SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagwati, CJI., RANGANATH MISRA, J.
Writ Petns. Nos. 8209, 8821 of 1983 D/- 18-12-1986.
Rural Litigation, Entitlement Kendra, others, Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P., others, Respondents.
AND
Devaki Nandan Pandey, Petitioner
versus
Union of India, others, Respondents.
Mines Act, 1952 – Environment and Ecological balance - Limestone quarries - Case has been argued at great length before us not only because a large number of lessees of limestone quarries are involved and each of them has painstakingly and exhaustively canvassed his factual as well as legal points of view but also because this is first case of its kind in country involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance and questions arising for consideration are of grave moment and significance not only to people residing in Mussoorie Hill range forming part of Himalayas but also in their implications to welfare of generality of people living in country – It brings into sharp focus conflict between development and conservation and serves to emphasise need for reconciling two in larger interest of country – Held, Himalayas and forest growth on mountain range should be left uninterfered with so that there may be sufficient quantity of rain – Top soil may be preserved without being eroded and natural setting of area may remain intact – We had commended earlier to State of Uttar Pradesh as also to Union of India that afforestation activity may be carried out in whole valley and hills – We have been told that such activity has been undertaken – We are not oblivious of fact that natural resources have got to be tapped for purposes of social development but one cannot forget at same time that tapping of resources have to be done with requisite attention and care so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way there may not be any depletion of water resources and long-term planning must be undertaken to keep up national wealth – It has always to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation – Order accordingly.
Judgement
RANGANATH MISRA, J. :- On March 12, 1985, after hearing counsel and parties appearing in person at great length this Court made a detailed order wherein it was said (AIR 1985 SC 652 at p. 653) :
"This case has been argued at great length before us not only because a large number of lessees of limestone quarries are involved and each of them has painstakingly 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 consideration 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 limestone quarries should know without any unnecessary delay, as to where they stand in regard to their limestone 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. In the meantime, one of us, our learned brother Sen, J., has retired from the Court. Before that event happened, on 30th September, 1985, Reported in (1986) 1 Supreme 287 he delivered a judgment expressing his views on the matter. He indicated :
"I do not think it necessary to give any further reasons than those which are already stated in the order made by us on 12th March, 1985. Speaking personally for myself, I think that the broad reasons have been adequately set out in the order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to elaborate them."
On a perusal of our order of the 12th March, 1985, we are inclined to agree with his view that the detailed order covered almost all the relevant aspects and touched upon every issue germane to the matter.
3. As this was the first case of its type with wide and serious ramifications, we would like to give a brief account of the manner in which the proceedings commenced, were carried on and are to be concluded.
4. By an order dated 14-7-1983, this Court directed a letter received from the Rural litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehra Dun dated 2-7-1983 along with accompanying affidavits to be treated as a writ petition and issued notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Collector of Dehra Dun. The main allegation therein related to unauthorised and illegal mining operations carried on in the Mussoorie Hills and the area around adversely affecting the ecology of the areas and leading to environmental disturbances. Later on, another application was directed to be tagged on and both the applications were dealt with together. Several parties, mainly, mining lessees numbering more than 100, got impleaded either at the instance of the petitioners or on their own seeking. By a later order made in the month of July 1983, this Court directed all fresh quarrying to be stopped and called upon the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police of Dehra Dun District to strictly enforce that order.
5. On 11-8-1983, after hearing the counsel for parties then appearing, this Court appointed a Committee for the purpose of inspecting all the mines other than those belonging to the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union of India, with a view to determining whether the safety standards laid down in the Mines Act, 1952, and the Mines Rules made thereunder were being observed or not and whether there wa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.