Case Brief: Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India 

Name of the Case	Tarun Bharat Sangh v. Union of India
Citation	MANU/SC/0094/1992
Date of the Judgement	11.10.1991
Petitioner	Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar
Respondent	Union of India (UOI) and Ors
Bench/ Judges	M.N. Venkatachaliah and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.
Statutes Involved	Constitution of India, Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Environment Protection Act, 1986,  Forest Conservation Act, 1980, Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules
Important Articles/ Sections	RAJASTHAN FOREST ACT, 1953 - Section 29 (3)

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Alwar region, particularly in the Aravali Range, they have been widespread illegal mining around the Sariska Tiger Reserve, which is declared a protected area. This mining activity causes depletion of the groundwater level, destruction of forest cover, destruction of wildlife habitat, and an impact on the local community.

Tarun Bharat Sangh is a voluntary organisation dedicated to environmental protection filed a petition challenging the mining leases passed by the government despite various notifications declaring the area is protected. Praying to stop all mining operations in the Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary.

 The ascertain the facts, the court formed committees.  

PROVISIONS INVOLVED 

Constitution of India

Article 21: Right to life 

Article 32: Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court:

Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953

Section 29(3): Power of the state government to declare a reserve forest.

Section 30: Outlines acts prohibited in a reserved forest.

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

 Section 18: Declaration of wildlife sanctuaries

Section 35: Declaration of National Parks

Environment Protection Act 1986

 Section 3: Power of the central government to make rules for the upliftment of the environment. 

 Forest Conservation Act 1980

 Section 2: Prohibitory section

Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules

 Rule 4 (6): Granting of mining leases or prospecting licenses for minor minerals. 

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether the notification issued by the state government that declared the parts od the area as a protected forest was valid and effective or merely a provisional one. 
2. Whether the findings of the committee could be relied upon for making any decision or passing any order?
3. Whether the mining leases that were granted by the state government, permitting the mining around the protected forest, are legal and permissible?
4. Whether the Application of the state government seeking to remove 5.02 square kilometers of the area from being an area of ‘protected forest’ was valid?

ARGUMENTS FROM THE PETITIONER’S SIDE

The learned counsel from the petitioner’s side contended that 

1. They claimed that the mining activities were being carried out in an area that is protected, as it is within the Sarsika Tiger Reserve and other protected areas, thereby violating environmental laws.
2. That area was a protected forest under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, a National Park under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and a tiger reserve under Project Tiger.
3. The mining caused soil erosion, groundwater depletion, and destruction of wildlife habitat, impacting the ecological balance.
4. Prior approval was not obtained from the Central government as per the legislation.
5. The counsel alleged that the state government was in collusion with the miners.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT’S SIDE

The learned counsel from the respondent’s side contended that

1. They initially suggested that the grant of a mining lease was the result of the confusion in the boundaries of the ‘reserved forest’, ‘National Park’, and the mining location.
2. They later submitted that they realised that the mining site was within the protected zones.
3. They argued that the mining activity is of significant economic importance.
4. Some mine owners contended that the notification was provisional.
5. Some of the mine owners also contended that the demarcation of the land made by the Committee was erroneous and raised technical objections.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED

The court allowed the petition.

The bench observed that Section 29 of the Rajasthan Act empowers the state government to declare any forest land or waste land to be a protected forest. Once declared as protected forest, the distinction between wasteland and forest land disappears. It is undisputed that the mines were located on the property of the state.

The notification was not provisional or preliminary but was valid as per section 29 of the Pajasthan Act, which contemplates only one order and not 2 in any event.

The committee was formed under the leadership of Justice M.L. Jain by the court to demarcate and identify the areas declared as protected forest with the help of the revenue and forest departments of the state. They had undertaken elaborate discussions and demarcated the areas declared as protected areas. There is no reason to deny the reports.

As for the question of shifting the declared protected area, the court is of the view that it is up to the Ministry of Forest and Environment to decide. As the Forest Act and the Environment Protection Act may serve different purposes, and no such limitation is prescribed under the Forest (Conservation) Act and the Rajasthan Forest Act. Therefore, the Ministry was to submit its report within three months.

The court refused the mine-owners' contention that there wasn’t proper demarcation of the area when the central and state governments made identical borders. The state government produced a detailed map of the area. 

The bench issued the following directions:

1. The bench observed that there is a distinction between the listed mines (208 out of 262) and those that are situated outside the area (54). 
2. The grant and renewal of leases of listed mines for mining is illegal in itself, as they commenced their operations without prior approval from the Central Government under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the Forest Conservation Act.
3. For the mines located outside the area but within the tiger reserve, their grant of license cannot be declared to be illegal in itself, but they may continue for four months, within which the respective mine owners have to take permission from the Central Government.

CONCLUSION

This is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court bench where the sanctity of the protected forest is secured and declared to be of paramount importance. The court ruled against the illegal mining activities in the Sariska Tiger Reserve and protected the forest. It reinforced the constitutional mandate and set a precedent of judicial intervention in matters of environmental degradation.