Deepak Kumar etc. vs State of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(SC) 182

2012 (2) Supreme 385
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. Radhakrishnan and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.
Deepak Kumar etc. — Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and Others etc. — Respondents
I.A. Nos.12-13 of 2011
in
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19628-19629 of 2009
with
SLP(C) Nos. 729-731/2011, 21833/2009, 12498- 499/2010, SLP(C) CC... 16157/2011 & CC 18235/2011
Decided on : 27-2-2012

Headnote:The Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957-Section 15- Auction notice issued by Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana proposing to auction the extraction of minor mineral boulder, gravel and sand quarries in various Districts - Challenge thereagainst along with Complaint of illegal mining going on in the State of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh-Directions given to all State Governments / Union Territories to give due weight to recommendations of the MoEF which were made in consultation with all State Governments and Union Territories- Model Rules of 2010 issued by Ministry of Mines being very vital from environmental, ecological and bio-diversity point of view , State Governments to frame proper rules in accordance with recommendations, under Section 15 of Act, 1957-Direction was further given that Leases of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from the MoEF. (Paras 14 to 19)
       Facts of the Case :
        The Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana issued an auction notice dated 3.6.2011 proposing to auction the extraction of minor mineral boulder, gravel and sand quarries of an area not exceeding 4.5 hectares in each case in the District of Panchkula, auction notices dated 8.8.2011 in the District of Panchkula, Ambala and Yamuna Nagar exceeding 5 hectares and above, quarrying minor mineral, road metal and masonary stone mines in the District of Bhiwani, stone, sand mines in the District of Mohindergarh, slate stone mines in the District of Rewari, and also in the Districts of Kurukshetra, Karnal, Faridabad and Palwal, with certain restrictions for quarrying in the river beds of Yamuna, Tangri, Markanda, Ghaggar, Krishnavati River basin, Dohan River basin etc. The validity of those auction notices is under challenge apart from the complaint of illegal mining going on in the State of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.
       Findings of the Court :
        Directions were given to all State Governments / Union Territories to give due weight to recommendations of the MoEF which were made in consultation with all State Governments and Union Territories. Model Rules of 2010 issued by Ministry of Mines being very vital from environmental, ecological and bio-diversity point of view , State Governments to frame proper rules in accordance with recommendations, under Section 15 of Act, 1957.The Court Held that it was highly necessary to have an effective framework of mining plan which would take Care of all environmental issues and also evolve a long term rational and sustainable use of natural resource base and also the bio-assessment protocol.
        B. Taking note of technical, scientific and environmental matters, MoEF, Government of India, issued various recommendations in March 2010 followed by Model Rules, 2010 framed by the Ministry of Mines . The State of Haryana and various other States have not so far implemented said recommendations of MoEF or the guidelines issued by Ministry of Mines before issuing auction notices granting short term permits by way of auction of minor mineral boulders, gravel, sand etc., in the river beds and elsewhere of less than 5 hectares.
        C. Direction was given to all States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines to give effect to recommendations made by MoEF in its report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the Ministry of Mines, within a period of six months and submit their compliance reports. Direction was further given that Leases of minor mineral including their renewal for an area of less than five hectares to be granted by the States/Union Territories only after getting environmental clearance from the MoEF.

Judgement Key Points

The provided legal document does not explicitly state or indicate that the state government is not exempted from mining without any license.

The judgment focuses on regulating minor mineral mining through leases, permits, auctions, environmental clearances (even for areas <5 hectares), and compliance with MoEF recommendations and model rules under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. It emphasizes that states/UTs grant such leases/permits/auctions only after environmental clearance (!) , frame rules (!) (!) (!) , and follow guidelines to prevent environmental harm [p_14 to p_19] (!) (!) .

However: - States issue mining leases/contracts even to their own agencies under exceptional circumstances (!) , implying such agencies require them. - No paragraph directly addresses exemptions for state governments themselves undertaking mining operations without a lease/license, nor declares they are "not exempted." Illegal mining complaints refer to general activities, not state-conducted mining (!) .

States are positioned as regulators granting/auctioning leases (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) , not as operators potentially exempt from licensing requirements.

ORDER

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

I.A. Nos. 12-13 of 2011 are allowed. SLP (C) Nos.12498-12499 of 2010 be detagged and be listed after two weeks. The Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana issued an auction notice dated 3.6.2011 proposing to auction the extraction of minor mineral boulder, gravel and sand quarries of an area not exceeding 4.5 hectares in each case in the District of Panchkula, auction notices dated 8.8.2011 in the District of Panchkula, Ambala and Yamuna Nagar exceeding 5 hectares and above, quarrying minor mineral, road metal and masonary stone mines in the District of Bhiwani, stone, sand mines in the District of Mohindergarh, slate stone mines in the District of Rewari, and also in the Districts of Kurukshetra, Karnal, Faridabad and Palwal, with certain restrictions for quarrying in the river beds of Yamuna, Tangri, Markanda, Ghaggar, Krishnavati River basin, Dohan River basin etc. The validity of those auction notices is under challenge before us, apart from the complaint of illegal mining going on in the State of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

2. When the matter came up for hearing on 25.11.2011, we passed an order directing the CEC to make a local inspection with intimation to MoEF, State of U.P., Rajasthan and Haryana with regard to the alleged illegal mining going on in the States of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and also with regard to the areas identified for mining in the State of Haryana and submit a report. We also directed the CEC to examine whether there has been an attempt to flout EIA Notification dated 14.9.2006 by breaking the homogeneous area into pieces of less than 5 hectares. CEC was also directed to examine whether the activities going on in that area have any adverse environmental impact.

3. CEC, in response to our order, submitted a detailed report on 4.1.2012. However, the report is silent with regard to the disturbing trend of serious illegal and unrestricted upstream, in-stream and flood plain sand mining activities and the prevailing degree of degradation of the sites and the environment, especially on the river beds mentioned earlier. Report of CEC however states that the auction notice also refer to mining leases of less than 5 hectares and hence no environmental clearance need be obtained as per the MoEF notification dated 14.9.2006. No light is also thrown on the question whether there has been, in fact, an attempt to flout the notification dated 14.9.2006 by breaking the homogeneous area into pieces of less than 5 hectares and the possible environmental or ecological impact on quarrying of minor minerals.

4. Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that CEC report is silent about those aspects and also whether 1 km. distance has been maintained between the mining blocks of less than 5 hectares. Learned counsel also submitted that mining areas earmarked are at the foothills of fragile Himalayan ranges known as Shivalik hills, which are spread over the Districts of Panchkula, Ambala and Yamuna Nagar and the illegal and excessive mining has caused serious environmental degradation and ecological impact, and no Environmental Impact Assessment has ever taken place in areas earmarked for mining especially on the river beds.

5. Shri Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Haryana, submitted that the State has taken adequate and effective precautions to maintain 1 km. separation between mining blocks of less than 5 hectares each and that the auction notice dated 3.6.2011 itself has imposed strict restrictions on quarrying in the river beds so also the auction notice dated 8.8.2011. Further, it was pointed out that the notification dated 14.9.2006 would not apply for quarrying minor minerals from areas of less than 5 hectares and therefore, no environmental impact assessment needs to be undertaken either at the instance of the State Government or the Project Proponent.

6. Shri Mohan Jain, learned Additional Soli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document