Case Brief: Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. 

 

Name of the Case	Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
Citation	1985 INSC 49
Date of the Judgement	12.03.1985
Petitioner	Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra
Defendants	State of UP
Bench/ Judges	A.N. Sen, P.N. Bhagwati and Ranganath Misra, JJ.
Statutes Involved	Constitution of India, Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961, Mines Act, 1952
Important Articles/ Sections	Constitution of India- Article 51 A(g)

FACTS 

Several applications have been made before the court for the removal of limestone, dolomite, and marble chips mined from the quarries. For mining, dynamite was being used, which caused landslides, deforestation, and disruption of the groundwater. 

Court, by its order, appointed a committee – ‘Bhairav Committee’ - for the purpose of inspecting the limestone quarries mentioned in the petition. A ‘working group’ was also appointed by the Government of India, which was headed by the same person as the committee. 

PROVISIONS INVOLVED 

Constitution of India 

Article 21: Right to life and personal Liberty 

Article 48: It directs the state to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. 

Article 51 A(g): It provides for the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wildlife. 

Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961: It lists down the set of rules and guidelines governing the operation of mines in India. 

Mines Act, 1952: This Act regulates mining operations and the granting of leases. 

LEGAL ISSUES 

The issues taken into consideration by the court are: 

1. Whether the quarries caused disturbance to ecology and pollution and affected air, water, and environment by the reason of their operation or stone crushing, or limestone claims? 

2. Whether the limestone deposits act as aquifers or not? 

3. Whether all the quarries be closed down due to ecological harm? 

ARGUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER’S SIDE 

1. The advocates submitted a report which was confined largely to geological aspects, and in the report, considerable reliance was placed on the main boundary thrust (M.B.T).  
2. They were of the view that the limestone quarries, which were dangerously close to MBT, should be closed down, because they were in a sensitive and vulnerable belt. 

ARGUMENTS FROM RESPONDENT’S SIDE 

1. The defense side claimed that mining was regulated under existing laws and is vital for industrial development and employment generation. 

JUDGMENT 

The Bhargav committee submitted its report and categorized the limestone quarries into three categories. 

1. Category A: where the adverse impacts of mining activity were less pronounced 

Category B: Those whose adverse impacts were more pronounced 

2. Category C: those that have been directed to be closed on account of deficiencies regarding safety and hazards of a more serious nature. 

The report submitted by the working group made the following categorization, 

1. Category 1: those quarries which are considered suitable for the continuation of mining operations 
2. Category 2: Those quarries which are unsuitable for mining operations. 

It is important to note that the areas listed in Category A of the committee and Category 1 are the same, and the areas listed in Categories B and C are included in Category 2. The only difference was with respect to category B; the committee was of the view that the quarries should not be closed down, and under category 2, they were unsuitable for operations. 

The court held that the Category 2 units shall be closed down without any liability against the government. 

However, in order to mitigate the hardships, the court directed the Government of India and the state of Uttar Pradesh that the lessees displaced shall be accorded priority in cases where the government identifies any other area for such grant. 

The court upheld that the quarries falling under Category A of the committee report or Category One of the working group reports and falling outside the city limits of Missouri should be allowed to be operated, subject to of course of requirements of the Mines Act. It will be up to the court's discretion to renew the license for operation. 

As for category B, the court directed that they should be closed down, save and except for some limestone quarries covered by mining leases no. 31, 36, and 37. These operating units shall work under the following directions, 

1. A high-powered committee headed by Mr. D Bandopadhyay will be formed. 
2. The units shall submit a scheme for their operations, which will be considered and examined by the Bandopadhyay Committee. 
3. The committee shall, without unnecessary delay, submit the report to the court expressing its opinion on whether the particular limestone quarry should be allowed to operate in accordance with this scheme and, if so, subject to what conditions. And if it cannot be allowed to be operated, the reasons for taking that view. 
4. In that report, the committee shall take into consideration any violations of the provisions of the Mines Act 1952 and Metalliferous Mines Regulations 1961. 
5. The committee should also take into consideration while examining the scheme submitted to it and ensure that the limestone on exploitation is specifically utilized only in special industries, having regard to its quality, and is not wasted by being utilized in industry for which high-grade limestone is not required. 
6. The expenses incurred while undertaking such an obligation will be funded by the state government. 

CONCLUSION 

The judgment reiterated the fundamental concept that Environmental Protection is a fundamental right, and it set a precedent for judicial intervention in ecological disputes. It underscored the need for scientific oversight in resource extraction and prioritizing long-term sustainability over short-term economic gains.