Hon’ble F.I. Rebello, CJ.—Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the relief and challenges are inter-connected. We may first set out and deal with the facts and issues of Writ Petition No. 9416 (M/B) of 2010.

The petitioner has moved this Court complaining of violation of Notification No. S.O. 1533, dated 14.9.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, in exercise of powers under sub-section 1 and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Environment Act’) read with clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Environment Rules), which was issued in supersession of the earlier Notification No. S.O. 60 (E) dated 27th January, 1994. The allegation is that the State of U.P. and its authorities have failed to carry out the directions as contained in the notification.

2. It is the petitioner’s grievance that the authorities of the State of U.P., in abuse of their statutory powers, are permitting and encouraging illegal mining activity by grant of mining leases without any conditions for obtaining prior environmental clearance before commencement of mining operations, in contravention of Central as well as the State Acts and the Rules. Thus, it is submitted that the continuation of illegal mining (mining without prior environmental clearance) is in teeth of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments dated 18.3.2004 and 8.5.2009 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4677 of 1985 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others) wherein it has been held that no mining, including mining of minor minerals under any lease, permit or grant, can be allowed without prior environmental clearance.

3. A decision was taken for protection of environment and ecology considering India’s participation and adoption of the Stockholm Declaration, which was taken at the United Nation Conference on Human Environment, Stockholm in June, 1972. Pursuant to that, the Environment Act had been enacted, so far as they relate to the protection and improvement of environment and the prevention of hazards to human beings, other living creatures, plants and property. Petitioner then refers to various provisions of the Environment Act and the Rules. It is the petitioner’s contention that Notification No. S.O. 1533 dated 14.9.2006 is applicable also to mining of minor minerals and there can be no renewal or grant of fresh licence after the Notification of 14.9.2006 without having prior environmental clearance. In the State of U.P., it is set out, that leases have been issued in utter disregard and violation of the notification. Though, the petitioner had been representing the issue, no action has been taken to protect the environmental degradation. The petitioner has made one such representation on 27.8.2010.

4. Petitioner states that the concept of “Mining” within the Principle of Sustainable Development comes within the concept of “Balancing” whereas mining beyond the Principle of Sustainable Development comes within the concept of “Banning”. It is a matter of degree. Balancing of the mining activity with environment protection and banning such activity are two sides of the same principle of sustainable development. They are parts of precautionary principle.

5. The petitioner points out that in State of Uttar Pradesh in district Saharanpur alone, a number of leases have been granted by the District authorities after the issuance of notification dated 14.9.2006 without adhering to the requirement of obtaining prior environmental clearance before commencement of mining operations from the statutory authorities, such as, State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (EIAA) or the Central Government, as the case may be. The petitioner sought information from the district Administration, Saharanpur to find out as to whether the clearance from the State Level EIAA or the Central Gover