JUDGMENT

ORDER:— On 30th August, 1988 the connected writ petitions bearing Nos. 8209 and 8821 of 1983 were disposed of by this Court (reported in AIR 1988 SC 2187). The Court observed that there is no dispute that continuance of mining operations affects environment and ecology adversely and at the same time creates a prejudicial situation against conservation of forests, and held (Para 16) :

"The writ petitions before us are not inter-party disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the Court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the Court. Even if it is said that there was a final order, in a dispute of this type it would be difficult to entertain the plea of res judicata."

The Court ultimately came to hold that mining activity in the area has to be stopped but taking into consideration the adverse consequences of total stoppage immediately, it observed (Para 44) :

"It is the accepted position by all parties that low silica content limestone is necessary for manufacturing class steel. The earlier LD process is being abandoned by new factories and even some are switching over to new methods but for quite some time there would be demand for low silica content limestone for manufacture of steel by the LD process. The alternate source which has been indicated in these two affidavits of the Union of India is not readily available to the fullest extent. The Gotan-Jaisalmer belt has to be worked out in full swing and that would take some time. The main difficulty for the Jaisalmer production to reach the consumers is the location of the mining area. It has no broad-gauge rail connection and admittedly the location is in the interior. The consumer would immediately face transport difficulty until there is conversion of the railway track to broad-gauge and surface transport facility improves. Even if these facilities are made available, the distant location is bound to reflect itself in the cost factor."

Keeping these aspects in view the Court permitted the three on-going mines covered by leases Nos. 94. 72 and 96 to continue mining till their original leases expired subject to the conditions indicated in the judgment.

2. The Court proceeded to hold : (Paras 51 and 52)

"Apart from the three working mines specified above where the Original Lease period is yet to expire, there are six other A category mines with valid leases which are not working now as per the particulars below :

S. Name of the lessee Lease No. Valid No. up to

1. New Era Minerals 4 25-2-1990

2. U. P. Minerals 8 10-4-1994

3. Rajgiri Minerals 9 24-11-1992

4. Anand Brothers 67 15-2-1992

5. Uttrakhand Minerals 98 12-12-1989

6. Vijayashree Minerals 99 20-3-1990

These mines are not operating at present for one reason or the other. On the 12th of May, 1985, the mines within the municipal limits of Mussoorie were directed to close down until they were cleared by the Bandyopadhyay Committee and that Committee did not clear any. So far as the first five mines are concerned, they are either within the municipal limits or within the forest area. We do not think it appropriate to allow them to operate until their lease periods lapse particularly when we have reached the conclusion that mining operation in this area should close down. An exception has to be made in the case of the mine being lease No. 99 where the lease period has to expire in 1990. The lease is of 15 acres of land and another 100 acres are from some private source. Mr. Jain appearing for the lessee had undertaken before us that over the 100 acres, there would be no mining op