2004 (3) TMI 817 - SC - Indian Laws

Mining Ban Near Delhi-Haryana Border Upheld: Strict Environmental Compliance Required for Future Operations.

M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

The SC upheld the prohibition on mining activities near the Delhi-Haryana border and Aravalli hills pending the Monitoring Committee's report. It mandated ... Environmental degradation due to mining activities - Compliance with statutory provisions and environmental clearances - Impact on groundwater and ecological balance - Applicability of various environmental notifications and laws - Recommendations and implementation of expert reports - Formation and role of a Monitoring Committee. Whether the mining activity in area upto 5 kilometers from the Delhi-Haryana border on the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli hills causes environment degradation and what directions are required to be issued? HELD THAT:- The-natural sources of air, water and soil cannot be utilized if the utilization results in irreversible damage to environments. There has been accelerated degradation of environment primarily on account of lack of effective enforcement of environmental laws and non-compliance of the statutory norms. This Court has repeatedly said that the right to live is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for full enjoyment of life. The grant of permission for mining and approving mining plan and the scheme by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India by itself does not mean that mining operation can commence. It cannot be accepted that by approving Mining Plan and Scheme by Ministry of Mines, Central Government is deemed to have approved mining and it can commence forthwith on such approval. Section 13 of the MMRD Act and the Rules made in exercise of powers under the said section, deal inter alia, with the aspect of grant of mining of lease and not commencement of mining operations. Rules made under Section 18, however, deal with commencement of mining operations and steps required to be taken for protection of environment by preventing or controlling any pollution which may be caused by mining operation. A mining lease holder is also required to comply with other statutory provisions such as Environment (protection) Act, 1966, Air (Prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1981, The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Mere approval of the mining plan by Government of India, Ministry of Mines would not absolve the lease holder from complying with the other provisions. The measures are not required to remain only on paper but strictly complied for the protection of environment and control of pollution as a result and consequence of mining operations. Report of CMPDI on Aravalli - The environmental cost needs to be internalized in the cost of the product and there is need to limit the supply options. Noticing that the Aravalli range prevents the desert from spreading into Indo-Gangetic plains, it has been suggested that all future planning should not only concentrate to meet the ever growing demand of the products but due consideration should also be given to protect the chain. All the developmental activities should, therefore, be planned in a coherent manner and there should be integrated approach for sustainable development. Having regard to the detailed study, the recommendations and action plan has been dealt with in Chapter VIII of the report, inter alia, suggesting that concerted efforts from various departments are needed. The report states that though the environmental upgradation measures need to be taken more seriously by the mine and other industrial operators, there is need on the part of the State Government to immediately start these measures in the areas where degradation has already taken place. The other recommendations have already been broadly noticed. No one has raised any objection to the recommendations contained in the report of CMPDI. We accept the recommendations in principle. Applicability of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to areas treated as forest by State Forest Department - In the instant case, it is not necessary to decide the legal effect of issue of the notification under Section 4 and/or 5 of the Act. Not only in their record the area has been shown as forest but the affidavits have been filed in this Court stating the area to be 'forest'. Our attention has also been drawn to letter dated 26th November, 2002 addressed by Divisional, Forest Officer, Faridabad to Mining Officer, Faridabad forwarding to him a list of blocked forest areas of Faridabad district and requesting him to ensure that the said forest areas are not affected by any mining operations as also to a letter dated 17th September, 2001 sent by Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana (Panchkula) to Director of Environment, Haryana stating therein that no mining activity can be permitted in the area. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot permit the State Government to take a compete summersault in these proceedings and contend that the earlier stand that the area is 'forest was under some erroneous impressions. In the present case, for the purposes of the FC Act, these areas shall be treated as forest and for use of it for non-forestry purpose, it would be necessary to comply with the provisions of the FC Act. We may also note that assuming that there was any confusion or erroneous impression, it ought to have been first sorted out at appropriate level and where affidavits had been filed in this Court, clarifications/orders sought before issue of the mining leased respect of such area. Conclusions: 1. The order dated 6th May 2002, prohibiting mining activities, cannot be vacated or varied before considering the Monitoring Committee's report. 2. The notification dated 27th January 1994 applies to the renewal of mining leases. 3. Mining activities in areas covered under Sections 4 and/or 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, require approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 4. No mining can be carried out in areas where plantations have been undertaken under the Aravalli project with foreign funds. 5. Mining can only be permitted based on sustainable development and compliance with stringent conditions. 6. The Aravalli hill range must be protected, and if adverse effects on ecology continue, total stoppage of mining may be considered. 7. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) is directed to prepare an action plan for the restoration of environmental quality in the Aravalli hills. 8. Violation of conditions will risk cancellation of mining leases. Issues Involved:1. Environmental degradation due to mining activities.2. Compliance with statutory provisions and environmental clearances.3. Impact on groundwater and ecological balance.4. Applicability of various environmental notifications and laws.5. Recommendations and implementation of expert reports.6. Formation and role of a Monitoring Committee.Summary:1. Environmental Degradation Due to Mining Activities:The Supreme Court examined whether mining activities within 5 kilometers of the Delhi-Haryana border and in the Aravalli hills cause environmental degradation. The Haryana Pollution Control Board (HPCB) reported that mining operations were causing ecological disasters, leading to a recommendation to stop mining within a 5 km radius of Badkal Lake and Surajkund. The National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) also recommended stringent pollution control and land reclamation measures before lifting the mining ban.2. Compliance with Statutory Provisions and Environmental Clearances:The Court emphasized the necessity of compliance with environmental laws, including the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It was noted that mining operations must have an approved Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and obtain clearances from relevant authorities. The Court highlighted that the notification dated 27th January 1994, requiring environmental clearance for mining projects, applies to both new projects and renewals of existing leases.3. Impact on Groundwater and Ecological Balance:Reports from the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) and other expert bodies indicated that mining activities were depleting groundwater levels and causing significant ecological damage. The Court noted that mining operations intersecting groundwater levels were leading to wastage and pollution of precious water resources. The Court directed that no mining should be allowed in areas where groundwater is affected.4. Applicability of Various Environmental Notifications and Laws:The Court discussed the applicability of the notification dated 7th May 1992, which restricts mining activities in the Aravalli range, and the notification dated 27th January 1994, which mandates environmental clearance for mining projects. It was clarified that these notifications are mandatory and apply to both new and renewed mining leases. The Court also emphasized the need for compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, for mining activities in forest areas.5. Recommendations and Implementation of Expert Reports:The Court accepted the recommendations of various expert bodies, including NEERI, EPCA, and CMPDI, for stringent pollution control, land reclamation, and environmental management measures. It was directed that these recommendations be implemented before considering the resumption of mining activities. The Court also highlighted the need for a comprehensive action plan for the restoration of environmental quality in the Aravalli hills.6. Formation and Role of a Monitoring Committee:The Court constituted a Monitoring Committee comprising representatives from various government departments and public representatives to oversee the implementation of environmental safeguards and compliance with statutory conditions. The Committee was directed to inspect individual mines and submit a report within three months, based on which the Court would decide on the resumption of mining activities.Conclusions:1. The order dated 6th May 2002, prohibiting mining activities, cannot be vacated or varied before considering the Monitoring Committee's report.2. The notification dated 27th January 1994 applies to the renewal of mining leases.3. Mining activities in areas covered under Sections 4 and/or 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, require approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.4. No mining can be carried out in areas where plantations have been undertaken under the Aravalli project with foreign funds.5. Mining can only be permitted based on sustainable development and compliance with stringent conditions.6. The Aravalli hill range must be protected, and if adverse effects on ecology continue, total stoppage of mining may be considered.7. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) is directed to prepare an action plan for the restoration of environmental quality in the Aravalli hills.8. Violation of conditions will risk cancellation of mining leases.