LexRURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA AND ORS. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA
AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.
MAY 4, 1990
[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.)
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Doon Valley-Loss
-~
caused to ecology-Mining operations to stop-No petition to be enter-
C tained by Registry.
Disposing of on 30.8.1988 Writ Petitions Nos. 8209 and 8821 of
1983 this Court had come to the conclusion that the entire mining
operation in the Doon Valley should come to a halt excepting in the case
of a selected few, for reasons indicated in that order. Since then from time ·-
D
to time several applications had been moved by the ex-lessees seeking
permission for removing the stacked material or extension of time for
appropriating the mined material. In allowing or rejecting each such
application this Court has been expressing itself clearly that the Dom1
Valley should be made available for afforestation to make good the loss
caused to the ecology.
E
By today's order while disposing of all the pending applications
,
including one fresh Writ Petition in the light of the report of the
Monitoring Committee appointed by this Court, the Court,
HELD: No application either for original permission or for
F
extension of time shall hereafter be entertained by this Court and the
Registry is directed by this order not to entertain such petitions. It may
be that such direction may_ affect some one who has not been vigilant or
has on account of some other difficulty or hardship not been able to
remove the stacked material within his leasehold area in the Doon
Valley; bot taking the broad interest of the entire Valley into account
G
such individual losses or inconveniences have to be sacriticed and {or
overlooked and equities can no longer be allowed to be invoked. [76A-B)
A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be placed
by the Monitoring Committee by 30th June, 1990 for consideration of
the Court on 23rd July, 1990. The rehabilitation scheme which has
H
already been furnished by the appropriate committee should also be
72
./
RURAL LITIGATION v. STATE OF U.P. [MISRA, J.]
73
placed before the Court for orders on the said date. [SOB-C]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 1, 3 and 10 of 1989
and 12 of 1990.
IN
Writ Petition (C) No. 8209 of 1983 etc.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
V.A. Bobde, V. Gauri Shankar, M.K. Ramamurthy, Prashant
Bhushan, T. Sridharan, Ms. Shobha Dixit and M.A. Krishnamurthy for
the Petitioners.
Ms. Anil Katiyar, Ms. A. Subhashini R.P. Srivastava (NP),
Promod Dayal, R.B. Mehrotra and Raju Ramacl;iandran for the
Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. On 30th of August, 1988, while
disposing of two writ petitions being Nos. 8209 and 8821 of 1983, this
Court came to the conclusion· that the entire mining operation in the
Doon Valley should come to a halt. With a view to effectuating this
conclusion all mining activity was directed to be stopped excepting in
the case of a few for reasons indicated in that order.
Several applications thereafter came before t~is Court for per-
mission to remove stacked material and almost for one and a half years
now, many rounds of such applications have been filed before this
Court which have led to inquiries being made by executive authorities,
a joint inspection by the District Judge and the District Magistrate as
also separate reports from the Monitoring Commi:tee appointed by
this Court. After hearing parties in some cases the court has granted
permission for removal and extended time for approJriating the mined
material. On the plea that within the time given by the Court removal
was not possible, fresh extensions of extended da'es have also been
asked for.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
At one stage, the Monitoring Committee cported that taking
advantage of such extensions further mining was l:eing illegally under-
taken. The Monitoring Committee also pointed ~ut that where the
H
74
I
' ' \
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1990) 3 S.C.R ..
.
,
~ .
\
-
.
. A mined material was spread over it had consolidated and grass as also
other vegetations have started growing. In' these circumstances, while
either allowing or rejecting the applications for removal or extension
or allowing removal under restrictions, this Court has been expressing
itself clearly that ·the Doon Valley should be made available for
afforestation ·to. make good the Io.ss that had beenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.