1. Mining activities in a national park alleged to violate wildlife and forest laws — Application to stop mining and pollution. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 1078
Supreme Court Of India
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD (THROUGH K. M. CHINNAPPA)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Decided On : (October 30, 2002) 2002
The judgment affirms the Public Trust Doctrine, ruling that the State must protect natural resources. It establishes that environmental preservation and constitutional mandates override commercial lease rights, particularly in protected areas, and that forest conservation laws take precedence over mining concession rules.
Headnote:(A) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 35(1), 35(4) and 35(5); Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2(ii); Constitution - Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A(g); Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 - Rule 24-B - Mining activities in a protected area - Environmental protection and sustainable development - State's duty as a trustee of natural resources - Balance between industrialization and ecological preservation - Right to a healthy environment as part of right to life. (Paras 17, 33, 43, 45)
(B) Public Trust Doctrine - The State is the trustee of all natural resources meant for public use and enjoyment, including forests and ecologically fragile lands; such resources cannot be converted into private ownership. (Para 33)
(C) Sustainable Development and Precautionary Principle - Economic development must be balanced with environmental protection to ensure future generations' needs are not compromised. (Paras 40, 43)
(D) Statutory Overriding Effect - The non-obstante clause in the forest conservation law overrides other rules regarding the use of forest land for non-forest purposes; renewal of a mining lease is not a vested right. (Paras 33, 45, 48)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed regarding mining operations conducted within a notified protected area. The mining company sought renewal of its lease, citing existing contracts and the exclusion of certain areas from the notification. A statutory committee recommended winding up operations within a specific timeframe or upon exhaustion of specific ores. The company argued that it followed eco-friendly practices and that lease renewal was a legal right.
Findings of Court:
The court found that forest conservation laws override mining concession rules. Renewal of a lease is not a vested right. The State's duty to protect the environment under the Constitution and international conventions is paramount. The absence of a proper environment impact assessment report undermined the company's request for long-term renewal.
Issues: Whether a mining lease could be renewed based on statutory rules despite the area being a protected national park, and whether commercial interests could override the mandate for environmental protection.
Ratio Decidendi: The State serves as a trustee of natural resources under the Public Trust Doctrine. Constitutional mandates necessitate prioritizing ecological balance over commercial gain. Statutory requirements for prior approval for non-forest use must be met regardless of lease renewal claims.
Result: Interlocutory application disposed of; mining permitted only until the end of 2005 for the exhaustion of weathered secondary ore in already broken-up areas, subject to ecological recommendations.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Company claimed vested right to renewal under Mineral Concession Rules; amicus contended mining violated court orders and environmental laws. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Court emphasized constitutional imperative to protect environment and that no development can be at cost of ecological balance. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 )
4. Renewal of mining lease in forest area requires prior Central Government approval under Forest Conservation Act; no vested right to renewal without compliance. (Para 45 , 48 )
5. Mining allowed until end of 2005 subject to conditions including eco-restoration and compensation; committee to monitor. (Para 51 , 52 )
6. Does Rule 24-B of Mineral Concession Rules override the Forest (Conservation) Act?
No. Section 2(ii) of the Forest Conservation Act begins with a non obstante clause; Rule 24-B cannot be used for non-forest activities without Central Government approval. (Para 45 )
7. Is renewal of a mining lease a vested right?
No. Renewal is not a vested right; compliance with Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act is a condition precedent even for renewal. (Para 33 , 48 )
8. Was the exclusion of mining land from the national park notification valid?
No. The exclusion violated the court order dated 14-11-2000 which prohibited dereservation of forests, sanctuaries, and national parks. (Para 46 )
9. Can sustainable development justify mining in a national park?
A balance must be struck, but the precautionary principle and constitutional duty to protect environment require strict limitations; limited extraction allowed here subject to conditions. (Para 35 , 36 , 40 , 43 )
10. Is environment impact assessment necessary before permitting mining in forest areas?
Yes. The court noted that no proper environment impact assessment was conducted, and such assessment is essential for decision-making. (Para 47 )
Judgment
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) BY destroying nature, environment, man is committing matricide, having in a way killed Mother Earth. Technological excellence, growth of industries, economical gains have led to depletion of natural resources irreversibly. Indifference to the grave consequences, lack of concern and foresight have contributed in large measures to the alarming position. In the case at hand, the alleged victim is the flora and fauna in and around Kudremukh National Park, a part of the Western Ghats. The forests in the area are among 18 internationally recognized "hotspots" for biodiversity conservation in the world. IA No. 670 of 2001 was filed by Shri K. M. Chinnappa describing himself as trustee, Wildlife First.
( 2 ) THE said IA No. 670 of 2001 is an offshoot of IA No. 548 filed by learned amicus curiae questioning the correctness of orders issued by the states of Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh respectively which according to him were in violation of the provisions contained in the Wild Life (Protection) act, 1972 (in short "the Act ). By order dated 14-2-2000, operation of any order permitting removal of certain trees from national parks, game sanctuaries and forests was injuncted. Subsequently, the word "forests" was deleted.
( 3 ) IN the present IA learned amicus curiae has pointed out that notwithstanding orders passed by this Court on 12-12-1996 and 14-2-2000 mining activities were being conducted by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") which were in clear violation of the orders passed by this Court. The main reliefs sought are:" (A) to direct Moef to withdraw the illegal temporary working permission issued by it and stop mining activities; (b) direct KIOCL to stop polluting Bhadra river due to opencast mining; (c) take action against KIOCL for illegal encroachment in the forests and for destruction of forests in Kudremukh National Park; and (d) to stop KIOCL from laying new slurry pipeline in the forests of the national park. "
( 4 ) ON 10-5-2001, this Court passed an order to the following effect:"issue notice returnable in the second week of July 2001. Mr A. D. N. Rao, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Union of India. Service be effected on Respondent 2 through Mr S. R. Hegde, Advocate and on respondent 3 by ordinary process and by registered post. The Union of India will file an affidavit within eight weeks and in the affidavit they will also state the reason as to why the Government of india having once notified the area as a national park then permit mining activity to be carried out notwithstanding this Courts order of 12-12-1996t. "
( 5 ) IT was noted that Kudremukh National Park in which mining activities were being carried out was declared to be a national park in terms of Section 3 5 (1) of the Act. The matter was referred to the Central Empowered committee (in short "the Committee") constituted under Section 3 of the environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (in short "the Environment Act" ). After hearing the parties and taking note of the materials placed before it the committee has recommended as follows:"after carefully considering all the views and suggestions, the exceedingly rich biodiversity of the area and investment made by kiocl, suggestion made by the learned amicus curiae, the Committee is of the view that KIOCL be asked to wind up its operations within a period of five years or on the exhaustion of the oxidized weathered secondary ore, whichever is earlier, in the already broken-up area. It is clarified that the period of 5 years would commence from 25-7-1999, when its lease had expired. The winding-up period of five years shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) Moef should prepare or get a rehabilitation and reclamation and a proper eco-restoration plan prepared for the mined area and project impact area through appropriate agency at the cost of kiocl; (ii) KIOCL shall undertake to make available funds necessary for implementing the aforesa
