Back
2009 Supreme(SC) 1004
2010 (14) SCC 457
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.H. KAPADIA
M.C. Mehta & Another
Versus
Union of India & Others
I.A. No. 1967 in I.A. No. 1785 in Writ Petition (C) No. 4677 of 1985 with I.A. No. 1785, I.A. No. 2152 in I.A. No. 1785, I.A. Nos. 1962 & 2143 in I.A. No. 1785, I.A. No. 2186 in I.A. No. 1785, I.A. No. 2168 in I.A. No. 1785 and I.A. No. 2385 in I.A. No. 1785 with I.A. No. 1465 and I.A. Nos. 24262427 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
Decided on : 08-05-2009
For the Petitioners:Ranjit Kumar, Sr. (A.C.), Siddhartha Chowdhury, (A.C.), A.D.N. Rao, (A.C.), KamalGupta, (A.C.), Petitioner-In-Person (NP). For the Respondents: Naresh Kaushik, Rupesh Kaushik, Lalitha Kaushik, Mohan Parasaran, ASG, S.W.A. Qadri, M.P.S. Tomar, S.N. Terdal, Kiran Bhardwaj, A. Deb Kumar, Gaurant Dara for Smt. Anil Katiyar, D.N. Goburdhan, Geeta Luthra, Vijay Panjwani, I.A. No. 1967 :Anil B. Diwan, Sr. Advocate, Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Mohit Abraham, Advocate for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co., I.A. No. 2381:S.B. Upadhyay, Sr. Advocate, Pawan Upadhyay, Ankit Shah, Anisha Upadhyay, I.A. No. 2385 & 2186: S.K. Dubey,
K.V. Mohan, K.V. Thakur, I.A. No. 2198 : Dr. Surat Singh, Jagdev Singh, Partikha Chopra, Arun Kr. Beriwal, Binu Tamta, Bimal Roy Jad, Vijay Kumar, M.G. Diwan, Vishwajit Singh, I.A. No. 2377-80 : Piyush Sharma, Dinesh C. Pandey, I.A. Nos. 2306-2307 :K.K. Rai, Sr. Advocate, S.K. Pandey, Bankey Bihari, Krishnand Pandey, Pawan Upadhyay, Anisha Upadhyay, Ankit Shah, Sharmila Upadhyay, I.A. Nos. 873-874, 1700, 2445 in I.A. 873 & 874:A.K. Srivastava, Sr. Advocate, Puneet Agrawal, Satish Jaglan, Advocate, for Dr. Kailash Chand, I.A. No. 1612-13:M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Advocate, S.K. Kumar, B.V.K. Ahluwalia, I.A. Nos. 2334-2335:Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Vijay Lakshmi Menon, Ekta Kapila, Vijay Kaurdel, Kuber Diwan, Preetika Dwivedi, T.K. Pradhan, I.A. Nos. 2377-2380 & I.A. No. D 58737:Ashwarya Sinha, Amboj Kr. Sinha, Praveen Gupta, Chitralekha Sen, Advocate for Dr. Kailash Chand, Parag P. Tripathi, ASG, Manjeet Singh, Arti Gupta, Advocate for T.V. George, A.D.N. Rao, M/s. Lawyers Knit & Co., Kavita Wadia, Haris Beeran, Ashish Dholakia, Adarsh Priyadarshi, Sumita Hazarika, I.A. No. 2355-2357:Kiran Bhardwaj, Advocate for Dr. Kailash Chand, Hemantika Wahi, Pinky, Somnath Padhan, Mamta Tushar, I.A. No. 1465:K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, Shyam Mohan, Jayashree Wad, Ashish Wad, Satya Vikram, Sameer Abhyankar, Advocate for M/s. J.S. Wad & Co., D.N. Ray, Rajiv Mehta, K.B. Rohtagi, Aparna Rohatgi, Mahesh Kasana, Baldev Atreya, P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate, Aman Preet Singh Rahi, D.K. Tripathi, Tushar Bakshi, Dr. Surat Singh, Jagdev Singh, Ashok K. Mahajan, I.A. No. 2310:Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil Mishra, Rohan Singh, R. Gopalakrishnan, I.A. No. 2336: Sanjay Sen, Sukumar, Ravi Kant, K. Johny Joseph, IA 1785 : Sheil Sethi, IA 1895 : Bhupender Yadav, S.S. Shamsherry, R.C. Kohli, IA 2390 : Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Saket Sikri, Madhu Sikri, IA 2385 :K.V. Mohan, S.K. Dubey, K.B. Thakur, Amit Kumar, Shashi B. Upadhyay, E.M.S. Anam, Surya Kant, Kavita Wadhwa, B.V. Balram Das, Pravir Chaudhary, Shweta Garg, Anil Kumar Jha, I.A. Dy. 58737 : Ashwarya Sinha, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, I.A. 2567 :D.N. Ray, Sumita Ray, Advocates.
Headnote:(a) Interpretation of judgment – M.C. Mehta(1) expressed intention of Court to impose complete ban on mining activities if degradation of environment continues and reaches the stage of no return – Contention that Court cannot impose a complete ban in terms of M.C. Mehta(1) not made out. (Para 16)
(2004) 12 SCC 118 – Relied upon
(b) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 13(2)(qq) r/w Rule 27(1) (s)(i), Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and Rule 34 and 37, Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 – Reclamation and rehabilitation of land – Calibration of air pollutants – These provisions are mandatory – None of the provisions complied with by mining companies – Ban approved till Reclamation Plan duly certified by State of Haryana, MoEF and CEC is prepared in accordance with the above statutory provisions – Question of permission to State of Haryana to excavate minor minerals from a localized area for excavating construction material needed for construction of houses, sports complexes and other buildings – Adjourned after summer vacation. (Para 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The question arising in this case is “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. Mehta1 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?
Finding of the Court:
Stage has come where mining of major minerals should be banned.
Result:
I.As., opposing imposition of ban on mining of major minerals disposed of.
I.As. dealing with mining of minor minerals adjourned beyond summer vacation.
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. Mehta1 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 respect of mining in Faridabad district as well."
3. History of the relevant Orders passed by this Court:
(i) On 6.5.2002 the following Order was passed:
"IA No. 1785
2. Issue notice. Mr Bharat Singh accepts. Reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder be filed within four weeks thereafter. In the meantime, within 48 hours from today the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana is directed to stop all mining activities and pumping of groundwater in and from an area up to 5 km from the Delhi-Haryana border in the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli hills."
(emphasis supplied) (ii) On 29/30.10.2002 the following Order was passed:
"ILLEGAL MINING IN ARAVALLIS
...We, prohibit and ban all mining activity in the entire Aravalli hills. This ban is not limited only to the hills encircling Kote and Alampur villages but extends to the entire hill range of Aravalli from Dholpur to Rajasthan. The Chief Secretary, State of Haryana and Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan are directed to ensure that no mining activity in the Aravalli hills is carried out, especially, in that part which has been regarded as forest area or protected under the Environment (Protection) Act."
(emphasis supplied)
(iii) On 31.10.2002 the following Order was passed:
"IA No. 1785 in IA No. 22 and in WP No. 4677 of 1985, all IAs and WPs on board
It is represented that applications have been filed with regard to environment impact assessment, and for approval of plans with regard to the mining activity which was proposed by the applicants/leaseholders. The said applications have to be dealt with in terms of the notification dated 27-1-1994 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The said notification relates to environment impact assessment of development projects. It appears that environment clearance has not been obtained and the learned counsel submits that the applicants/leaseholders cannot be faulted for this.
It is quite obvious that on the principle of sustainable development, no mining activity can be carried out without remedial measures taking place. For this purpose, it is necessary that environment impact assessment is done and the applications dealt with before any mining activity can be permitted.
Counsel will give on the next date of hearing list of applications which were filed, so that the Ministry of Environment can be put to notice and be required to deal with those applications and to dispose of them within a period to be specified by this Court.
Liberty to file additional affidavits given.
The State of Haryana will also explain on the next date of hearing as to whether royalty payable to the villages has been given or not.
To come up on 25.11.2002."
(iv) On 16.12.2002 the following Order was passed:
"IAs 828, 833, 834-835, 837-838, 839, 840, 846 & 847
One of the a
