LexRURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRA, DEHRADUN versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRA, DEHRADUN A v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. SEPTEMBER 30, 1985 ".v [RANGANATH MISRA AND A.N. SEN, JJ.) B Ifft: I' • --+ PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION Conflict between development and conservation-Need for recon- citing the two in the larger interest of the country-Quarrying and exca- - A vation of lime stone deposits-Directions issued. c These Writ Petitions relate. to the mining of lime stone quarries in ·~ Dehradun mining area. Diiriog 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 D the Bhargav Committee appointed by the Court, on the mining of lime stone quarries in Dehradun-Mnssoorie 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 wiU be set out in the judgment to follow later. .,._ E 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 becatise the broad reasons have been adequately set F ~ out in that order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to elaborate them. [ 639C I 2. Industrial development is necessary for economic growth of the country. If, however, industrial growth is sought to be achieved by G haphazard and reckless working of the mines resulting in loss of life, loss of property, loss of basic amenities like supply of water'aod crea- lion of ecological imbalance, there may ultimately be DO real economic • ' growth and no real prosperity. It is necessary to strike a proper balance. Appropriate authorities at the time of granting leases should J take all these facts into consideration llDd also provide for adequate safeguards. (6400-F] H 637 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R. A ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 8209 & 8821 of 1983. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) M.A. Krishnamoorthy, Pramod Dayal, Rishi Kesh, R.B. B Mehrotra, M.G. Ramachandran, C.M. Nayyar, M. Karanjawala, S.A. Sayed, Sushi! Kumar Jain, S. Dikshit, P.P. Juneja, P.K. Jain, K.N. Bhatt, D.N. Misra, I. Makwana, A. Subba Rao, Harjinder Singh, B.P. Singh, Parijat Sinha, C.P. Lal, Shri Narain, S.K. Gupta, K.R. Nambiar, S.S. Khanduja, K.K. Jain, C.M. Nargolkar, Kapil Sibal, R. Ramachandran, Miss A. Subhashini for the Appearing Parties and C Devi Ditta Mal, Petitioner-in-person. The Judgment was delivered by AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J: We disposed of these two writ petitions by an order made on 12th March, 1985 by which we directed D that the lime stone quarries classified in category C in the Bhargava Committee Report should not be allowed to be operated and the same direction of closing down the lime stone quarries should also apply to the lime stone quarries in the Sahsatdhara Block even though they are placed in category B by the Bhargava Committel'. We also directed by our order that so far as the other lime stone quarries classified as E category B in the Bhargava Committee Report and category 2 in the Working Group Report are concerned, they should not be allowed to continue nor should they be closed down permanently without further inquiry and we accordingly appointed a high powered committee con- sisting of several officers to examine any scheme or schemes which may be submitted by the lessees of these lime stone quarries and F submit report to this Court on the·question whether in its opinion a particular lime stone quarry can be allowed to be operated in. accord- ance with the scheme and if so, subject to what conditions and if it cannot be allowed to be operated, the reasons for taking that view. We gave the same directions also in regard to the lime stone quarries classified as eategory A in Bhargava Committee Report and for cate- G gory 1 in the Working Group Report and falling within the city limits of Mussoorie. We also directed by our order that the lime stone quarries placed in category 2 by the Working Group other than those which are placed in categories
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.