Y.K. SABHARWAL, J. - (1.) THE main question-to be examined in these matters is whether the mining activity in area upto 5 kilometres from the Delhi- Haryana border on the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli hills causes environment degradation and what directions are required to be issued. The background in which the question has come up for consideration may first be noticed.
(2.) THE Haryana Pollution Control Board (HPCB) was directed by orders of this Court dated 20th November, 1995 to inspect and ascertain the impact of mining operation on the Badkal lake and Surajkund - ecologically sensitive area falling within the State of Haryana. In the report that was submitted, it was stated that explosives are being used for rock blasting for the purpose of mining; unscientific mining operation was resulting in lying of overburden materials (topsoii and murum remain) haphazardly; and deep mining for extracting silica sand lumps is causing ecological disaster as these mines lie unreclaimed and abandoned. It was, inter alia, recommended that the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) should be prepared by mine lease holders for their mines and actual mining operation made operative after obtaining approval from the State Departments of Environment or HPCB; the EMP should be implemented following a time bound action plan; land reclamation and afforestation programmes shall also be included in the EMP and must be implemented strictly by the implementing authorities. The report recommended stoppage of mining activities within a radius of 5 kms. from Badkal Lake and Surajkund (tourist place). The Haryana government, on the basis of the recommendations made in the report, stopped mining operations within the radius of 5 kms of Badkal lake and Surajkund. The mine operators raised objections to the recommendations of stoppage of mining operations. According to them, pollution, if any, that was generated by the mining activities cannot go beyond a distance of 1 km. and the stoppage was wholly unjustified. NEERI Report and earlier directions By order dated April 12,1996, the Court sought the expert opinion of National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) on the point whether the mining operations in the said area are to be stopped in the interest of environmental protection, pollution control and tourism development and, if so, whether the limit should be 5 kms. or less. NEERI in its inspection report dated 20th April, 1996, inter alia, recommended that: "6.1 Mining. (1) Detailed exploratory operations need to be undertaken to facilitate the estimation of reserves in the region, and for scientific management of mining operations. (2) The mine lease-owners need to undertake the mining operations in series, i.e. mining activities must be completed to full potential in a block before moving to the next. This will help in reclamation of land in the block in which mining operations have been completed. (3 to (9)... (10) The Environmental Management Plans (EMP) being formulated by the mine-owners should include land rejuvenation and afforestation programmes, and other measures necessary to protect the quality of the environment and human health. The mining operations should commence only after the approval of EMPs by a designated authority. A time-bound action plan needs to be initiated for the implementation of the measures delineated in the Environmental Management Plans. (11) and (12)... (13) The question of lifting the ban on mining operations needs to be considered in conjunction with the implementation of stringent pollution control, land reclamation, green belt, and other Environmental Management measures so as to facilitate the availability of construction materials and employment opportunities for the workers along with the protection of environment and public health. (14) It is considered necessary to prepare a Regional Environmental Management Plan for urgent implementation to enable eco-friendly regional development in the area."
(3.) ON consideration of the reports, this Court came to the conclusion that the mining activities in the vicinity of tourist resorts are bound to cast serious impact on the local ecology. The mining brings extensive alteration in the natural land profile of the area. Mined pits and unattended dumps of overburdened left behind during the mining operations are the irreversible consequences of the mining operations and rock blasting, movement of heavy vehicles, movements and operations of mining equipment and machinery cause considerable pollution in the shape of noise and vibration. The ambient air in the mining area gets highly polluted by the dust generated by the blasting operations, vehicular movement, loading/unloading/ transportation and the exhaust gases from equipment and machinery used in the mining operations. It was directed that in order to preserve environment and control pollution within the vicinity of two tourist resorts, it is necessary to stop mining activity within 2 kms. radius of the tourist resorts of Badkal lake and Surajkund. The court further directed the Director, HPCB to enforce all the recommendations of NEERI contained in para 6.1 of its report so far as the mining operations in the State of Haryana are concerned. Further, it was directed that failing to comply with the recommendations may result in the closure of the mining operations and that the mining leases within the area from 2 kms. to 5 kms. radius shall not be renewed without obtaining prior no objection certificate from the HPCB as also from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). Unless both the Boards grant no objection certificate, the mining leases in the said area shall not be renewed. (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.). Present Issues The aspects to be examined include the compliance of the conditions imposed by the Pollution Boards while granting no objection certificate for mining and also compliance of various statutory provisions and notifications as also obtaining of the requisite clearances and permissions from the concerned authorities before starting the mining operations.;