DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2012] 4 S.C.R. 819 · Decided: 27-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2012] 4 S.C.R. 819 
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. 
I.A. NOS.12-13 OF 2011 
IN 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No.19628-29 of 2009) 
B 
FEBRUARY 27, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Environmental Laws - Mining lease - Necessity of proper 
environmental assessment plan - Government of Haryana 
issued auction notice dated 3. 6. 2011 proposing to auction 
extraction of minor mineral boulder, gravel and sand quarries 
c 
of area not exceeding 4.5 hectares in each case in the District 
D 
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 
E 
the District of Rewari, and also in the Districts of Kurukshetra, 
Kamal, Faridabad and Palwal, with certain restrictions for 
quarrying in the river beds of Yamuna, Tangri, Markanda, 
Ghaggar, Krishnavati River basin, Dohan River basin etc. -
Validity of the auction notices under challenge - Complaint 
F 
of illegal mining going on in the State of Rajasthan and Uttar 
Pradesh - Held: There are no materials to come to the 
conclusion that the removal of minor mineral boulder, gravel, 
sand quarries etc. covered by the auction notices dated 
3.6.2011 and 8.8.2011, in the places notified therein and also 
G 
in the river beds would not cause environmental degradation 
or threat to the biodiversity, destroy riverine vegetation, cause 
erosion, pollute water sources etc. - The auction notices dated 
3. 6. 2011 and 8. 8. 2011 have permitted quarrying mining and 
819 
H 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 4 S.C.R. 
A removal of sand from in-stream and upstream of several 
rivers, which may have serious environmental impact on 
ephemera/, seasonal and perennial rivers and river beds and 
sand extraction may have an adverse effect on bio-diversity 
as well - Further it may also lead to bed degradation and 
B sedimentation having a negative effect on the aquatic life -
The auction notices were issued without conducting any study 
on the possible environmental impact on/in the river beds 
and elsewhere - When faced with a situation where extraction 
of alluvial material within or near a river bed has an impact 
c on the rivers physical habitat characteristics, like river stability, 
flood risk, environmental degradation, loss of habitat, decline 
in biodiversity, it is not an answer to say that the extraction is 
in blocks of less than 5 hectares, separated by 1 kilometre, 
because their collective impact may be significant, hence the 
0 necessity of a proper environmental assessment plan -
Taking note of the technical, scientific and environmental 
matters, MoEF, Government of India, issued various 
recommendations in March 2010 followed by the Model 
Rules, 2010 framed by the Ministry of Mines which have to 
be given effect to, inculcating the spirit of Article 48A, Article 
E 51A(g) read with Article 21 of the Constitution - The State of 
Haryana and various other States have not so far 
implemented the recommendations of the MoEF or the 
guidelines issued by the Ministry of Mines before issuing 
auction notices granting short term permits by way of auction 
F of minor mineral boulders, gravel, sand etc., in the river beds 
and elsewhere of less than 5 hectares - Direction to all the 
States, Union Territories, MoEF and the Ministry of Mines to 
give effect to the recommendations made by MoEF in its 
report of March 2010 and the model guidelines framed by the 
G Ministry of Mines, within a period of six months from date of 
this order and submit their compliance reports - Central 
Government also should take steps to bring into force the 
Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules 2010 
at the earliest - State Governments and UTs also should take 
H immediate steps to frame necessary rules under Section 15 
DEEPAK KUMAR ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND 821 
ORS. ETC. 
of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) 
A 
Act, 1957 taking into consideration the recommendations of 
MoEF in its Report of March 2010 and model guidelines 
framed by the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India - In the 
meanwhile, leases of minor mineral including their renewal 
for an area of less than five hectares be granted by the States/ B 
Union Territories only after getting· environmental clearance 
from the MoE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.