RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA V. STATE OF U.P. (1985)

 

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA V. STATE OF U.P. (1985)

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra

v.

State of Uttar Pradesh

(AIR 1985 SC 652)

This case analysis is written by - Saumya Mishra,B.A.LL.B(H),S.S Khanna Girls' Degree College, University of Allahabad.

Landmark case on importance of environment over economic gain.

 

ABSTRACT

In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, a writ petition was filed by an NGO, named as RLEK, making the apex court aware about the issue of illegal limestone mining activities in Doon Valley. These mining activities are a threat to the ecosystem causing non recoverable loss to the environment. It was held that such activities are harmful for the environment and water springs. Supreme Court organized the Bhargava Committee to conduct inspection of the mining sites. The SC held that industrial development is important for economic growth but it should not be done at the cost of the environment.

 

PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE

 

Case no.	:	Writ Petition Nos. 8209 & 8821 of 83.
Jurisdiction	:	Supreme Court of India
Case Filed On	:	March 12, 1985
Case decided on	:	August 30, 1988
Judges	:	Justice Rangnath Misra, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, Justice V. Khalid.
Legal Provisions Involved	:	Article 21, 32,48A and 51A(g) of Constitution of India, Section 6 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Mines Act, 1952.
Case Summery Prepared By	:	Saumya

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

In 1950 limestone mining started in Doon Valley involving the practice of explosion, extensive quarrying and use of explosives with lead to felling of trees indiscriminately and serious ecological problems such as landslides that were damaging the natural balance of Doon Valley. With the continuation of mining activity, the harmful effects werealso increasing severely. In 1961, the state minister of mines of Uttar Pradesh banned mining industries but in 1962, mining started again when Uttar Pradesh government licensed mining for 20 years. In 1982, there was a request made to resurrection of mining license but it was rejected because of the ecological damage caused by mining but the mining company continued their work not following the decision of the government. Giving more weightage to economic benefits over ecological benefits, the Allahabad High Court legally authorized the mining being done in Doon Valley. In 1983, Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) which was a local NGO, sent a complaint letter concerning about the limestone quarrying operation and environment poverty caused by it to the Supreme Court.Supreme Court appointed Bhargava Committee to assess the disputed sites. This committee divided the total sites into 3 categories. Category A included the mining sites which are outside Mussoorie city and have least harmful impact, court permitted such sites to continue their work as long as they follow the laws, rules and regulations and pay royalties. For other categories the Supreme Court on December 15, 1983, asked the District Magistrate of Dehradun to appoint 2 officials to assess the amount of limestone is present at the site. Sub Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar to check 20 quarries. Afterwords, the court decided to re check the quarries as it doubted the officials have not done their job properly. It appointed Shree D. Bandopandhyay and director of Geology, Lucknow and they found out that the actual quantity of limestone was less than what the mining companies said it to be. The felt that illegal mining was secretly being carried on.

3.     ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE

Issues Involved in the following case are as follows:

 

·        Whether the mining done in Doon Valley is a violation of Forest Conservation Act, 1980?

 

·        Whether there is a possibility that the mining activity is causing landslides, vegetation loss, and severe ecological damage?

 

 

·        Whether mining is really harmful for natural water sprigs

·        Whether the lease contract was signed under the law?

 

 

4.     ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Petitioner:

It was contended that the mining operations were harmful for the perennial source of water.

It was contended that the forest conservation act, 1980, is being violated as mining caused severe damages to the forest resources.

It was said that fundamental right of healthy environment under article 21 of the constitution as mining is harmful for the sources of spring water and ecological imbalances.

It was contended that due to the mining the water resources were facing depletion, therefore, the life of locals was also in danger and they faced livelihood problems.

It was said that no proper care was taken while doing the mining activity and such carelessness has resulted in environmental damages, landslides, and damage to many lives.

It was contended that the mining activities were not legal and authorized.

It was contended that as forest are also being affected badly by the mining activities and forest is a part of concurrent list therefore there should be a federal government approval is required for carrying out mining in Doon Valley.

 

Respondent:

 

            It was contended on the rejection of the writ petition because baseless and silly and said that the investigation should be delegated to the administrative bodies as under Environmental Protection Act.

            It was claimed that the decision to judge that the procedures are harmful for the environment depends on the government rather than on judiciary.

            It was contended that that rejecting the lease to do mining will lead to huge economic loss because majority of the material that will make the activity successful are not recovered till date.

            It was contended that due care was taken to avoid environment damage and responded has also applied for the extension of lease and if withdrawal of lease happens at this point it will result in huge job losses.

            Responded said that the Mines Act, 1952, mandated the elimination of all quarrying and mining practices.

            It was contended that mining activities should be continued because it was necessary for the of foreign exchange balance and affairs of the country.

           It was also contended that the stoppage on mining will lead to the unemployment of the workers working in the company.

 

5.     LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THE CASE

The Forest Conservation Act, 1980: This act plays an important in use of forest land for non-forest use of land. Section 2 of this acts ban the use of forest land for non-forest purpose without any permission form the central government.

The Mines Act, 1952: This act looks after the mining labours and their safety. It contains provisions for safety, health, welfare and conditions to reduce accidents and makes sure their well-being.

Article 21:This article guarantees right to life, which also include right to healthy environment and mining done in Doon Valley was endangering the life of flora and fauna including human beings.

Article 32:With the help of this article only Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra NGO filed a writ petition in Apex Court against the mining activities in Doon Valley.

Article 48A:This article contains directive principles of state policy.

Article 51A(g):This article contains fundamental duties of the citizen towards the safeguard of the environment.

 

6.   JUDGEMENT

In this case Supreme Court organized a committee known as Bhargava Committee to inspect the mining sites of Doon Valley and inspect the amount of limestone quarry present. This committee divided the total sites into three parts known as category A, B and C. Category C was said to be the most harmful and the Court Ordered that no permission should be granted to these sites to do mining and if it is permitted then that permission would be nullified. Category B was also said to be close immediately because it had significant harm to the environment, here Court ordered that if they are legally permitted then they can remove that minerals lying on the site but it would only be done within 4 weeks from the ate of the judgement in the presence of 3 member, the deputy collector, a mines department officer, a neutral citizen of Dehradun other than Mr. Avdesh Kaushal. No minerals shall be removed without the presence of the 3 members. After 4 weeks a report should be submitted in the court stating the amount of the minerals removed and no mineral should be removed after the end of 4 weeks period. The court held that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 do not permit mining in forest area therefore Apex Court ordered the mining to stop after the lease period is over. 

 

7.     IMPACT AND SIGNIFICANCE

This case has a significant impact related to the safety of the environment. Supreme Court highlighted the importance of sustainability of environment and recognized the right to healthy environment under Article 21. This case marked the balance between economic development and environment. This case shows the role of judiciary in determining the power and authority of administrative authority in case of environment. This case is set as a precedent for future environmental disputes and it shows the importance of environment over short term economic gains. 

8.     CONCLUSION

This case is a landmark judgement which emphasized the balance between the economic gain and environment safety. This case talked about fundamental rights of healthy environment and highlighted the severe impact of the industries on the environment. Court highlighted the importance of environment which is free of pollution.

Hastags:- 

#EnvironmentalJustice

#RightToLife

#PublicInterestLitigation

#Article21

#SustainableDevelopment

#SupremeCourtOfIndia

#RuralLitigationCase

#LandmarkJudgment

#EnvironmentalLawIndia

#RLEKvsUttarPradesh