Case Note & Summary
The case involved writ petitions concerning the mining of limestone quarries in the Dehradun area. The Supreme Court appointed the Bhargav Committee to inspect these quarries, which led to a detailed order on March 12, 1985, outlining various directions regarding their operation. The court emphasized the need to balance industrial development with environmental conservation, noting that reckless mining could lead to significant ecological and social harm. The court classified the quarries into categories A, B, and C based on their suitability for continued operation. It directed that quarries in category C should be closed, while those in category B could remain operational pending further inquiry. The court also mandated that quarries in category A could operate under strict adherence to relevant mining regulations. The court highlighted the importance of considering ecological impacts and the livelihoods of local populations when granting mining leases. Ultimately, the court sought to ensure that industrial growth did not come at the expense of environmental degradation and public welfare.
Headnote
These Writ Petitions relate to the mining of lime stone quarries in Dehradun mining area. During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the Court appointed a Committee known as Bhargav Committee for the purpose of inspecting the lime stone quarries mentioned in the Writ Petitions. The Government of India had also appointed a working Group headed by the same, Shri D.N. Bhargav, who was a member of the Bhargav Committee appointed by the Court, on the mining of lime stone quarries in Dehradun-Mussoorie area, some time in 1983. After the hearing was over, the Court passed a detailed order on 12th March, 1985 [1985) 3 SCR 169] giving various directions and observing that the reasons for the order will be set out in the judgment to follow later. Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.N. Sen, one of the members of the Bench who heard these petitions before his retirement, speaking for himself, OBSERVED: I. It is not necessary to give any further reasons than those which are already stated in the order made by the Court on 12th March, 1985 because the broad reasons have been adequately set out in that order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to elaborate them. [639C] 2. Industrial development is necessary for economic growth of the country. If, however, industrial growth is sought to be achieved by haphazard and reckless working of the mines resulting in loss of life, loss of property, loss of basic amenities like supply of water and creation of ecological imbalance, there may ultimately be no real eco- nomic growth and no real prosperity. It is necessary to strike a proper balance. Appropriate authorities at the time of granting leases should take all these facts into consid- eration and also provide for adequate safeguards. [640D-F]
Issue of Consideration
Whether mining operations in Dehradun should be allowed to continue in light of environmental concerns and the need for industrial development.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed the closure of limestone quarries classified as category C and imposed conditions on the operation of quarries in categories A and B, emphasizing the need for ecological safeguards.
Law Points
- Environmental law
- mining regulations
- ecological balance
- industrial development
- judicial directions
