JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.

1. Tarun Bharat Sangh, a voluntary organisation interested inter alia in protection of environment, approached this Court complaining that widespread illegal mining activity was going on in the area declared as Tiger Reserve in Alwar district of Rajasthan. In the interest of ecology, environment and rule of law, it said, the activity should stop.

2. The petitioners case is that the area wherein the illegal mining is going on has been declared as a tiger reserve under Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951, as a sanctuary and a National Park under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and as protected forest under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. These various notifications, said the petitioner, prohibit all or any mining activity and yet the Government of Rajasthan had granted hundred of licorices for mining marble, dolomite and other minerals in late 1980s, contrary to law.

3. After issuing notices to the Government of Rajasthan and the mine-owners (which expression is used in this order to denote lessees and licencees under the leases and licences granted by the State of Rajasthan), this Court gave certain directions on October II, 1991. An interlocutory direction was issued to the effect that "no mining operation of whatever nature shall be carried on in the protected area". A Committee under the Chairmanship of Sri M.L. Jain, J., former Judge of the Rajasthan High Court was appointed to ensure due observance of the various Acts and Notifications issued thereunder with respect to the said protected area. In particular, the committee was asked to demarcate the area declared as protected forest under the notification dated January I, 1975 issued by the Rl\iasthan Government under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act. This demarcation was felt necessary in view of the ambiguity prevailing with respect to the precise boundaries of the protected forest declared as such under the notification aforesaid. Petitioners case was that no mining lease/licence can be granted within the protected forest except with the prior permission of the Government of India--Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Rule 4(6) of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules)--and that no such permission was obtained in fact.

4. By its order dated November 26, 1991, the Court clarified that the order dated October 11, 1991 was not intended to permit the mine-owners to carry on their mining activity where such activity was prohibited by any Act, Rule or Notification having the force of law. In effect, the order said, it meant to prohibit--and not to permitnthe mining activity.

5. In its order dated May 14, 1992, the Court clarified the meaning of the expression "protected area" used in the order dated October II, 1991. The expression, it was clarified, was intended to and does refer to all the areas which have had legal protection against non-forest activities that devastated the environment including poaching, mining, felling of trees etc. It was further clarified that once an area is declared as protected forest, it becomes a protected forest notwithstanding the fact that a part of that area is waste. The idea behind declaring an area as protected foest, it was pointed out, is not merely the protection of the existing forest but also afforestation.

6. The Committee submitted its report dated September 28, 1992. The Report states that the Committee verified and cross-checked the tracing maps furnished by the Forest Department with the maps furnished by the Revenue Department and found that both of them matched. After looking into the khasra numbers mentioned in the notification dated January 1, 1975 and all other material placed before it by the parties including the mine-owners, the report states, the committee identified the areas declared as protected forest. The report indicates that the area declared as protected forest under the said notification was not in one contiguous block but was comprised i