JUDGMENT
V.K. Mehrotra, Actg. C.J.
1. Civil Writ Petition No. S67 of 1988 was instituted in this Court OBI October 10, 1988 by, what is described as, “the General Public of Saproon Valley through its President Murlidhar Sharma” along with eight other residents of village Lavighat and one of village Saproon in Tehsil and District Solan, in Himachal Pra-desh. There are sixteen respondents in the petition of whom the first five respondents are the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries); the Director of Industries Himachal Pradesh, the Collector Solan; State Geologist, Himachal Pradesh; and the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Chambaghat, District Solan. Respondents 6 to 16 are the persons extracting limestone in the area. Of them four namely, Hariram Mehta (respondent No. 9), Sit’am’ Ram (respondent No. 10), Bahadur Singh (respondent No. 15) and Mani Ram Mehta (respondent No. 11) of this’ petition are petitioners in the connected writ petitions No. 598/599,600 and 601 of 1939.
2. Solan District covers an area of 2100 square kilometres in the south-western part of Himachal Pradesh and is very well linked with a network of highways with other towns of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab, being at the disjunction of these States. The mountainous terrain is moderate to ‘high varying from 500 metre to 2200 metre above sea level. Limestone deposits were first reported in the area by Medicott (1864). The limestone in this area belongs to Krol Formation which derives its name from the prominent 2278 metre high Krol Peak. From the account given by the local people, mining of limestone in the area dates back to about a hundred years. In the past, people used to extract limestone from the big limestone boulders lying near the roadside. The production and consumption of limestone in that period used to be negligible. The demand and production of limestone increased with the passage of time and short term permits used to be taken by the local inhabitants for extracting limestone which used to be extracted from big limestone boulders embeded in the soil. The debris generated from the breaking up of limestone used to be kept at the same place. The spreading out of mine waste/debris and formation of channels along the slope led to pollution of water and erosion of the surrounding land, in addition to the hazard to the land and property located on the down slope. During early eighties, some of the short, term permit holders installed ropeways for roping the limestone to the roadhead. The Industries Department encouraged the local people of the area to take mining leases as systematic and scientific mining is possible only if the area is exploited on a long term planning. Parties applied for the mining leases which were granted in their favour. Since damage was caused to the local ‘inhabitants on account of unscientific and unsystematic mining and transportation of mineral; some socially vigilant inhabitants lodged complaints with the Government in November 1986 requesting that the Director of Industries H. P. should visit the limestone mines in the Saproon Velley. The Director of Industries did so on June 12andJune 13,1987 and after hearing the lessees, as also the objectors, came to-certain conclusions which included the fact that the lessees, after having obtained the grant of lease, become adamant in carrying out mining operation in their own way without caring for damage caused to the land of the people. Also, that no working plan had been prepared for each mine and that damage which had been caused by the mining operations remained uninspected and where
inspected, the directions given after the
inspection were not implemented by the
lessees. The Director of Industries submitted
his recommendations to the Himachal Pra-
desk Government on June 26,. 1987, which
were approved by the Government on July 30,
1987. After it, the Director informed the
limestone lessees of the Saproon Valley about
the defects noticed in the working of their
mines and suggested some measures. The
lessees of the area requested the Director to
get the mining plans of their mines prepared
through the departmental officers. There
after, the Assistant Geologist was directed on
January 5, 1988 to prepare the mining plans
of the limestone mines of the Saproon valley
immediately. The Assistant Geologist camp
ed in the Valley from January to April 1988 to
ensure the mapping of the mines and to guide
the lessees to carry out some development
works for minimising the degradation of the
environment. The suggestions made by the
Assistant Geologist, according to lessees,
were implemented by them and intimation
about it was given by the individual lessee to
the Director Industries in October 1988. It is
then that the first of these writ petitions
(C.W.P. No. 567 of 1988) was filed in this
Court on October 10 seeking a direction for
stoppage of mining operations of limestone in
the Valley.
3. By order dated October 13, 1988 this Court required the Advocate General, representing the first five respondents, to place their version in the form of a reply indicating therein, with sufficient details and precision, the actual/effect of the quarrying operations and the steps taken by the respondents in the matter. These respondents filed reply in an affidavit sworn by the Director of Industries. Some of the private respondents also filed a reply. The matter came up before the Court on December 13, 1988 when some further directions were given and it was also said that no further mining operations of limestone shall be undertaken by any one in the Saproonl Valley. Some more material was brought before this Court in the affidavits filed in the case on behalf of the first five respondents as well as the private respondents.
The matter was heard at some length and on April 19, 1989, this Court directed appointment of a Committee to examine the mining activity in Saproon Valley of Solan District. The order restraining mining operations passed earlier was vacated and mining operations were permitted under some conditions. The Court noticed in the order that working plans (mining plans) in respect of various mines had been approved by the Director of Industries.
4. In compliance with the order of this Court the State Government constituted a Committee through its Notification of May 15,1989 consisting of the following:
1 . Secretary (Industries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh).
Chairman
2. ChiefEngineer, Irrigation and Public Health, H.
P.
Member
3. Director Geological Survey of india, Himachal Pradesh (Nominee of Director General, Geological Survey of India)
Member
4. Director, Mines Safety, Gaziabad,1 (Nominee Director
General Mines Safety), Dhanbad.
Member
5. Professor and Head of Department of
Geology, Punjab University, Chandigarh.
Member
6. Professor and Head of Department1 of Forestry, Dr. Y. S. Parmar University
of Horticultureand Forestry, Solan, H.P.
‘Member
5. The Committee held its first meeting at Solan on July 3,1989. It inspected the mines in the area-and had discussions with some officials and local residents as well. It then submitted a report which was filed in Court on November 24, 1989 and was directed to form part of the record by an order of December 5, 1989. The report is a detailed
one. It included four limestone mines in category A which, according to the Committee, could be allowed to operate with certain stipulations mentioned in paragraph 4.4. of the report. Four other mines were included in B category in respect whereof the conclusion of the Committee was that they may not be permitted to undertake further mining operations because of the reasons mentioned in paragraph 4.6 of the report. Petitioners in writ petitions 598 to 601 of 1989 are the lessees of these mines.
6. Objections to the report were filed on behalf of the petitioners as also on behalf of the lessees whose mining operations were recommended to be stopped. The matter was heard by as at some length between March 25 and April 3,1991 when orders were reserved.
7. The Saproon Valley, also known ‘as “Happy Valley”, is very close to Solan town and easily accessible. It has attained importance as a fruit growing area where fruit, of plum variety are grown in abundance. The land in this Valley is fertile and is also known for the farming of green vegetables. One of the eight mines in question in the present petition, namely, Padgal and Sumti limestone mines of M/s. Khushal Singh and Sons falling in category A is not in Saproon Valley but is on the Solan-Kalka highway.
8. The place where a road branches off to the Saproon Valley from Solan-Kalka highway is known as “Dori Dwar”. About two Kilometeres from this place is the first of the three A category mines of Om Prakash Mehta (respondent No. 8). About a hundred yards away is the second A category of mine of Nathi Ram Verma (respondent No. 7) Lavi-ghat is a place about 1 kilometre away from the aforesaid two mines. It is at a distance of about 3 kilometres from “Dori Dwar”. Three Kilometre from Lavighat is village Kothi Dewara. Durga limestone (of respondent No. 16), a category A mine, is located here.
9. Lavighat is the place where all the four category B mines are located. Three of these mines of respondents Hari Ram (No. 9), Sita Ram (No. 10) and Mani Ram (No. 11) are adjacent to each other. About 100 yards
away from these is the fourth mine of category B’ of respondent Bahadur Singh (No. 15).
10. The Committee constituted in compliance of our order dated April 19,1989 has made an in-depth study of the problem of mining of limestone in the area. It is rightly said (in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6) that:
“One of the most striking development of recent years has been the rise of concern about the damage to the environment, public health and safety that results from modern developmental and industrial activities…… the mining industry became identified in many places in public mind, as a major source of damage to the environment. However, as the mining constitutes one of the main building blocks of development, this activity has to be undertaken under social regulation, consistent with appropriate safeguard regarding environmental and health hazards.
….In-depth study of impact assessment of mining must be carried out as pre-operational exercise. Even after the lease is granted, frequent monitoring preferably bimonthly of mining operations is absolutely essential, so that lessees do not adopt short cut methods to reap undue high profits at the cost of damage to environment.
Post operational utilisation of abondoned mining area for most useful purpose must be planned and funds provided by the lessees.
Though mining activity cannot be obliterated altogether in the fragile hill of Himachal Pradesh, but mines causing disproportionate damage and operating with utter disregard to environmental aspects must be closed….”
In part II of its report the Committee has set out “Guidelines for Grant of Limestone Mining Leases”. These guidelines are based on:
1. Environmental consideration;
2. Geological and Geomorphological considerations; and,
3. Technological considerations.
The guidelines cover the pre-operational and
post-operational period, that is, for rehabili-tation of the mine area as also for the period during mining operations. The considerations under the various categories have been men-tioned by the Committee in paragraphs 3.3. to 3:6 ‘of the report. We would refer to some of them later. We may, however, mention that after laying down the guidelines, the Com-mittee mentioned (in paragraph 4.2) that:
“In this report, keeping in view the guidelines discussed earlier, it is proposed to classify the mines into two categories :
(A) mines where further mining is possible with certain precaution and safeguards as per mining plan under strict supervision and frequent monitoring;
(B) The mines where no scientific mining is economically viable or technically possible”.
And, then proceeded to identify four mines each in the two categories in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.5. The former could, in the opinion of the Committee, be allowed to operate with the stipulations made in paragraphs 4.4 where as the latter could not be permitted to undertake further mining operations because of the reasons in paragraph 4.6. The Committee then said (in paragraph 4.7) that:
“The Committee though appreciate the large scale and costly works to minimise the debris flow, carried out by the lessees, construction of check dams, retaining walls and some plantation undertaken by them but regrets that these measures would fail in the long term as the cost of prgduction of limestone would PC prohibitive and would make such remedial measures less attractive and economically not feasible”. (Emphasis ours)
11. The petition is in the’ nature of a public interest litigation. The grievance, as put forward by the petitioners; in C.W.P. No. 567 of 1988, is that in this: valley, they depend on the cultivation of cauliflower seeds, fruits like plum, pear, apricot, peach, almond and vegetables like Mirch/tamato, Makhan been and crops like maize, wheat etc. Thus, majority of the population, they say, are agriculturists and earn their livelihood out of that. The mines are at a higher altitude and
on account of blasting, debris in the form of loose soil rolls down and causes obstruction to paths, fields and houses of the petitioners besides denuding the area of vegetation. It has also affected ecological system. The result of mining activities has also been that due to flash floods, certain houses, animals and fertile soil has been washed away and water resources have been finished. They also complain that these mining activities have continued on account of political pressure and no action has been taken by the State Government to stop them although a number of representations have been submitted highlighting the seriousness of the situation.
12. The operation of these mines has not only caused immense loss to the petitioners, but it has affected the ecological balance in the area. The grant of leases has been in clear contravention of the statutory provisions under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the Himachal Pra-desh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 and the Rules framed thereunder, the Mines Act, 1952 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, beside the constitutional provisions under Article 48-A and 51-A.
13. In their reply, respondents 6 to 11, 15 and 16 have said that mining leases were granted by the State Government after going through all the codal formalities, including inspections, surveys etc., and the allegations raised by the petitioners are belated, vague and on account of ill feelings. They are not representatives of the 16 villages and according to the to pography of the area, the mineral wealth is on one, side of the hillock while the vegetation is oh the other side there of During the mining operations, inspection is carried out by experts at the instance of’ the State Government and in case deficiencies are found, remedial measures are prescribed and implementation ‘sought. It has been denied that on account of these mining operations, there has been road blocks, flash floods, loss of environment and ecology and animals and the property of the petitioners. They also say that there has not been any loss to any water channel or spring on account of these operations and the same may be on account of the normal rains. They have also denied the felling of the trees and they say that large number of trees have, in fact, been planted by them in the area. According to the respondents, these are small mines and provide employment to the local people as and when they are idle from agricultural operations. Therefore, closure would naturally result in non-exploitation of the natural wealth and would also render them and their labour idle. They have also denied that they are violating the provisions of various Acts stated in the petition. In support of their averments, certain documents have also been filed to show that the allegations made against them by the petitioners are bereft of substance.
14. In compliance of the direction made by this Court on December 13, 1988 the Director Industries, Himachal Pradesh visited the mines and filed a further affidavit thereafter. In this affidavit he stated that for granting mining leases the applications were considered on merits but the lease holders were advised to submit mining plans before the leases could be executed. Continuance of mining operations was, according to the affidavit, permitted by issuance of short term permits as an interim measure. The work for preparation of mining plans was undertaken and an Assistant Geologist was deputed for it. The lease-holders were asked to take steps to improve the mining out-put and reduce wastage of natural resources. They were directed to take measures like the construction of check dams and plantation of trees etc. in some areas and they intimated that the steps had been taken in accordance with the technical advice of the Assistant Geologist. Thereafter, it was inspected by the Assistant Geologist who reported that the lessees had taken those steps. Finally, it has been stated that in order to undertake the work scientifically and in accordance with the advice of the Technical Officer, some more time was necessary for these lessees.
15. On December 26, 1988 this Court made an order asking the District Magistrate to visit the area and make a report. In compliance thereof the District Magistrate, Solan, inspected the mines on 3rd and 4th January 1989. In his affidavit dated January 7,1989 the District Magistrate stated that the inspection was carried out in the presence of the petitioners and the respondents in addition to Shri T.S. Thakur, Assistant Geologist, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsildar and Naib-Tehsildar, Solan, and one Shri Amba Dutt Sharma, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Dangri, in whose Panchayat many of the quarries fell. It has been pointed out that lessees (respondents Nos. 9, 10 and 11) had constructed check-dams etc., as stated by the second respondent in his affidavit, these check-dams were nothing but stones of different sizes piled upon each other since no mud or cement had been used nor these stones dressed properly. They were loose and were thus incapable of restraining any flowing matter like debris. In other cases, the condition was no better. Plantation had not been done properly, effectively and plentifully. In some cases, tree braches were found affixed into the soil. Blasting operations were not properly done causing damage to the areas below these mines. It was also mentioned that the water source (Bowli) in village Lavikalan had been completely damaged like the grazing lands. Further, from the works that had been carried on, it could be seen that the lessees had undertaken the same recently. In a nutshell, the report gives an unsatisfactory picture about the working of these mines.
16. The report of the District Magistrate was seriously challenged on behalf of the lessees who filed a number of affidavits pointing out in detail the work carried out by them and the manner of the working of the mines. It is thereafter that this Court thought of ap- pointing a Committee in its order of April 19, 1989. Parts of the report’ of the Committee, appointed in pursuance of that order, have been adverted to in the earlier part of our judgment.
17. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners initially was that the report of the Committee aforesaid should be accepted by this Court and it be ensured, through appropriate directions, that category A mines should faithfully observe the requirements laid
down for them in paragraph 4.4 of the report. Also, that a monitoring committee be appointed by this Court which should oversee the functionings of these mines. Subsequently, however, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that the functioning of even category A mines deserved to be stopped as even these mines did not satisfy the guidelines mentioned by the Committee in paragraphs 3.3. (Environmental consideration); 3.4 (Geological and Geomorphological considerations); and 3.5. (Technological consideration during operational phase) together with those contained in paragraph 3.6 (Guidelines for mining operation and post-operational phases to minimise the environmental degradation). Learned counsel pointed out some, from amongst the various factors mentioned by the Committee in these paragraphs, with emphasis.
18. The submission on behalf of the lessees, however, was that they were not only prepared to ensure compliance with the guidelines contained in paragraph 4.4 in relation to category A mines in addition to the detailed requirements of the mining plans in respect of each of the mine but were also prepared to abide by such further directions as this Court may make in that regard and to subject to working of the mines to be overseen by a monitoring committee which this court may appoint for the purpose. What was further emphasised was that even in respect of category B mines the reasons which led the Committee to take the view that, they did not deserve to be permitted to work were not such which could not be taken care of by the lessees so as to enable them to work those mines as well. It was suggested on behalf of the lessees of these four category B ,mines by their learned counsel that after laying down such requirements as this court thought proper, these mines may also be permitted to be worked as prayed by the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 598 of 1989, 599 of 1989, 600 of 1989 and 601 of 1989.
19. Before proceeding to consider the matter further, we would like to recall the words of the Supreme Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 359 when, speaking through Ranganath Misra, J., as the learned Chief Justice then was, it said (at pp. 362 to 364 of AIR):
“The Himalayan range on the Northern Boundary of India is the most recent mountain range and yet it is the tallest. It has formed the Northern boundary of the country and until recent times provided an impregnable protection to the Indian sub-continent from the Northern direction. This mountain range has been responsible to regulate the monsoons and consequently the rainfall in the indo-gangetic belt. The Himalayas are the sources for perennial rivers the Ganges, Yamuna and Brahmputra as also several other tributaries which have joined these main rivers. For thousands of years’ nature has displaced its splendour through the lush green trees, innumerable springs and beautiful flowers. The Himalayas has been the store house of herbs, shrubs and plants. Deep forests on the lower hills have helped to generate congenial conditions for good rain.
The limestone belt has acted as the acqui-fer–to hold and release water perennially, All the important streams–Song, Baldi, Ris-pana, Kairuli and Bhitarli originate from this area. Reckless mining, careless disposal of the mine, debris and random blasting operations have disturbed the natural water system and the supply, of water both for drinking and irrigation has substantially gone, down. There is a growing apprehension that if mining is carried on in this process, a stage will come when there would be dearth of water in the entire belt.
Governments–both at the Centre and in the State–must realize and remain cognizant of the fact that the stake involved in the matter is large and far-reaching. The evil consequences would last long. Once that unwanted situation sets in, amends or repairs would not be possible. The greenery of India, as some doubt, may perish and the Thar desert may expand its limits.
Consciousness for enviromental protection is of recent origin. The United Nations Conference on World Environment held in Stockholm in June 1972 and the follow-up action thereafter is spreading the awareness. Over thousands of years man had been successfully exploiting the ecological system for his sustenance but with the growth of population the demand for land has increased and forest growth has been and is being cut down and man has started encroaching upon Nature and it assets. Scientific developments have made it possible and convenient for man to approach the places which were hitherto beyond his ken. The consequences of such interference with ecology and environment have now come to be realised. It is necessary that the Himalayas and the forest growth on the mountain range should be left uninter-fered with so that there may be sufficient quantity of rain. The top soil may be preserved without being eroded and the natural setting of the area may remain intact. We had commended earlier to the State of Uttar Pradesh as also to the Union of India that afforestation activity may be carried out in the whole valley and the hills. We have been told that such activity has been undertaken. We are not oblivious of the fact that natural resources have got to be tapped for the purposes of social development but one cannot forget at the same time that tapping of resources have to be done with requisite attention and care so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way there may not be any depletion of water resources and long-term planning must be undertaken to keep up the natural wealth. It has always to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation.”
20. Echoing the same sentiments and borrowing similar ideas from some judgments of the Supreme Court in similar matters a Division Bench of this Court observed in Kinkri Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) ILR (1987) Him Pra 249 : (AIR 1988 Him Pra 4) (in paragraph 6) that:
“It would be pertinent to mention at this stage that Part IV of the Constitution which incorporates the Directive Principles of State Policy contains Article 48-A which prescribes that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. Part IVA, which enshrines the Fundamental Duties, provides similarly in Article 51 A, Clause (g), that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion, for living creatures. Thus there is both a constitutional pointer to the State and a constitutional duty of the citizens not only to protect but also to improve the environment and to preserve and safeguard the forest, the flora and fauna, the rivers and lakes and all the other water resources of the country. The neglect or failure to abide by the pointer or to perform the duty is nothing short of abetrayal of the fundamental law which the State, and, indeed, every Indian, high or low, is bound to uphold and maintain.”
And, in paragraph 8, that;
“…If the wise and sagacious counsel imparted to the Governments, at the Centre as well as in the States, to strike a just balance between the tapping of the natural resources for the purposes of the socio-economic development and the preservation and protection of the ecology, the environment and the natural wealth and resources by the adoption of a long term perspective planning is not heeded and effective steps in the direction of implementing the same are not taken with the utmost expedition, there will not only be a total neglect and failure on the part of the administration to attend to an urgent task in the national interest but also a violation of the fundamental rights conferred by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution….”
We respectfully share these views.
We may also recall what the Supreme Court said in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965 in paragraph 22:
“…We have noticed that in the past few years there is an increasing trend to the number of cases based on environmental pollution and ecological destruction coming up before the Court. Many such cases concerning the material basit of livelihood of million of poor people are reaching this Court by way of public interest litigation. In most of these cases there is need for neutral scientific expertise as MI essential input to inform judicial decision making. Theie cases require expertise at a high level of scientific and technical sophistication. We felt the need for such expertise in this very case and we had to appoint several expert committees to inform the Court as to what measures were required to be adopted by the Management of Shriram to safeguard against the hazard or possibility of leaks, explosion, pollution of air and water….”
21. The effort that this Court made to ascertain the existing conditions, at the spot where mining operations were going on and the effect there of upon the environment was by deputing from time to time, officials or a body of persons, asking them to visit the area and make a report to this Court. The reports made to this Court were found to be differing from each other and it was on that account that, eventually, the Committee with Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as Chairman, was directed to be constituted to make an indepth study of the problem. This Committee, as detailed earlier, included experts like the, Directors of Geological Survey of India, of Mines Safety and Professors of Forestry and Geology. The Committee drew up a detailed report. It set before itself certain guidelines, in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.6 and then proceeded, to classify the mines into two categories A and, B as has been observed by the Committee in, paragraph 4.2 of the report. It is not possible to accept the plea made on behalf of the petitioners that category At mines should also be’ directed to stop their Working forth with;’ inasmuch as, they do not qualify for being permitted to continue working on account of some of the factors enumerated by the Committee in paragraphs 3.3 to 3.6 of the report. The plea founded upon the observations made by the District Magistrate, Solan, in his affidavit, after his visit to the area in consequence of our direction dated December 26, 1988 does not merit acceptance. More so, when it is clear beyond doubt that long after the visit of the
District Magistrate, Solan to time places on January 3 and 4, 1989, the Members of the Committee visited the art a and inspected the mines on July 3 and July 4, 1989. Similar considerations apply to the plea made on behalf of the lessees of category B mines who canvassed for being permitted to resume mining operations notwith standing the recommendations of the Committee to the contrary.
22. The limestone found in the area is not of high grade. It is of the lime kiln grade. The mining is done manually and open cast mining is being carried out. The complete stoppage of mining in this area may not adversely affect the national interest. It may, however, cause hardship to some lessees or the labour employed by them. In reply to a Court question, Shri R.L. Sood, appearing for the State Government, stated that the total direct benefit from all the eight leases to the State Government, by way of royalty, was to the tune of rupees one lac which would be about rupees four lacs for a whole year after April 1, 1991 due to the increase in the rate thereof. Direct employment benefits were available to about 250 families on account of these mines whereas income by way of tax per year on carriage of material by road would be about Rs. 4;50,000/- from after April 1,1991 due to the increase in the rate of tax per tonne from Rs.4/- to Rs. 15/-, the total carriage being of about 30,000 tonnes. The direct and indirect pecuniary advantage to the State from the mining operations in ail1 these eight mines is fairly low. Employment potential, too, is not of a high order,
23. The plea so passionately put forward by Shri Rajiv Kataria, appearing for the petitioners in writ petitions No. 59,8 of 1989, 599 of 1989,,400 of 1989 and 601 of 1989 for their being, permitted to continue working their mines does not deserve acceptance. The location of these mines, noticed earlier, is almost adjacent to each other. It is at Lavighat. What has been found by the Committee about these mines is that the generation of overburden soil and scree in their case is very high and the removal of the soil overburden may cause mud creep, adding
to the debris flow into the nallah. Besides, over-flow of scree, removed from up-stream of check-dams, whose construction would not be economically vaiable in the long run, frequently, may damage the agricultural land below the road level as the width of the nallah is considerably small due to encroachment. These mines are visible from the national highway and the Solan town and are aesthetically eyesore. What has been suggested on behalf of the lessees of these four mines is that the factors aforesaid can be taken care of suitably by ensuring that additional check-dams be constructed to the satisfaction of a monitoring agency to be appointed by this Court and the frequency of removal of scree may also be fixed by the same agency. Small breast walls on both the margins of the nallah could be constructed before removal of the soil overburden and bushy plantation could be made on both sides of the nallah to avoid the flow of debris into it while removal of the soil overburden. The bench system of mining envisaged in the mining plan would ensure that there is no land-slide in spite of the hill slope angle adjoining the mines. Further, fruit and other plantation can be done on the benches to ensure that no scar is caused and that the scars visible on account of mining operations undertaken earlier could be attempted to be removed by undertaking similar measures wherever possible. The monitoring agency can require observance of these conditions on pain of the stoppage of mining operations wherever it felt that enough was not being done by the lessees.
24. We have been told that, Recording to the mining plan, the possible period of exploitation in respect of the mines of petitioner Hari Ram (C.W.P. No. 598 of 1989) is fifty years; of petitioner Sita Ram (C.W.P. No. 599 of 1989) is 100 years; of petitioner Bahadur Singh (C.W.P. No. 600 of 1989) is 10 years and of petitioner Mani Ram (C.W.P. No. 601 of 1989) is 3 years. The period is thus either too short or too long. The mining plans of all these petitioners were before the Committee. The Committee also had before it the views expressed by the Assistant Geologist who had camped in the Saproon Valley from January to April 1988 in
order to initiate the mapping of the mines and to get the lessees to carry out some developmental works for minimising the degradation of the environment. All these aspects, we can reasonably assume were present in the mind of the Committee before it made its recommendation contained in the report.
25. On the material before us we would not be inclined, as it were, to go into the correctness or otherwise of the conclusions of the Committee. We prefer to follow the course adopted by the Supreme Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of U.P. AIR 1985 SC 652 wherein the Supreme Court did not embark upon an enquiry about the merits of the Bhargava Committee report itself. This is clear from the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 of its judgment. What it did was to appoint another high powered Committee, namely, Bandyo-padhyay Committee to go into the matter further.
26. At this stage we may also refer to some observations which the Supreme Court made in paragraph 12 of the judgment. It said that:
“The consequence of this Order made by us would be that the lessees of limestone quarries which have been directed to be closed down permanently ……….. after consideration of
the report of the Bandopadhayay Committee, would be thrown out of business in which they have invested large sums of money and expanded considerable time and effort. This would undoubtely cause hardship to them, but it is a price that has to be paid for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and -without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agaricultural land and undue affectation of air, water and environment….:…..”
And, in paragraph 13, where it said that: ,
“……… as a result of this order made by us,
the workmen employed in the limestone quarries which have been directed to be closed down permanently ……… or which may be
directed to be closed down permanently after consideration of the report of the Bandyo-padhyay Committee, will be thrown out of employment……….. But the limestone quarries which have been or which may be directed to be closed down permanently will have to be reclaimed and afforestation and soil conservation programme will have to be taken up in respect of such lime-stone quarries …….. the
workmen who are thrown out of employment in consequence of this Order shall, as far as practicable and in the shortest possible time, be provided employment in the afforestation and soil conservation programme to be taken up in this area.”
27. We may also mention that’ Shri Rajiv Kataria, appearing for the lessees, ‘attempted to draw a distinction between the circumstances in which the Supreme Court made the directions that it did in case of’the mines in Doon Valley and those prevailing in the Saproon Valley. He pointed out that in the case before the Supreme Court there were 105 lessees, as against eight in the present case, who were extracting major mineral (limestone of high grade or dolomite) where the production of even one mine was more than the entire production of eight here collectively. Also, that in Dehradoon area mining had started somewhere in the year 1911 and had gone on in haphazard manner for nearly 75 years before the matter engaged the attention of 0e Supreme Court unlike the present case where extraction of Jimestone, a minor mineral, started in the year 1978 and the haphazard mining had gone, 9n only for about ten, years and had not resisted in large scale destruction of the area. The mines, according to Shri Kataria, in the Doon Valley were within reserved forest area and there was deforestation on a large scale unlike the case of Saproon Valley mines where the deforestation was not much and no mine was located within any reserved forest area. It was also pointed Out that in the case ‘before the Supreme ‘Court no ropeways’ ‘had been constructed for carriage of ‘limestone or dolomite.’ Roads had been constructed by the lessees almost up to the place where mining was being done for loading the extracted
material. In the present case, according to Shri Kataria, there are ropeways for carriage of the material and at some places these are nearly 1 % kilometre in length. Mines in the present case, said Mr. Kataria, are at a distance of 3 kilometre from Municipal limits of Solan which according to him, made the location of these mines far away from the Municipal limits unlike in the case before the Supreme Court.
28. In view of the considerations aforesaid, Shri Kataria urged, with some emphasis, that category B mines also deserved to be permitted to work irrespective of the recommendations of the Committee appointed by us and further that total stopage of mining operations in,the Saproon area was not called for as was canvassed by Shri M.L. Sharmaon behalf of the, petitioners in C.W.P. No. 567 of ‘1988. We have given our anxious consideration to these submissions but we feel, for the reasons indicated earlier, that we would not been inclined to depart from the recommendations made by the Committee in its report of Nov. 24, 1989.
29. That brings us to consideration of category A mines. The factors highlighted by Shri M.L. Sharma, for closure of these mines as well, have been indicated by us earlier in this judgment. To recapitulate, we may mention that special emphasis was placed by Shri Sharma upon the factors enumerated by the Committee ‘in paragraphs 3.3 to 3.6 of its report. His effort was to persuade us that these had not been kept in mind by the Committee even when it had approved the continuance bf the working of category A mines subject to stipulations made in paragraph 4.4 of its report. This submission has not impressed Us. We have said earlier also that all these factors were present in the mind of the Committee as mentioned. by it in paragraph 4.2. of the report. There is nothing to doubt the statement contained in that paragraph that the Committee classified the mines into two categories ‘keeping in view the guidelines discussed earlier’. Besides, the fact that one of the mines Of this category (Padgal and Sumti Limestone Mine of M/s. Kushal Singh and sons) is not located in the Saproon
Valley but is on the main Solan-Kalka highway, leaves only three mines of category : A: for consideration by us. It was said by Shri Sharma that the working of the mines of Padgal and Deon Limestone Mine of Nathi Ram Verma (respondent No. 7) and Deon Limestone Mine of Om Parkash (respondent No. 8) (both category ;A: mines) has resulted in stoppage in Saproon Chasma since the years 1978/1979 and that the life of the people and cattle has become miserable on that account. This has been adverted to in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ petition. These allegations have been denied in the reply sworn by the Director of Industries on Nov. 11,1988. In the same affidavit facts have been disclosed in a little more detail in paragraph 7 wherein it has been mentioned that the lessees were carrying on blasting to a limited extent just to crack host rocks for easy mining of minerals and not to waste by making heavy charge of explosive to allow fly off minerals and thus waste them. Further that physico-chemical and bacteriological constituent of water is not affected. We have mentioned these facts only with a view to judge the feasibility of acting upon the bald statement contained in the petition in this respect.
30. The petitioners have also filed objections to the report of Nov. 24, 1989 of the Committee. In it, as far as category :A: mines are concerned, it has been pointed out that these mines were allowed to operate with the stipulations (I) to (5) mentioned at page 16 of the report and that these stipulations, read with the inspection note, Annexure RD with the main petition (reference being to the letter sent to the lessee M/ s. Kushal Singh and sons by the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh) showed that in addition to the guidelines in the working plan and the suggestions contained in the Annexure, the above stipulations contained in clause 4.4 of the report had not been followed by the proprietors of category :A: mines. Further, that neither old workings were demarcated with distinct colour nor 7.5 meters of barrier was maintained and indicated in a distinct colour in the plan, so much so that no unloading chute arrangements were made. Stipulataion No. 5 had not been complied
with at all. The further assertion in the objections is that in addition to the guidelines contained in the mining plan and Annexure-RD, the stipulation contained in the report of the Committee at page 16 (referring to paragraph 4.4) be directed to be implemented by category :A: miners and until these were found to have been complied with, mining operations in category :A: mines be also ordered to be stopped.
31. Reply to the above objections has been filed on behalf of category :A: mines. In it, it has been stressed that miners of category :A: mines had complied with the recommendations stipulated in paragraph 4.4 of the report of the Committee; mining operation was being done under complete supervision of the District Mining Officer who regularly visits the mines; to old work had been clearly demarcated and the barrier of 7.5 metres was maintained between the two leases and has been clearly so demarcated in the working plans, that at the loading point big retaining wall had been constructed so that there may not be any slippage of the limestone and the limestone is loaded directly from the loading point into the trucks from the small gate made in the retaining wall and further that the night and width of the benches has been rectified and was not more than 1.5 metres and the width was not less than the height.
32. It is true that the present proceedings are in the nature of public interest litigation and insistence on strict proof about a fact asserted by a party may not be expected from it as in an adversary litigation, yet, the present proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution are basically summary in character. The Court makes out its own modalities for ascertaining the essential facts to make up its mind about the nature of directions which it should make. In the present case, like the cases before the Supreme Court in respect of the limestone/dolomite mines in the Doon Valley, appointment of an expert Committee was considered to be the best way for ascertaining necessary facts. The Committee consisted of responsible people whose bona fides could neither be nor has been assialed before us. We have, therefore decided to be guided by its recommendations.
33. Having regard to the nature of the Saproon Valley, its vagetation, fartility, aesthetic appeal and proximity to the growing town of Solan, which is an important place in the State of Himachal Pradesh, we would like to ensure proper supervision of the mining activity in the three category :A: mines located in the Saproon Valley in which mining operations, we feel, should be permitted to continue in terms of the recommendations made by the Committee. We would like to ensure a similar pattern for the fourth category A: mine of M/s. Kushal Singh and sons situate on the Solan Kalka highway. For that end, we direct setting up of a Monitoring Committee consisting of the Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as Chairman, and the Chief Engineer (Irrigation and Public Health) Himachal Pradesh, Director Geological Survey of India, Himachal Pradesh, and Professor and Head of Department of Forestry of Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, as Members. The State Geologist of Himachal Pradesh shall assist the Committee as a non-member Secretary. This Committee would visit the area where category :A: mines are located within a month to enquire whether the recommendations of the main Committee regarding the continuance of these mines have been met or not at the spot. In addition it will also enquire whether the pattern contemplated for the working of these mines in the mining plans is being adhered to or not. The Monitoring Committee will also observe whether the working in the Saproon Valley of category :A: mines has had any deleterious effect upon the Saproon Chasma and whether the width of the nallah has been reduced on account of the alkged encorachment by the various petitioners in the present writ petition and further whether the enlargement of the culverts will improve the flow of water from the nallah. The Committee shall also make a note of any other factor which comes to its notice and is considered relevant by it and make a report to this Court within two weeks of the date of its visit to the area, which shall be made after notice by it to the petitioners and the Collector, Solan as well as respondents
No. 6, 7, 8 and 16 (of the four Category : A : mines). On receipt of the report further directions, if any, shall be made by this Court.
34. The Monitoring Committee shall visit the area periodically at intervals of three months for similar observations and report to this Court for any further action that may be needed.
35. The result is that writ petitions Nos. 598 of 1989, 599 of 1989,600 of 1989 and 601 of 1989 shall stand dismissed while writ petition No. 567 of 1988 shall stand allowed to the extent aforesaid.
Costs on parties.