Top Court asks CEC to examine whether classification of Aravalli Hills and Ranges for permitting mining needs to be continued; takes note of mining operations continuing in MP’s Diamond Mining Project as well as plying of e-rickshaws in Matheran city
Justices B.R. Gavai & Sandeep Mehta [10-01-2024]

Read Order: IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [SC- Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 202/1995]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, January 24, 2024: The Supreme Court has disposed of a batch of applications pertaining to environmental concerns in its latest order. The Top Court has not only dealt with the issue of continuity of mining activities in the Aravalli Range but has also considered a project proponent’s plea in relation to the Madhya Pradesh Diamond Mining Project as well as the issue of plying of e-rickshaws in the city of Matheran in Maharashtra.

The report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in all the applications showed that mining lease of the applicants did not fall in the Aravali Hills and no illegal mining was found. Though the report of the Forest Survey of India endorsed that no illegal mining had been found in this area, it suggested that the said areas fell within the Aravali Hill Range.

Dr. Manish Singhvi, senior counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan submitted that the issue as to whether the classification between Aravali Hills and Aravali Ranges, in so far as the mining activities were concerned needed to be finally decided by this Court.

“We, prima facie, feel that if the State is of the view that the mining activities in the Aravali Range is also deterimental to the environmental interest, nothing stops the State Government from preventing mining activities in the Aravalli Range as well”, the Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Sandeep Mehta held.

The Top Court disposed of the applications with a direction to the State Government to consider the applications filed by the applicants for permitting the renewal and continuance of the mining operations in accordance with law.

The Bench took note of the fact that in so far as mining activities in Aravali Hills and Ranges were concerned, Mr. K. Parameshwaran, Amicus Curiae stated that it will be in the larger public interest, if all these issues were examined by the CEC and a comprehensive direction was issued in that regard.

“We request the CEC to examine the issue as to whether the classification of Aravali Hills and Ranges in so far as permitting mining is concerned, needs to be continued or not. We also request the CEC to take on board the experts in Geology before finalizing its report. The same shall be done within a period of eight weeks from today”, the Bench held.

The Apex Court was also informed that though the issues involved with regard to the mining in Aravali Hills and Rage in Haryana and Rajasthan are common, the matters/applications with regard to the mining in State of Haryana are placed before another Bench of this Court, whereas the matters/applications with regard to the mining in Rajasthan are placed before this Bench.

Since the issues with regard to mining in the Aravali Hills and Ranges are common for both the States, the Bench held that it would be appropriate that the said matters are heard and decided by the Same Bench of the Top Court, so as to avoid any conflicting orders.

“We, therefore, direct the Registrar (Judicial) to place the matter(s) before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to obtain appropriate order(s) and place the same before the Bench as directed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India”, the Bench ordered.

The Court also considered an Interlocutory application whereby the applicant prayed for permission to continue its mining operation in the Diamond Mining Project at Village Majhgawan Mine, District Panna, Madhya Pradesh in terms of the Mine Closure Plan dated September 23, 2019. The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) had observed that the project proponent needed to seek clarification from the Court regarding the applicability of the earlier orders.

The Top Court had earlier directed that no mining activities should be permitted within an area of one kilometer from the boundary of the National Parks/Wild Life Sanctuaries. However, this Court taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances existing in Panna National Park had granted a specific permission for continuing mining activities, however, subject to stringent conditions mentioned therein.

The Bench considered the fact that the project proponent is one of the Navratna Corporations of the Government of India and if the mining activities were abruptly stopped at this stage, the possibility of illegal mining of diamonds being carried out, couldn’t be ruled out.

“It is rather in the national interest that the Government of India owned company is permitted to continue the activities in a scientific manner till the activities are closed”, the Bench observed.

Lastly, in this batch of applications, the Bench also took notice of its earlier directions with regard to laying of paver blocks on the roads as well as plying of E- rickshaws in the city of Matheran. The Standing Counsel for the State of Maharashtra submitted that the Monitoring Committee in consultation with IIT Bombay, was considering the proposal of using clay paver blocks instead concrete paver blocks. It was submitted that it was necessary to use clay paver blocks in order to prevent the soil erosion.

“We clarify that E-Rickshaws, if permitted, would be only provided to the present hand cart pullers in order to compensate them on account of their loss of employment. We further clarify that there shall also be a restriction on the number of E-rickshaws to be permitted in the city of Matheran”, the Bench held while also directing that alongwith the issue of paver blocks, the Monitoring Committee shall also consider as to which of the roads/streets would be permitted to be used by the E- rickshaws and determine the number of e-rickshaws to be plied in the city of Matheran.