2004 Supreme(SC) 336

2004(4) Supreme 685
Supreme Court of India
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema, JJ.
M.C. Mehta -Petitioner
versus
Union of India and Ors. -Respondents
Interlocutory Application No. 1785 of 2001
In
Interlocutory Application No. 22 and
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985
With
IA Nos. 1806, 1815, 1817-1818, 1819, 1822, 1823, 1824, 1825, 1794 and 1795 in IA No. 1785 in WP (C) No. 4677/85, WP (C) No.410/2002, IA Nos. 1832, 1835-1836, 1838 and 1839-1840 in IA No. 1785 in IA No.22 in WP (C) No.4677/85, WP (C) No. 661/2002, WP (C) No.428/2002, WP (C) No. 624/2002 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 568/2002 in WP (C) No. 428/2002
Decided on 18-3-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mukul Rohtai, Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar, Kailash Vasdev, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Advocates, M.C. Mehta-in-person, Naresh Kaushik, Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Abhishek Maratha, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik, S.C. Gupta, K.C. Kaushik, D.S. Mahra, K.K. Lahiri, Ejaz Maqbool Gourav Kejriwal, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Advocate for Ms. Kavita Wadia, T.A. Khan, P. Parmeswaran, K.B. Rohatgi, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Mahesh Kasana, Mrs. Nanita Sharma, Vivek Sharma, Abhishek Atrey, Mrs. Vanita Bhargava, Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Bina Gupta, Mrs. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Mrs. Sheil Sethi, Sanjay Sarin, Ashok Mathur, Dhruv Mehta, Mohit Choudhary, Ms. Shalini Gupta, S.U.K. Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, 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 Sawhney, Bharat Sangal, C.D. Singh, V.B. Saharya, Mahabir Singh, Shiva Pujan Singh, J.P. Dhanda, S.K. Sabharwal, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, A.D.N. Rao, Advocates.

Important point
The mining activity can be permitted only on the basis of sustainable development and on compliance of stringent conditions.

Headnote:Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Sections 3(1) and 3(3), 2(1), 2(f)-Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957-Section 13-Mineral Concession Rules, 1960-Rules 22(4), 4A-Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988-Mining activity in area upto 5 kilometers from Delhi Haryana border on Haryana side of the ridge and also in Aravalli hills-Impact of mining operation on Badkal Lake and Surajkund-Explosives are being used for rock blasting for the purpose of mining-Unscientific mining ­operation resulting in lying of overburden materials haphazardly-Haryana Government stopped mining operations within radius of 5 kms. of Badkal Lake and Surajkund-Objections to recommendations of stoppage of mining ­operations filed by mine operators-­According to them, pollution, if any, that was generated by mining activities cannot go beyond a distance of 1 km. and the stoppage was wholly justified-Whether mining activity deserves to be absolutely banned or permitted on compliance of stringent conditions and by monitoring it to prevent the environmental pollution-Constitution of India -Articles 21, 32, 47, 51A.

       Held : The natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the utilization results in irreversible damage to environments. There has been accelerated degradation of environment primarily on account of lack of effective enforcement of environmental laws and non-compliance of the statutory norms. 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 enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. (Para 44)

       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 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 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 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. (Para 46)

       Having examined the matter, we are of the view that though the study 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 recommendations of NEERI, as also violations noticed in the reports submitted by EPCA and the suggestions of EPCA, 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 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 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. (Paras 86 and 89)

       Conclusions:

       1. The order dated 6th May, 2002 as clarified hereinbefore cannot be vacated or varied before consideration of the report of the 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 under Section 4 and/or 5 of Punjab 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 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 Aravalli hill range has to be protected at any cost. In case 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.

       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.

       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. (Para 94)