Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P.
& Ors
Facts of the Case
Limestone mining processes in the Doon valley was being carried out between 1955 and
1965. In 1961, the Uttar Pradesh State minister of Mines banned mining industries in the
state. But in 1962, the state government decided various mining leases for 20 years and
quarrying was happening again. When leases came for regeneration in 1982, the state forbade
them on the ground of ecological devastation. Mining companies extended the high court
against this verdict of the government. Allahabad high court permitted mining in the Doon
valley, considering economic profit over ecological factor.
In 1983 Dehradun Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) directed a complaint
letter of India against environmental degradation to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
registered this complaint as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution. More
than 100 mines joined this and the litigation became complex. The Supreme Court ordered an
assessment of all current mining operations in the valley. The court also focused on the state
government to start a database for the cultivation of the region.
Issues
The issues considered by the Hon’ble Supreme court, in this particular case, were:
1. Whether the forest conservation act, 1980 would be valid in the renewal procedure of
leases or not? Leases were settled to mining operators in 1962 and a forest
conservation act was approved in 1980.
2. Whether the mining actions on government forests desecrated the forest conservation
act? The act forbids those non- forest activities on forest land, which do not have the
support of the central government.
3. Whether environmental conservation should be agreed priority over the economic
assistance of the nation?
Contentions of the Petitioner
1. Environmental destruction in Doon Valley would lead to impediments in the living of

local citizens, which disrupts their fundamental right to a nutritious environment. The
right to Wholesome Environment is under article 21 of the Indian constitution a part
of the Right to Life.
2. Rejection of lease restitution by the public withdrew the state’s consent for mining.
3. Forests come under a coexisting list, so sanction of the central government should
also be compulsory for mining activities.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondents resisted that-
1. The disturbing issue should not be obvious by the Supreme Court, but the
administrative establishments of the state under the Environment Protection Act. It
should be a matter of the state’s authority whether the deposits should be exploited at
the cost of ecology and environmental consideration or the industrial requirement
should be otherwise satisfied.
2. Respondents contended that all procedures of mining and quarrying were being
passed out by the provisions of the Mines act of 1952.
Observations
1. The case was trailed in Supreme Court in 1983 and case proceedings were happening
from then. In 1980, when the case was still running in the court, the parliament
approved the Environment Protection Act. The respondent council specified that as
the new act agreements with the condition at issue, the court should discharge the
case. The court should leave the matter to the controlling authority under the EPA act.
The court disallowed the argument on the foundation that litigation had already begun
before the depiction of law and important testaments, evidence, and other orders had
been delivered already.
2. Respondents contended that mining operations were being passed out in harmony
with the mining act, 1952, and other relevant trials. To detect the details, the court
selected the Bhargava committee. On the commendation of the Bhargava committee,
the court ordered the cease operations of most unsafe mines falling in Mussoorie City.
Then in 1985, the court allotted the second committee (the Bandyopadhyay
Committee), to review the report of the earlier committee. This committee also
suggested the aid for exaggerated residents of the valley. The court permitted some
mining operators to work in the valley after studying environmental poverty from
them. A major operation, possessed by the state of Uttar Pradesh, could also continue
open because the environmental harm was less clear.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the Act does not permit mining in the forest area. The Act
applies to renewals as well and even if there was a provision for renewal in lease agreement
on exercise of lessee's option, the requirements of the Act had to be satisfied before such
renewal could be granted. Whether there is a case of first instance or renewal following
exercise of option by precedent lessee, the compliance of section 2 of the Act is necessary as
a condition precedent.
After this, the Valley was elected as an organically delicate part under the Environment
Protection Act. Also, the centre selected a Doon Valley Board, under the chairmanship of the
Minister for Environment and Forests was charged with preserving and restoring tainted areas
of the Valley. The Supreme Court decided that mining in earmarked forests in the Dehradun
valley desecrated the Forest Conservation Act. However, the Forest Conservation Act only
forbids non-forest activities on forest lands that do not have the approval of the Central
Government. In addition to ecological honesty and national interests, the Supreme Court was
also worried about the well-being of mine operators and laborers left unwaged by end of the
Dehradun Valley operations.
The Court issued the following directions:
1. Orders that mine lessees whose operations were terminated by the court would be
given priority for leases in new areas open to limestone mining.
2. Orders that the Eco-Task Force of the central department of Environment reclaim and
reforest the area damaged by mining and that workers displaced by mine closure be
given priority for jobs with the Eco-Task Force operations in the region.
Conclusion
The Constitution of India assures the Right to a wholesome environment as a fundamental

right under Article 21. Mechanization leads to development which further leads to the
poverty of the environment. To resolution, this issue, the doctrine of maintainable
development has come up. i.e., there must be stability between development and ecology.
Environmental degradation is not right on the stake of national interest. According to the
socio-economic wants of the country, administrative and legislative policies for consistent
environmental and developmental values should be expressed.
Courts play a very vital role in determining the scope of the powers and purposes of
administrative activities and in striking stability between the environment and development.
The need of the hour is to strike a balance between the two i.e., development on one side and
pollution allowed environment on the other.

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Dehradun & Ors. Vs. State Of U.P.

Facts of the Case

Contentions of the Petitioner

1. Environmental destruction in Doon Valley would lead to impediments in the living of

Contentions of the Respondent

The Respondents resisted that-

The Court issued the following directions:

The Constitution of India assures the Right to a wholesome environment as a fundamental

You might also like