Rural Litigation and Entitlement

Kendra & Ors. vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh & Ors.

Also Known as - RLEK Vs. State of U.P 

Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169

Petitioner: 

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors.

Respondent:

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Date of Judgement:

12/03/1985

Bench:

Bhagwati, P.N. Sen, Amarendra Nath (J) Misra Rangnath

 Fact of the case

This case is also famously known as the ‘Dehradun Valley

litigation’. In Mussoorie hill range of Himalayas, the activity of
quarrying was being carried out. Limestone was extracted by
blasting out the hills with dynamite. This also resulted in cave-ins
and slumping because the mines dug deep into the hillsides,
which is an illegal practice per se.

Due to lack of vegetation, many landslides occurred which killed

villagers and destroyed their homes, cattle and agricultural lands.
In 1961, mining was prohibited in the state by the state minister
of mines. However, quarry operations reopened the mining
operations by successfully lobbying with the chief Minister of the
state under which they got mining leases for 20 years. This led to
corrupt and illegal practices and still there was no enforcement of
safety rules.

In 1982, eighteen leases came up for renewal, which were

rejected by the State on account of the ecological destruction.
However, an injunction was granted by the Allahabad High Court
which allowed the applicants to continue mining, giving the
reason that economic benefits outweighed ecological factors.

In 1983, the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra sent a letter

of complaint to the Supreme Court which was against
environmental degradation. The Court treated the letter as a writ
petition under article 32. More than 100 mines joined this and the
litigation became complex. The Supreme Court conducted a
review of the need for mining operations and provided for funding
and administrative oversight of reforestation of the region.

Contentions Raised
It was contended by the mining operators that the case should be
dismissed by the court and the issue should be left to the
administrative authorities under the Environment Protection. The
counsel for the miners relied on the following statement of a 1986
opinion issued in the case: It is for the Government and the
Nation and not for the court to decide whether the deposits
should be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental
consideration or the industrial requirement should be otherwise
satisfied. The Court rejected the miners’ arguments the ground
that the litigation had already commenced and significant orders
had been issued by the court before the adoption of the
Environment Protection Act. There was no conflict in the opinions
of the court and the Central Government in the instant case.

In 1983, the Court prohibited blasting operations, while it was

reviewing to determine whether the mines were being operated in
compliance with the safety standards as laid down in the Mines
Act of 1952 and other relevant mining regulations. The Court
appointed an expert committee (the Bhargava Committee) to
assess the mines. In March 1985, the court denied leases to the
most dangerous mines falling within Mussoorie city and ceased
their operations. This was done upon the recommendation of the
Bhargava Committee. The second committee (the
Bandyopadhyay Committee) was empowered to consider plans
submitted by the miners to safeguard the environment and to
hear the claims of people adversely affected by the mining. The
Uttar Pradesh government was directed to provide the necessary
funds for the Bandyopadhyay Committee as well as ‘transport and
other facilities for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their
functions.’ The Court determined that a third group of mines,
including a major operation owned by the state of Uttar Pradesh,
could remain open because the environmental damage was less
clear.

In 1987, the court reviewed the Bandyopadhyay committee’s

report. This report was based on ecological considerations. The
court concluded that mining in the Valley should cease. The Court
restated the conclusion that mining activity should only be
permitted to the extent it is necessary in the interests of the
defence of the country and safeguarding of the foreign exchange
position.

In 1988, the Court concluded that all the mines in Dehradun

Valley should remain closed, except three operations. Although
the Dehradun Valley mining operations occupied 800 hectares of
reserved forests and the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 was in
effect in 1982, when the lessees applied to the State Government
approval for the mining operations.

This failure reflected confusion as to whether the requirement of

the Act applied to renewal of leases or not, which had originally
been granted before the Act came into force. This question was
resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Ambika Quarry
Works v. State of Gujarat. The Court held that the state
government may renew pre-existing mining leases only with the
review and approval of the centre, as required under the Forest
Conservation Act.

In 1988, in the Dehradun Valley litigation, the court concluded

that continued mining in the valley violated the Forest
Conservation Act. The court even went beyond the requirements
of the Act to conserve forest and issued orders to ensure that the
valley be reforested. It also noted that although the state of Uttar
Pradesh had a reforestation programme, the record of
reforestation was not encouraging.

The Court held that it cannot go back upon its earlier order and
the cement factory shall not be permitted to run at the site and
therefore shifting of place has to be done. The petitioner was
permitted to indicate some alternative site so that there would be
an option available to the State Government and the Pollution
Board to consider which of the sites offered may be acceptable to
them for shifting the cement factory from the present location.

In November 1991, the Supreme Court recorded some of the

terms of a general understanding between the company and the
UP State Mineral Development Corporation for the supply of
limestone and other related issues. No consensus was reached on
a new site and while disposing the case the court acknowledged
that certain aspects of the arrangement remained to be
negotiated between the parties. The efforts to relocate the
cement factory failed and in February 1995, ARC Cement was
ordered to wound up by the Board for Industrial and Financial
Reconstruction.
 Judgment
In the Dehradun Valley Litigation case, the Central Government
had become concerned about the destructive mining operations
in the Valley at the same time when the Supreme Court took up
the issue. In 1983, the Government of India appointed a Working
Group to inspect the limestone quarries in the Dehradun-
Mussoorie area. The same individual, D.N. Bhargava, headed both
the government’s Working Group and the court’s committee
came to similar conclusions as to the harmful effect of the mines
on the environment. The Working Group also prepared reports for
the court on the few mining operations, which were allowed to
remain open. During the course of the litigation, in 1986,
Parliament enacted the Environment Protection Act.

After this, the Valley was designated as an ecologically fragile

area under the Environment Protection Act. In addition, the centre
appointed a Doon Valley Board, under the chairmanship of the
Minister for Environment and Forests, which was charged with
conserving and restoring degraded areas of the Valley.  The
Supreme Court concluded that mining in reserved forests in the
Dehradun valley violated the Forest Conservation Act. However,
the Forest Conservation Act only prohibits non-forest activities on
forest lands that do not have the approval of the Central
Government.  In addition to ecological integrity and national
interests, the Supreme Court was also concerned with the welfare
of mine operators and laborers left unemployed by closure of the
Dehradun Valley operations. The Court issued the following
directions:

a. Orders that mine lessees whose operations were

terminated by the court would be given priority for leases
in new areas open to limestone mining.
b. Orders that the Eco-Task Force of the central department
of Environment reclaim and reforest the area damaged by
mining and that workers displaced by mine closure be
 given priority for jobs with the Eco-Task Force operations
in the region.

Analysis
The Constitution of India guarantees the Right to wholesome
environment as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Industrialization leads to development which further leads to the
degradation of environment. To resolve this issue, the doctrine of
sustainable development has come up. i.e., there must be
balance between development and ecology. Environmental
degradation is not justified on the stake of national interest.
According to the socio-economic needs of the country,
administrative and legislative strategies for harmonizing
environmental and developmental values should be formulated.

Courts play a very crucial role in determining the scope of the

powers and functions of administrative agencies and in striking a
balance between the environment and development. The need of
the hour is to strike a balance between the two i.e., development
on one side and pollution free environment on the other.