Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, Adv. (A.C.), Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv. (A.C.), Mr. Kamal gupta, Adv. (A.C.).
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-In-Person(NP).
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Rupesh Kaushik, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, ASG, Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Mr. M.P.S. Tomar, Mr. S.N. Terdal, Ms. Kiran Bhardwaj, Mr. A. Deb Kumar for Smt. Anil Katiyar, Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Geeta Luthra, Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 1967 :Mr. Anil B. Diwan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Mr. Mohit Abraham for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co., Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 2381 :Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Mr. Ankit Shah, Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 2385 & 2186 :Mr. S.K. Dubey, Mr. K.V. Mohan, Mr. K.V. Thakur, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 2198 :Dr. Surat Singh, Mr. Jagdev Singh, Ms. Partikha Chopra, Mr. arun Kr. Beriwal, Ms. Binu Tamta, Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, MR. Vijay Kumar, Mr. M.G. Diwan, Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 2377-80 :Mr. Piyush Sharma, Mr. Dines C. Pandey, Advocates.
For the I.A. Nos. 2306-2307 :Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.K. Pandey, Mr. Bankey Bihari, Mr. Krishnand Pandey, MR. Pawan Upadhyay, Mr. Anisha Upadhyay, Mr. Ankit Shah, Ms. Shrmila Upadhyay, Advocates.
For the I.A. Nos. 873-874, 1700, 2004 ion I.A. 873 & 874 :Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Sr. Adv., Mr. Puneet Agrawal, Mr. Satish Jaglan for Dr. Kailash Chand, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 1612-13 :Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.L. Kumar, Mr. B.V.K. Ahluwalia, Advocates.
For the I.A. Nos. 2334-2335 :Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Ms. vijay Lakshmi Menon, Ms. Ekta Kapila, Mr. Vijay Kaurdel, Ms. Kuber Diwan, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Mr. T.K. Pradhan, Advocates.
For the I.A. Nos. 2377-2380, I.A. No. 58737 :M/s. Lawyers Knit & Co., Ms. Kavita Wadia, Mr. Haris Beeran, Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Mr. Adarsh Priyadarshi, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 2355-2357 :Mrs. Kiran Bhardwaj for Dr. Kailash Chand, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Pinky, Mr. Somnath Padahn, Miss Mamta Tushar, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 1465 :Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shyam Mohan, Mrs. Jayashree Wad, Mr. Ashish Wad, Mr. Satya Vikram, Mr. Sameer Abhyankar for M/s. J.S. Wad & Co., Mr. D.N. Ray, Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Mr. K.B. Rohtagi, Ms. Aparna Rohatgi, Mr. Mahesh Kasana, Mr. Baldev Atreya, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Mr. D.K. Tripathi, Mr. Tushar Bakshi, Dr. Surat Singh, Mr. Jagdev singh, Mr. Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 2310 :Mr. Soli J. sorabjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjay R.Hegde, mr. Anil Mishra, Mr. Rohan Singh, Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 2336 :Mr. Sanjay Sen, Mr. Sukumar, Mr. Ravi Kant, Mr. K. Johny Joseph, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 1785 :Mrs. Sheil Sethi, Advocate.
For the I.A. No. 1895 :Mr. Bhupender Yadav, Mr. S.S. Shamsherry, Mr. R.C. Kohli, Advocates.
For the I.A. 2390 :Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Saket Sikri, Mrs. Madhu Sikri, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 2385 :Mr. K.V. Mohan, Mr. S.K. D ubey, Mr. K.B. Thakur, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Shashi B. Upadhyay, Mr. E.M.S. Anam, Mr. Surya Kant, Ms. Kavita Wadhwa, Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Mr. Pravir chaudhary, Ms. Shweta Garg, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Advocates.
For the I.A. Dy. 58737 :Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Advocates.
For the I.A. No. 2567 :Mr. D.N. Ray, Mrs. Sumita Ray, Advocates.
JUDGMENT
S.H. Kapadia, J.—
Has the situation (optimization of land and ecological degradation in an area admeasuring approximately 448 sq. kms. in the Aravalli Hill Range falling in the Districts of Faridabad and Gurgaon including Mewat) predicted in para 89 of the Judgment in M.C. Mehta, 2004 (12) SCC 118 case come about so as to warrant total stoppage of mining activity as stated in para 96(6) of the said judgment; and if so, what should be the duration of such ban/stoppage?
2. In this connection, at the very outset, we quote paras 89 and 96(6) of the said judgment, which read as follows:
“89. It may be reiterated that if, despite stringent conditions, the degradation of environment continues and reaches a stage of no-return, this Court may have to consider, at a later date, the closure of mining activity in areas where there is such a risk.”
“96(6) The Aravalli hill range has to be protected at any cost. In case despite stringent conditions, there is an adverse irreversible effect on the ecology in the Aravalli hill range area, at a later date, the total stoppage of mining activity in the area may have to be considered. For similar reasons such step may have to be considered in
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
