By destroying nature, environment, man is committing matricide, having in a way killed Mother Earth. Technological excellence, growth of industries, economical gains have led to depletion of natural resources irreversibly. Indifference to the grave consequences, lack of concern and foresight have contributed in large measures to the alarming position. In the case at hand, the alleged victim is the flora and fauna in and around Kudremukh National Park, a part of the Western Ghats. The forests in the area are among 18 internationally recognized "Hotspots" for bio-diversity conservation in the world. The I.A. 670 of 2001 was filed by Sri K.M. Chinnappa describing himself as trustee, Wildlife First.

2. The said I.A. 670 of 2001 is an offshoot of I.A.548 filed by learned Amicus Curiae questioning the correctness of orders issued by the States of Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh respectively which according to him were in violation of the provisions contained in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short the Act ). By order dated 14.2.2000, operation of any order permitting removal of certain trees from National Parks, Game Sanctuaries and Forests was injuncted. Subsequently, the word forests was deleted.

3. In the present I.A. learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that notwithstanding orders passed by this Court on 12.12.1996 and 14.2.2000 mining activities were being conducted by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a company ) which were in clear violation of orders passed by this Court. The main reliefs sought are:

"(a) to direct the MoEF to withdraw the illegal "temporary working permission" issued by it and stop mining activities;

(b) direct KIOCL to stop polluting the Bhadra river due to open cast mining:

(c) take action against KIOCL for illegal encroachment in the forests and for destruction of forests in the Kudremukh National Park; and

(d) to stop KIOCL from laying new slurry pipe line in the forests of the National Park."

4. On 10.5.2001, this Court passed an order to the following effect:

"Issue notice returnable in the second week of July, 2001. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Union of India. Service be effected on respondent No. 2 through Mr. S.R. Hedge, Advocate and on respondent No. 3 by ordinary process and by registered post.

Union of India will file an affidavit within eight weeks and in the affidavit they will also state the reason as to why the Government of India having once notified the area as a National Park then permit mining activity to be carried out notwithstanding this Court s order of 12th December, 1996"

5. It was noted that Kudremukh National Park in which mining activities were being carried out was declared to be a National Park in terms of Section 35(1) of the Act. The matter was referred to the Central Empowered Committee (in short the Committee ) constituted under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (in short the Environment Act ). After hearing the parties and taking note of the materials placed before it the Committee has recommended as follows:

"After carefully considering all the views and suggestions, the exceedingly rich biodiversity of the area and investment made by the KIOCL, suggestion made by the learned Amicus Curiae, the Committee is of the view that the KIOCL be asked to wind up its operations within a period of five years or on the exhaustion of the oxidized weathered secondary ore, whichever is earlier, in the already broken up area. It is clarified that the period of 5 years would commence from 25-7-1999, when its lease had expired.

The winding up period of five years shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) the MoEF should prepare or get a rehabilitation and reclamation and a proper eco-restoration plan prepared for the mined area and project impact area through appropriate agency at the cost of KIOCL;

(ii)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1076

Cases Referred (14)