Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) On March 12, 1985, after hearing counsel and parties appearing in person at great length this Court made a detailed order wherein it was said:"This case has been argued at great length before us not only because a large number of lessees of limestone quarries are involved and each of them has painstakingly and exhaustively canvassed his factual as well as legal points of view but also because this is the first case of its kind in the country involving issues relating to environment and ecological balance and the questions arising for consideration are of grave moment and significance not only to the people residing in the Mussoorie Hill range forming part of the Himalayas but also in their implications to the welfare of the generality of people living in the country. It brings into sharp focus the conflict between development and conservation and serves to emphasise the need for reconciling the two in the larger interest of the country. But since having regard to the voluminous material placed before us and the momentous issues raised for decision it is not possible for us to prepare a full and detailed judgment immediately and at the same time, on account of interim order made by us, mining operations carried out through blasting have been stopped and the ends of justice require that the lessees of limestone quarries should know without any unnecessary delay, as to where they stand in regard to their limestone quarries, we propose to pass our order on the writ petitions. The reasons for the order will be set out in the judgment to follow later."
(2.) In the meantime, one of us, our learned brother Sen, J., has retired from the Court. Before that event happened, on 30th September, 1985, Reported in (1986) 1 Supreme 287 he delivered a judgment expressing his views on the matter. He indicated: "I do not think it necessary to give any further reasons than those which are already stated in the order made by us on 12th March, 1985. Speaking personally for myself, I think that the broad reasons have been adequately set out in the order and it would be an unnecessary exercise to elaborate them." On a perusal of our order of the 12th March, 1985, we are inclined to agree with his view that the detailed order covered almost all the relevant aspects and touched upon every issue germane to the matter.
(3.) As this was the first case of its type with wide and serious ramifications, we would like to give a brief account of the manner in which the proceedings commenced, were carried on and are to be concluded.;