Environmental clearance and forest approval are mandatory preconditions for mining in sensitive Aravalli areas, with strict monitoring required.

Environmental clearance for mining after the 27 January 1994 notification is required even where a lease is renewed, because renewal is treated as a fresh compliance point. Lands covered by Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act cannot be diverted to non-forest use without prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and mining is impermissible on plantation areas created under the Aravalli project. In ecologically sensitive Aravalli and ridge areas, mining and groundwater pumping remain subject to sustainable development, the precautionary principle, strict conditions, and continuous monitoring before any relaxation is considered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ban on mining and pumping of groundwater in the specified Aravalli and ridge areas should be vacated or modified; (ii) whether the environmental clearance notification of 27 January 1994 applies to renewal of mining leases; (iii) whether mining on lands covered by notifications under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act requires compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and whether mining can continue on plantation areas created under the Aravalli project; (iv) whether mining in the affected areas can be permitted only subject to sustainable development, stringent conditions, and monitoring.

Issue (i): Whether the ban on mining and pumping of groundwater in the specified Aravalli and ridge areas should be vacated or modified.

Analysis: The material on record, including the reports of expert bodies and the observations made on site, showed serious environmental degradation, depletion of groundwater, unscientific mining, and repeated non-compliance with earlier protective directions. The Court considered the risk to ecology and drinking water sources to be grave and found that the existing protective order could not be lifted before a fresh, mine-wise scrutiny by a monitoring mechanism.

Conclusion: The ban was not to be vacated or varied at that stage, and it was to continue until the Monitoring Committee submitted its report.

Issue (ii): Whether the environmental clearance notification of 27 January 1994 applies to renewal of mining leases.

Analysis: The notification was held to be mandatory and prospective, but renewal of an existing mining lease was treated as a fresh occasion for compliance. The Court held that commencement or continuation of mining after the notification could not bypass the requirement of prior environmental clearance merely because the original lease pre-dated the notification.

Conclusion: The notification applies when renewal of a mining lease is considered after the notification date, and environmental clearance is required.

Issue (iii): Whether mining on lands covered by notifications under Sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act requires compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and whether mining can continue on plantation areas created under the Aravalli project.

Analysis: The Court proceeded on the footing that the concerned areas were treated as forest in government records and in official affidavits. It held that such land could not be diverted to non-forest use without prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Court further held that land covered by large-scale plantation work undertaken under the Aravalli project, especially with foreign assistance, could not be subjected to mining because that would undermine the ecological restoration programme and defeat the policy of forest conservation.

Conclusion: Mining on areas covered by Sections 4 and 5 notifications could not be undertaken without approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and mining was impermissible on plantation areas under the Aravalli project.

Issue (iv): Whether mining in the affected areas can be permitted only subject to sustainable development, stringent conditions, and monitoring.

Analysis: The Court emphasised that mining is a hazardous activity and that development must be balanced against ecology and public health. Applying sustainable development and precautionary reasoning, it accepted the need for strict regulatory control, ongoing monitoring, compliance with mining plans and environmental management plans, and the possibility of closure or cancellation on violations. It therefore directed constitution of a Monitoring Committee and required consideration of recommencement only on an individual mine basis after compliance was assessed.

Conclusion: Mining could be permitted only on strict compliance with sustainable development norms and stringent conditions, subject to monitoring and possible cancellation for violations.

Final Conclusion: The protective regime against mining in the environmentally sensitive areas was upheld, the earlier restraint remained operative, and future consideration of any relaxation was left to mine-wise examination by the Monitoring Committee.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental clearances and forest-law approvals are mandatory preconditions for mining in ecologically sensitive areas, and where serious ecological harm and groundwater depletion are shown, the precautionary principle requires continued restraint and monitored, condition-based scrutiny before any relaxation.

---