RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRA versus STATE OF U.P.

RURAL LITIGATION & ENTITLEMENT KENDRA versus STATE OF U.P.

Limestone mining in forest areas of the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt cannot continue as it violates the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, endangers ecology, and is against the public interest; technical/procedural bars do not preclude Supreme Court intervention in such public interest litigation, and the Court's directions remain enforceable regardless of subsequent environmental legislation.

Parties
Petitioner: Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondent: Governments of Rajasthan and Gujarat; Interveners/respondents: Mining Lessees
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 August 1988
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) Under Article 32 / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court
Outcome
Writ petitions disposed of with directions.
Legal Topics
Public Interest Litigation, Forest Conservation, Mining Regulation, Environmental Protection, Quarrying and Land Use, Ecology and Afforestation
Constitutional Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Public Interest Litigation Forest Conservation Mining Regulation Environmental Protection Quarrying and Land Use +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra

Petitioner

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Governments of Rajasthan and Gujarat

Respondent

Mining Lessees

Interveners/respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) Under Article 32 / Final Judgment of the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether limestone mining in the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt should be permitted or stopped in the interests of ecology and environment under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Constitution of India.
  2. 2 Whether procedural and res judicata bars apply in public interest litigation cases involving grave matters of environmental importance.
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to issue directions despite the coming into force of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Ratio Decidendi

Limestone mining in forest areas of the Mussoorie-Dehradun belt cannot continue as it violates the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, endangers ecology, and is against the public interest; technical/procedural bars do not preclude Supreme Court intervention in such public interest litigation, and the Court's directions remain enforceable regardless of subsequent environmental legislation.

Court Disposition

Writ petitions disposed of with directions.

Orders

  • Mining activity in the Doon Valley is to be stopped in a phased manner—only three on-going mines may operate until the expiration of their current leases, with no renewals and no entitlement to compensation for closure.
  • All lessees must contribute 25% of gross profits to a Monitoring Committee Fund for ecological rehabilitation.