Judgement

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.:- We grant leave in these two special leave applications and dispose of these appeals arising out of the decisions of the High Court of Gujarat by the judgment herein.

2. The two appeals centre round the question of how to strike balance between the need of exploitation of the mineral resources lying hidden in the forests and the preservation of the ecological balance and to arrest the growing environmental deterioration and involve common qeustions of law. In the appeal arising out of special leave petition No. 12041 of 1985 the appellant firm had been granted a quarry lease for the minor mineral black trap at S. No. 73 of village Morai of Taluka Pardi in the District of Valsad in the State of Gujarat. The lease was granted on or about 8th November, 1971 for a period of ten years. The area comprised of 13 acres of land for quarrying purpose. Three persons were granted 21/2 acres of land each and the remaining 51/2 acres of land were placed at the disposal of Industries, Mines and Power Department for the purpose of granting quarry lease from the same. The case of the appellant was that the said lands were dereserved from the forest area from 1971.

3. On or about 3rd August, 1981 when the appellants term of lease was about to expire, the appellant applied for renewal of lease as per R. 18 of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the said Rules). The application of the appellant for renewal of lease was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Valsad, on the ground that the land fell under the "Reserved Forest" area and hence the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter called 1980 Act) applied to the forests. The forest department of State of Gujarat refused to give no objection certificate. The contention of the appellant was that by the order dated 29th November, 1971, the forest department had dereserved the said land from the reserved area and had allotted the land for the quarrying purpose to the appellant. The contention of the appellant was as the land was under the control of the Industries, Mines & Power Department, the 1980 Act did not apply to the same. An appeal was preferred by the appellant which was dismissed by the Director, Industries, Mines and Power Department, Government of Gujarat on or about 4th March, 1985.

4. It is asserted by the appellant that on or about 29th January, 1983, the Government had issued two circulars instructing the Director of Geology and Mining and other authorities not to issue the leases in the fresh area issued by the State Government. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court of Gujarat dismissed the petition. The appellant has come up in appeal before this Court from the said decision. The appeal arising out of S.L.P. No. 12041 of 1985, hereinafter mentioned as first appeal.

5. The case of the appellants in the second appeal is that on diverse dates quarry leases had been granted to the said appellants. There were ten of them. Eight of the appellants got their first renewal of their quarry leases in 1976-77. Appellant No. 9 applied for first renewal on August, 1979. Appellant No. 6 applied for first renewal on 20th July, 1982. In 1982, some of the appellants except appellants 6 to 9 applied for second renewal to the Collector. In December, 1982, second renewals were refused by the Collector. Revision filed by the appellants against the order of the Collector was rejected by the Director, Geology and Mining in 1983 and in December, 1983, writ petition often described as special civil application was filed before the High Court, challenging the refusal to renew. The High Court rejected the said writ petition. The second appeal herein arises out of the said decision in August, 1985 of the High Court of Gujarat.

6. Both these appeals involve the question, whether after coming into operation of 1980 Act, the appellants were entitled to renewal either first or second of their quarry leases ? I