2006 Supreme(SC) 236

2006(3) Supreme 521
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., C.K. Thakker, J.
M.C. Mehta—Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors.—Respondents
I.A. No. 1785 in I.A. No. 22
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985
Decided on 13-4-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ranjit Kumar, (A.C.) Mukul Rohtagi, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocates.Petitioner-in-Person.
For the Respondents : D.S. Mahra, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Mining activity, though not falling under any category of prohibition for carrying out mining activity, can be permitted to be continued without degrading the environment or minimizing the adverse effects thereupon by applying requisite safeguards.

Headnote:Constitution of India—Article 32—Supreme Court order dt. 6.5.2002 directing Govt. of Haryana to stop all mining activities and pumping of ground water in and from area upto 5 kms from Delhi Haryana border in Haryana side of the ridge and in Aravalli Hills—Mining activity being carried out in two villages not falling within limit of 5 kms—Whether mining activity was in violation of Court order on ground that limit of 5 kms was not applicable in respect of mining in Aravalli hills—Mining in entire Aravalli hills was prohibited and banned by order 29th/30th Oct., 2002 which was modified and Clarified on 16th Dec. 2002—Mining in Two Villages in Question did not appear falling under any category of prohibition for carrying out mining activity—Thus in contravention of order dt. 6-5-2002 or any subsequent order—However mining activity could be permitted to be continued without degrading environment or minimizing adverse effects thereon by applying requisite safeguards—Monitoring Committee constituted in terms of directions in M.C. Mehta’s case (2004) 12 SCC 118 directed to inspect mining activity in question and reports the impact on environment and safeguards, if any, adopted to minimize the adverse effect on environment.

       Held : We have examined the orders dated 6th May, 2002, 29-30th October, 2002, 16th December, 2002, the judgment dated 18th March, 2004 in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 12 SCC 118 and affidavits placed on record. It seems clear that the order dated 6th May, 2002 was confined to the limit of 5 kms. and did not prohibit mining in the entire Aravalli hills in the State of Haryana. The mining in entire Aravalli hills was prohibited and banned by order dated 29th/30th October, 2002. This order was, however, modified and clarified on 16th December, 2002. It further seems that the mining activities in the two villages in question was stopped not pursuant to the order dated 6th May, 2002 but pursuant to the order dated 29-30th October, 2002. The mines in the two villages in question were also not inspected by Environmental Pollution Control Authority (EPCA). The present question came up for consideration on filing of large number of photographs depicting the ongoing mining operations and movement of large number of trucks in the area in question. According to the stand of State of Haryana, the area totaling 125.618 hectares in the two villages in question does not fall under any category of prohibition. It is free from Sections 4 and 5 of Punjab Land Preservation Act 1900; it is not in forest area and there is no plantation with the aid of foreign funds under Aravalli project, the same having been excluded with the result that now area stand reduced from 135.70 hectares to 125.618 hectares. To this effect, Deputy Commissioner of Faridabad has filed an affidavit dated 9th February, 2006. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the factual statements made in this affidavit. The stand of the State Government seems to be correct and it does not appear that area in question falls under any category of prohibition for carrying out mining activity. In view of above, the carrying out of mining activity in question does not appear to be in contravention of the order dated 6th May, 2002 or any subsequent order. But another aspect that remains to be examined is about impact of mining in the villages in question on environment.(Para 9)

       As held in M.C. Mehta’s case the risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be decided in public interest, according to “reasonable person’s test”. It has been further observed that for carrying on any mining activity close to the township which has tendency to degrade environment and is likely to affect 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 regulatory authorities have to act with utmost care in ensuring compliance of safeguards, norms and standards to be observed by those conducting mining operations. The mining activity can be permitted to be continued without degrading the environment or minimizing the adverse effects thereupon by applying requisite safeguards.(Para 10)

       In the present case, however, at this stage, we do not think that merely on the basis of photographs or plying of large number of trucks per day, a direction deserves to be made for stopping the mining activity. At the same time, it is necessary to obtain an independent report to determine the impact of mining activity on environment, the safeguards, if any, that are taken and whether it is possible to continue mining by strictly complying with the requisite safeguards to save the environment from degradation and if not, to consider the issue of directions prohibiting the mining activity. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Monitoring Committee constituted in terms of directions in M.C. Mehta’s case (supra) is directed to inspect the mining activity being carried on in 75.05 hectares in village Khori Jamalpur and in 50.568 hectares in village Sirohi in Faridabad district and report the impact, if any, of continuing mining activity on environment and the safeguards, if any, adopted to minimize the adverse effect on environment and any other suggestions relevant to the issue of impact of mining activity on degradation of environment.(Paras 12 and 13)