CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

Case comment on Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra,

Dehradun v State of UP AIR 1987 SC 2187

SUBMITTED TO- DR. SUCHI SINGH

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
SLG
CUSB

SUBMITTED BY- SHIVAM KUMAR PANDEY

B.SC. LLB (SEVENTH SEMESTER)
CUSB1513115016

1
 CONTENT

Sr. Title Page

No No.
.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
1 03
PREFACE
2 04
INTRODUCTION
3 05
4 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 06
5 MAJOR RULINGS RELATED TO THE CASE 08
6 ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF 11
RLEK, DEHRADUN V. STATE OF UP
CONCLUSION
7 12

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my professor Dr. SUCHI SINGH for giving me
this assignment and helping me acquire a comprehensive knowledge of environmental law in our
country.

I would like to thanks my classmates. I benefitted a lot from their discussion.

I would like to thank my university and its administration, library and computer centre staff for
providing me with the infrastructure and a conductive environment to complete my project.

3
 PREFACE

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) is a non-governmental organization with its
work base situated in the state of Uttarakhand, India. Its office is located in Dehradun, the
capital of Uttarakhand. It evolved as a result of years of struggle against atrocities meted out
to underprivileged and marginalized communities in the region.

RLEK has fought in the courts of justice for communities as well as individuals. Some of the
decisions given by the courts in these cases forced the Government to pass new acts. The
Kendra is working persistently in order to bring about a countrywide exposure to widespread
violation of fundamental rights. RLEK initiatives have led to dissemination of: Bonded
Labour Abolition Act, 1976; Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1988;
Environment Protection Act, 1986.

4
 Introduction

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

right under Article 21. All the sectors of the economy make demands on forest resources.
Forest land is sacrificed for massive development projects. Large industrial interests use
forest as the source of raw material for paper, pulp and rayon mills. Export of Timber
products generates foreign revenue. Small businesses depend on forests as the source of wood
for myriad products. Forest and wild life parks also generate tourist income. Finally, forests
serve as a source of emotional and spiritual renewal for visitors from India and all over the
world.

Given the breath of demands of Indian forests, it is not surprising that the problem of
deforestation has gained significant public attention and that implementation of conservation
and afforestation programmes have sparked intense controversy.

Courts play a very crucial role in determining the scope of the powers and functions of
administrative agencies and in striking a balance between the environment and development.
The case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of UP is an
important judicial interpretation in the on-going debate between development of the economy
and protection of the environment.

The case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun v. State of UP, is a very
significant case in the history of environment protection movement in India. It involved the
issue of environment and ecological imbalance as well as pollution of rivers and streams and
recognized the epistolary jurisdiction of the court and required a balance to be maintained
between development and conservation of natural resources. The main allegation related to
unauthorized and illegal mining operations carried on in the Mussooire hills and the area
around it adversely affecting the ecology of the area which led to environmental disturbances.
SC directed all fresh quarries to be stopped and called upon the District Magistrate and
Superintendent of Police, Dehra Dun to strictly enforce the order.

5
 Background of the Case

Forest Laws and Policy

Earlier Forests were placed in the State List of the Constitution. Forest Dept. of individual
states continued to regulate forests in accord with the Indian Forest Act of 1927, as
implemented by State regulations. Public forests, those in which State Governments have
proprietary interests are divided into 3 categories:

- Reserve forest

- Village Forests

- Protected Forests

Forest land or waste land may be notified as a reserve forest by a State Government’s
declaration in the official gazette. Village forest are established when a State assigns to a
village-community the rights over any land which is constituted as a reserve forest. The
government must survey the rights and claims of private persons in forests being considered
for protection but may declare the forest area a protected forest pending completion of the
survey. The Act authorizes state governments to close portions of the forests as long as the
remainder of the forest is sufficient for individuals and communities to exercise their legal
rights to use the forest. State Governments may prohibit certain activities such as gazing,
cultivation, charcoal burning and stone quarrying. The State Government may also regulate
all rights and privileges for use of the protected forest.

In extending to forest lands which are not the property of the Government, the Indian Forest
Act represents strong governmental intrusion into private rights. State Government may
regulate timber cutting, cultivation, grazing and burning or clearing vegetation on private
forest land. The Act also authorizes state governments to acquire private land for public
purposes under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.

Countering governmental powers under the Act, the Indian Forest Act also provides
protection and compensation for legally recognized individual or community rights to forests
land or forest products. The forty-second Amendment Act of 1976 transferred forests from
the State List to Concurrent List of the Constitution. This transfer empowered the Central
Government to act directly in managing India’s forests. The Ministry of Environmental and

6
Forests now has administrative jurisdiction over national forest policy, forestry development
and the Indian Forest.

The Dehra Dun Valley Litigation: Forest Conservation and National Needs

The Dehradun Valley litigation is the first case requiring the Supreme Court to balance
environmental and ecological integrity against industrial demands on forest resources. The
case arose from haphazard and dangerous limestone quarrying practices in the Mussoorie Hill
Range of the Himalayas. Miners blasted out the hills with dynamite, extracting limestone
from thousands of acres. The mines also dug deep into the hillsides, an illegal practice that
resulted in the cave-ins and slumping. As a result, the hillsides were stripped of vegetation.
Landslides killed villagers and destroyed their homes, cattle and agricultural lands. The State
of Uttar Pradesh failed to regulate the mining as required by existing mining laws. In 1961,
the State minister of mines sharply curtailed mining in the area. In less than a year, however,
quarry operations successfully lobbied with the Chief Minister of the State to reopen mining
operations. Mining leases were granted for 20 years. Illegal and destructive practices
continued and corrupt and ineffective state officials flouted existing mining safety rules with
no enforcement.

In 1982, eighteen leases came up for renewal. The State rejected all renewal applications
recognizing the extent of ecological devastation in the Valley. However, the Allahabad High
Court issued an injunction allowing the applicants to continue mining, presumably in the
belief that economic considerations outweighed ecological factors.

In 1983, the Supreme Court received a letter from the Rural Litigation and Entitlement
Kendra, complaining against the environmental degradation, the Court treated the letter as a
writ petition under Article 32. The case developed into complex litigation as lessees of more
than 100 mines joined the action. The Supreme Court played an important role essentially in
conducting a comprehensive environmental review and analysis of the national need for
mining operations located in the Dehradun Valley. In addition, the Court provided for
funding and administrative oversight of reforestration of the region.

7
 Major Rulings Related to the Case

Preceding Judgements

 In 1983, the Court prohibited blasting operations, while it was reviewing to determine
whether the mines were being operated in compliance with the safety standards as laid
down in the Mines Act of 1952 and other relevant mining regulations. The Court
appointed an expert committee (the Bhargava Committee) to assess the mines.
 In March 1985, upon the recommendation of the Bhargava Committee, the Court
ordered that the most dangerous mines and those falling within the Mussoorie City
Board limits be denied leases and that their operations cease immediately. The second
committee (the Bandyopadhyay Committee) was empowered to consider plans
submitted by the miners to safeguard the environment and to hear the claims of people
adversely affected by the mining. The Court determined that a third group of mines,
including a major operation owned by the state of Uttar Pradesh, could remain open
because the environmental damage was less clear.
 In 1987, after the review of the Bandyopadhyay committee’s report, which was based
on ecological considerations, the Court concluded that mining in the Valley should
cease.
 The Court stated that while they restate their conclusion that mining activity should
only be permitted to the extent it is necessary in the interests of the defence of the
country and safeguarding of the foreign exchange position.
 The Court rejected the first affidavit from the Central Government, submitted by the
Director of Environment, Forests and Wildlife in the Ministry of Environment and
Forests. The affidavit provided detailed uses of limestone for industrial operations
within Uttar Pradesh, but did not provide a satisfactory evaluation of other sources of
the limestone within India and the extent to which national defence industries relied
on the limestone. A second affidavit contained all the required evaluation and
concluded that the continuing of mining operations of any mine in the Dehradun-
Mussorie Region was not justified on the ground that it is a requirement of the
defence industries.
 In 1988, the Court concluded that all the mines in Dehradun Valley should remain
closed, except three operations.

8
  Although the Dehradun Valley mining operations occupied 800 hectares of reserved
forests and the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 was in effect in 1982, when the
lessees applied to the State Government approval for the mining operations. This
failure reflected confusion as to whether the requirement of the Act applied to renewal
of leases or not, which had originally been granted before the Act came into force.
This question was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case of Ambika Quarry
Works v. State of Gujarat.The Court held that the state government may renew pre-
existing mining leases only with the review and approval of the centre, as required
under the Forest Conservation Act.

Judgement on The case of RLEK, Dehradun v. State of UP

 In the Dehradun Valley litigation, the court concluded in 1988 that continued mining
in the valley violated the Forest Conservation Act. Moreover, the court went beyond
the requirements of the Act to conserve forest merely and issued orders to ensure that
the valley be reforested. The court noted that although the state of Uttar Pradesh had a
reforestation programme, the record of reforestation was not encouraging. Later the
court established a Monitoring committee comprising of the Central, State, and Local
officials and two ‘public-spirited’ citizens to oversee reforestation, mining activities
and ‘all other aspects necessary to bring about normalcy in the Doon Valley’. The
court also provided the Monitoring Committee with funding by ordering that 25 per
cent of the gross profit of the remaining mines be deposited in a fund controlled by
the committee.

Succeeding Judgements in Associated Cases

 Vijay Shree Mines, one of the lessee permitted by the court to operate until the expiry
of its lease in 1990, misused the permission. The lessee continued to quarry limestone
in an unscientific manner and in disregard of the directions issued by the Monitoring
committee. In an application filed by the committee, the court held that the mining
activity secretly carried on by Vijay Shree Mines had caused immense damage to the
area and directed the firm to pay Rs. 3 lakhs to the fund of the Monitoring committee.
 An outcome of the Dehradun Valley litigation was the ARC Cement Case. ARC
Cement operated a cement factory in the valley since November, 1982 until restrained
by an order of the court. The company employed about 400 persons. In 1987, the

9
 Supreme Court declined permission to ARC to open its polluting cement factory and
encouraged the company to shift it elsewhere. When the matter came up four years
later, the Supreme Court was unsatisfied by the progress, primarily because the
company had failed to propose an alternative site.
 The Court held that it cannot go back upon its earlier order and the cement factory
shall not be permitted to run at the site and therefore shifting of place has to be done.
The petitioner was permitted to indicate some alternative site so that there would be
an option available to the State Government and the Pollution Board to consider
which of the sites offered may be acceptable to them for the purpose of shifting the
cement factory from the present location.
 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. No consensus was
reached on a new site and while disposing the case the court acknowledged that
certain aspects of the arrangement remained to be negotiated between the parties. The
efforts to relocate the cement factory failed and in February 1995, ARC Cement was
ordered to wound up by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction.

10
Analysis of the Judgement in The case of RLEK, Dehradun v. State of UP

In the Dehradun Valley Litigation case, the Central Government had become concerned
about the destructive mining operations in the Valley at the same time when the Supreme
Court took up the issue. In 1983, the Government of India appointed a Working Group to
inspect the limestone quarries in the Dehradun-Mussoorie area. The same individual, D.N.
Bhargava, headed both the government’s Working Group and the court’s committee came to
similar conclusions as to the harmful effect of the mines on the environment. The Working
Group also prepared reports for the court on the few mining operations, which were allowed
to remain open.

During the course of the litigation, in 1986, Parliament enacted the Environment Protection
Act. The mining operators contended that as because the Act provides procedures to deal
with the situation at issue, the court should dismiss the case and leave the issue to
administrative authorities under the Environment Protection Act. The counsel for the miners
relied on the following statement of a 1986 opinion issued in the case:

 It is for the Government and the Nation and not for the court to decide whether the
deposits should be exploited at the cost of ecology and environmental consideration or
the industrial requirement should be otherwise satisfied.

The Court rejected the miners’ arguments the ground that the litigation had already
commenced and significant orders had been issued by the court before the adoption of the
Environment Protection Act.

There was no conflict in the opinions of the court and the Central Government in the instant
case. After the Courts’ ruling, the centre designated the Valley as an ecologically fragile area
under the Environment protection Act. In addition, it appointed a Doon Valley Board, under
the chairmanship of the Minister for Environment and Forests, which was charged with
conserving and restoring degraded areas of the Valley.

The Supreme Court concluded that mining in reserved forests in the Dehradun valley violated
the Forest Conservation Act. However, the Forest Conservation Act only prohibits non-forest
activities on forest lands that do not have the approval of the Central Government.

11
 Conclusion

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

right under Article 21. Development comes through industrialization, which is the main
factor behind the degradation of environment. To resolve this issue the doctrine of sustainable
development has come up. i.e., there must be balance between development and ecology.
Environmental degradation is not justified on the stake of national interest. Administrative
and legislative strategies for harmonizing environmental and developmental values are a must
and are to be formulated according to the needs of the socio-economic conditions in the
country. Courts play a very crucial role in determining the scope of the powers and functions
of administrative agencies and in striking a balance 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 free environment on the other. A process by which development can
be sustained for generations by improving the quality of human life while at the same time
living in harmony with nature and maintaining the carrying capacity of life supporting eco-
system. It focuses at integration of developmental and environmental imperatives. Thus,
sustainable development is the only answer and administrative actions ought to proceed in
accordance therewith.

12