CASE ANALYSIS

RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA &

ORS. V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

[(1985) SCR (3) 169]

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CITATION: [(1985) SCR (3) 169]

BENCH: Bhagwati P. N., Nath Sen A., Misra R. JJJ

DELIVERED ON: 12 MARCH, 1985

RELEVANT SECTION/ARTICLE: Article 51A (g), Article 21, Article 48A &
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and Mines Act

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1) This case is also called the ‘Dehradun valley litigation’ or the ‘Doon valley case’.
Limestone was being quarried from the Mussoorie range of the Himalayas by blowing
up part of the hills with dynamite. There was loss of vegetation in the area due to the
quarrying activities, which resulted in landslides in the areas, killing the villagers and
destroying their house and cattle. It was also creating water pollution and soil erosion
in the area. The natural beauty of the Valley had gone.
2) Mining was banned by the Uttar Pradesh Minister of mines in the year 1961. However,
in 1962, the state government allowed mining leases for 20 years and quarry operations
restarted. In 1982, the state decline renewal of 18 leases on the basis of ecological
destruction. However, the Allahabad High court granted an injunction which allowed
mining to be continued. The court granted the permission by considering economic
profit over ecological factors.

www.judicateme.com
 CASE ANALYSIS

3) In 1983, a non-governmental group, the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, send
a letter to the Supreme court against this environmental degradation. The court decided
to accept the letter as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution. Later
on another application with similar allegations were filed and it was decided that the
two petitions will be heard together. The supreme court ordered an enquiry of all the
mining operations taking place in the valley and also asked the State government to
undertake certain measure for reforestation of the area.

ISSUES RAISED:

 Whether the mining activities in the Doon Valley are violative of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980 as it forbids non-forest activities in the forest land?
 Should the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 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.
 Which is more important, conservation of the environment or economic growth and
profit of the country?

RULE OF LAW WHICH APPLIES:

The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was passed by the Parliament with the aim of
protecting the forest, its flora and fauna. It aims at preventing deforestation and safeguard the
ecological balance in nature.
The act prohibits using the forest lands for any non-forest purpose unless prior
permission has been taken from the Central government. Non-forest purposes have been
defined as any act that may require to breakup or clear any forest area other than the purpose
of reforestation. The 1988 amendment of the act, also prohibits leasing of the forest to anyone.
The forest area shouldn’t just be protected but measures need to be taken to enhance
it. 30% of the Nation should be under adequate forest cover. Again, in 1992, this act was
amended. The 1992 amendment created provisions for some non-forest activity in the forest.
Cultivation of certain plants such as rubber, tea, coffee, etc. where not allowed.

www.judicateme.com
 CASE ANALYSIS

Mining activities, which fall under non-forest activities, can be allowed in the forests
but with the permission of the Central government. Before performing any non-forest activity,
the state government must submit a cost benefit analysis and an Environmental Impact
Statement.

Section 51A(g) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, states that it is the duty of
every Indian citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including the forests of the
country.

Under article 21 of the Indian constitution, the right to live in a healthy environment
has been considered a fundamental right. Article 48A of the directive principles of the state
policy also mentions that the state is entitled to make laws for the protection and improvement
of the environment to safeguard the forests of the country.

APPLICATION OF RULE OF LAW WHICH APPLIES:

Previously, ‘Forest’ was covered under the State List. However, in 1976, under the
42nd Amendment it was removed from the state list and inserted in the Concurrent list. This
change was brought about when the Central government realized that forests where also a
matter of national interest.

Initially this litigation started with two applications seeking relief, but over the time,
more than hundred mines and governmental agencies joined the litigation making it complex.
This forced the court appoint several committees to check whether the quarries were following
the safety standards and rules mentioned in Mines Act of 1952. The court also directed the
mines and quarries to refrain from blasting operations, although it was modified later on. One
such committee called the Bhargav committee was set up to inspect the limestone quarries in
question. This committee divided the quarries into three categories- quarries where mining
maybe carried on after taking necessary safety measure (Group A), quarries where mining may
not be shut down gradually (Group B), quarries where mining needs to be shut down
immediately (Group C). It prepared reports on the mines on the damage caused by the mines
to the valley and also made a list of mines that where permitted to function.

www.judicateme.com
 CASE ANALYSIS

In 1985, the court held that the C category of the mines should be completely shut
down. No mine should be able to take advantage of the fact that they have been granted
permission to continue its operations even after the expiry of its lease. Category A and B of the
mines where subject to further investigation.

Another committee called the Bandyopadhyay Committee was formed in 1952, to

review the report of the previous committee. It also allowed the miners to submitted plans to
safeguard the environment and to hear the claims of people who were negatively affected by
the mining in the region.

The court also considered various ecological factors like the natural resource water,
which were being adversely affected due to the quarrying activities. Initially limestone
quarrying was carried out only in a small government controlled manner.

However, in the Bandyopadhyay Committee report it was seen that with time, over
105 quarrying licenses where issued that were affecting the environment. According to the
report of this committee, the court came to the conclusion that mining in the valley should be
stopped. Later it stated that mining should only be allowed to an extent it is necessary in the
interest of defence of the country and safeguarding of foreign exchange position.

The court rejected the first affidavit that was submitted by the central government
on the uses of limestone in industries in Uttar Pradesh. It failed to provide a satisfactory list of
alternative resources of limestone in India. The second affidavit all the required evaluations
that helped the court come to the conclusion that mining in the Dehradun-Mussoorie Region
was not justified.

In 1986, when this case was still on trial, the Environment Protection Act was
passed. The miners contended that the court should dismiss the case and the issue should be
left with the concerning authorities under Environment Protection. The court however, rejected
this argument on the grounds that the litigation had already started and necessary orders have
been passed to the Environment Protection Act was passed.

www.judicateme.com
 CASE ANALYSIS

In 1988, the supreme court held that the mining in the Dehradun Valley region did
violate the Forest conservation act, although, the act only prohibits non-forest activities that
are not approved by the government. It concluded that although the mines significantly provide
to the country’s economy, its functioning should not be allowed at the cost of the environment.
As a result, the mines in the valley were ordered to be closed permanently, expect for three
specified mines.

Later a Monitoring Committee was set up by the court to oversee the process of
reforestation, mining and restore the condition of the Doon Valley. This committee comprised
of Central, State, and Local officials and two ‘public-spirited’ citizens. The operating mines
have to follow the undertaking given by the committee and ensure that the ecological and
environmental balance is preserved. The court also ordered the mines to the mines that were
allowed to operate in the area, have to give 25% of the profit to the committee as deposit. On
the expiry of the lease, the mines were not allowed to carry on with the mining activities or
seek for renewal of their leases. The Vijay Shree Mines, one of the mines that was allowed to
continue its operation until 1990, misused its permission and continued to quarry lime stones
in an unscientific manner. This cause great damage to the area and Vijay Shree Mines was
ordered to pay a fine of Rs.3 lakhs by the court.

There was an issue regarding the whether the mining leases need to be done
according to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The Supreme Court of India held that for the
renewal of a lease, the law in force during the date of renewal should be followed. Previously,
renewal of mining leases was not a vested right and unless prior concurrence of the Central
Government was obtained mining in a forest area was completely prohibited. The approval of
the Central Government is a condition precedent and the grant of a lease or renewal without
such approval renders the lease void. The same has been seen in the case of Ambika Quarry
Works case. The Supreme court issued the following directions:

1. The mine lessees whose operations were terminated by the court would be given
priority for leases in new areas open to limestone mining.
2. The Eco-Task Force of the central department of Environment should undertake the
duty of reforesting the area that has been damaged by mining. The workers who have

www.judicateme.com
 CASE ANALYSIS

lost their jobs due to the shutting down of the mine must be given priority for jobs with
the Eco-Task Force operations in the region.

The outcome of the Dehradun Valley litigation was the ARC Cement Case. In this case, the
company was originally functioning in the valley, but was ordered by the supreme court to
relocate as it was polluting the area. The petitioner was asked to provide the court with
alternative options where the factory could be shifted after conferring with the State
Government and the Pollution Board. However, after four years, the company still hadn’t been
able to come up with a new location for the company. In November, 1991, the supreme court
recorded some of the terms of a general understanding between the company and the UP State
Mineral Development Corporation for the supply of limestone and other related issues. When
no decision was reached on where the new site should be, the court acknowledged that certain
aspects of the arrangement remained to be negotiated between the parties.

However, the company could not be relocated and the factory failed. In 1995, the Board for
Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ordered ARC Cement to wind up.

CONCLUSION:

Economic growth and protection of environment have always been a conflict for
each other. Yet, a balance must be established between them and laws must be made
accordingly. The goal of sustainable development can only be achieved with the help of the
state.

A sustainable approach needs to be followed to have a healthy environment, there

must exist a balance between development and ecology. Ecological degradation cannot take
place at the stake of national economy.

This case was a landmark judgement as it was the first case that required the court
to balance environmental and ecological integrity against industrial demands. The questions
arising from this case are not only important to the people of the Mussoorie Hill range of the
Himalayas but also affects the welfare of the generality of people living in the country at large.

www.judicateme.com
 CASE ANALYSIS

The judges have emphasized on environmental issues rather than just focusing on the legal
aspect.

A process must be implemented which can ensure sustainable development for

generations by simultaneously improving the quality of human life as well as living
harmoniously with nature while maintaining the carrying capacity of life supporting eco-
system. It mainly focuses on the integration of developmental and environmental imperatives.
Thus it can be conferred that, sustainable development is the only solution and administrative
actions must be taken accordingly.

REFERENCES:

1. https://lawtimesjournal.in/rural-litigation-and-entitlement-kendra-ors-v-state-of-uttar-
pradesh-ors-case-summary/
2. https://lawtimesjournal.in/rural-litigation-and-entitlement-kendra-ors-v-state-of-uttar-
pradesh-ors-case-summary/
3. https://www.lawcolumn.in/case-analysis-rural-litigation-and-entitlement-kendra-ors-
vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors/
4. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/996/The-Dehradun-Valley-Litigation.html
5. https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-forest-conservation-act-1980/
6. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aad0e4b014971140b0ec

www.judicateme.com