Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
P.D.DESAI,R.S.THAKUR
KINKRI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, (INDUSTRIES) - Respondent
C. W. P. No. 82 of 1987
Decided On : 05/29/1987
MINING LEASE - LIMESTONE - HIMALAYAS - ECOLOGICAL BALANCE - ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION - JUDICIAL INTERVENTION - INTERIM DIRECTIONS: 1. Mining leases for limestone in the Himalayas must balance mineral resource exploitation with ecology and environment protection. 2. Indiscriminate mining operations pose hazards to soil, rivers, water resources, ecology, flora, fauna, forests, and local livelihoods. 3. The State Government must establish a Committee to examine mining lease grants, operations, and their impact on the environment and local population. 4. The Committee will recommend a long-term plan for sustainable mining, remedial measures for damage caused, and compensation to affected people. 5. Mining operations involving blasting are prohibited until further orders, and other operations must comply with scientific guidelines. 6. No new mining leases or renewals will be granted in the district until the Committee submits its report.
Fact of the Case:
A petition was filed seeking the cancellation of a mining lease for limestone granted to the third respondent, alleging environmental damage and danger to the surrounding area. The Court directed various officers to submit affidavits and reports on the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the mining operations were causing damage to the environment, ecology, natural resources, and the well-being of the inhabitants of the area. It also found that the mining lease was granted in violation of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974.
Issues: 1. Whether the mining lease was granted in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions and whether the need for maintaining a proper balance between mineral resource exploitation and ecology was considered. 2. Whether the mines were being operated scientifically or in an erratic and uncontrolled manner, posing a danger to the environment and local population. 3. Whether the State Government had taken adequate measures to protect the environment and ecology in the area.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the State Government has a constitutional duty to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests, wildlife, and natural resources of the country. It also held that the indiscriminate grant of mining leases and the unchecked and unscientific exploitation of mines could have far-reaching and lasting consequences on the natural wealth and resources of the country and the local population.
Final Decision: The Court issued interim directions, including the establishment of a Committee to examine the mining lease grants, operations, and their impact on the environment and local population. The Committee was directed to submit a report within a specified time frame, and the Court prohibited mining operations involving blasting until further orders.
P. D. Desai, C. J.—The petitioners have instituted the present petition seeking the reliefs, inter-alia, that the mining lease for the excavation of lime stone from Khasra No. 2107/1979/1 situate in village Sangrah, Tehsil Renuka, District Sirmaur, granted in favour of the third respondent by the first respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh) be ordered to be cancelled, that the third respondent be restrained from operating the mines covered by the lease in such a manner as to pose danger to the adjoining lands, water resources, pastures, forests, wild life, ecology, environment and inhabitants of the Illaqua, that a Commission be appointed to assess the damage caused to the environment, ecology, natural resources, inhabitants of the illaqua and the right-holders of village Sangrah as a result of the uncontrolled quarrying of the lime-stone by the third respondent and the respondents be directed to pay compensation for such damage, that the State Government be directed to prepare a scheme for treating the land, water resources, pastures, forests, wild life, ecology and environment and for repairing the damage et al.
40. The petition, which is in the nature of a social action litigation, was instituted on March 31, 1987 and it was notified for preliminary hearing on April 8, 1987. The learned counsel for the petitioners was permitted on that day to place on record an article published in the daily edition dated April 6, 1987 of the "Indian Express" under the heading "Progress or Peoples nightmare" which purports to highlight the damage caused to the Shivalik hills in the Sirmaur District which are being "ruthlessly blasted for extracting limes-tone9 and the danger and hazards faced by the inhabitants and the disturbance to the environment and ecology as a consequence thereof. The article is stated to have been based on an investigative exercise undertaken by a team of journalists who visited a number of mining sites in the District. Notice was ordered to issue to the respondents on the same day and it was made returnable on April 28, 1987. The respondents were directed to file separate affidavits-in-reply to the petition and to deal also with the contents of the newspaper article in their affidavits. The first respondent was also directed to place on record the affidavits of the following officers specifically dealing with the allegations made and the grievances ventilated in the petition and the facts disclosed in the newspaper report insofar as they concerned the respective field of operation of each of them:
1. The Conservator of Forests, Sirmaur District at Nahan.
2. The Conservator of Forests (Soil Conservation), Simla.
3. The Conservator of Forests (Wild Life), Simla,
4. The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Department, District Sirmaur. Each one of those Officers as well as the second respondent (Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur) was directed to pay a visit to village Sangrah and to personally verify the situation on the spot on the basis of the official record, if any, available and to report whether the allegations made in para 6 of the petition as well as in the newspaper article were true. The Court reserved for further consideration the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners to appoint a Commission to investigate and report on the matters in issue pending the filing and consideration of those affidavits.
41. The directions issued on April 8, 1987 have been substantially complied with. The affidavits as directed have been filed by and on behalf of the respondents and reports on affidavit have been submitted by the concerned officers after spot verification. The third respondent has filed as many as four affidavits annexing thereto certain documents some of which, according to him, support the version set-out by him in those affidavits. Upon a perusal and consideration of the material accordingly brought on the record, a curious picture emerges. The affidavit of the second respondent (Deputy
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
