SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera, Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P., Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Civil) Nos. 8209 and 8321 of 1983, D/-30-8-1988.
-see the decision in the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.,
Judgment
RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- On July 14, 1983, a letter received from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendera, Dehradun, bearing the date July 2, 1983, was directed to be registered as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and notice was ordered to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Collector of Dehradun. Allegations of unauthorised and illegal mining in the Mussoorie - Dehradun belt which adversely affected the ecology of the area and led to environmental disorder were made. Later on another application with similar allegations was directed to be tagged with the earlier one. That is how these two writ petitions were born in the registry of this Court in a very innocuous manner as public interest litigation. The number of parties inflated both under the orders of the Court and on application to be added. Apart from the Governments of the Union and of Uttar Pradesh, several governmental agencies and mining lessees appeared in the proceedings. What initially appeared to be two simple applications for limited relief got expanded into a comprehensive litigation requiring appointment of committees, inspection and reports in them from time to time, serious exercises on the part of the mine owners before the committees, filing of affidavits both original and further, and lengthy arguments at the Bar. These also necessitated several comprehensive interlocutory directions and orders. These two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. On August 11, 1983. this Court appointed a Committee for inspection of the mines with a view to securing assistance in the determination as to whether safety standards laid down in the Mines Act of 1952 and the Rules made thereunder have been followed and whether there was any danger of land-slide on account of quarrying operations particularly during the rainy season, and if there was any other hazard to any individual, cattle or agricultural lands on account of carrying of the mining operations. At the preliminary stage this Court directed total stopping of blasting operations which, however, was modified later. The said Committee, referred to as the Bhargava Committee after its Chairman, classified the mines which it inspected into three groups, being A, B and C. It took note of the fact that earlier an Expert Committee known as the Working Group had been set up by the Union Government which had also inspected these mines. The Bhargava Committee was of the view that the C Group mines should be totally stopped; in the A Group mines, quarrying could be carried on after ensuring that there was no ecological or environmental hazard; and in regard to the B Group mines, the Committee opined that those may not be closed down permanently but the matter should be probed further.
3. A three-Judge Bench of this Court by an order dated March 12,1985 (1985 (3) SCR 169) directed closure of the C category mines as also certain B category mines on permanent basis and gave directions in regard to further action to be taken by the Bhargava Committee. While making the order the Court specifically stated that the reasons for the order would follow. One of the learned Judges constituting the three-Judge Bench retired from the Court on September 30, 1985, and the said learned Judge (A. N. Sen, J.) expressed his views in a short order dated 30th September, 1985. The working Group appointed by the Union Government was also headed by the same Mr. Bhargava and had five other members. The examination by the two Committees appeared to be with the same object, namely, as to whether the mining was being properly done and whether such activity should be carried on in this area. The Working Group had classified the mines into two categories being I and II. They put those mines which according to them were suitable for continuing operation under Category I and the mines which in their opinion were unsuitable for further mining under Category II. An interesting feature in these two Reports seem
referred to : Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P.
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.