M.C Mehta v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

This order follows prior directions issued on 31-10-2002 and 6-5-2002 in ongoing proceedings concerning mining activities and related regulatory processes.

Under the order dated 31-10-2002, counsel for leaseholders were directed to provide lists of applications filed for obtaining environmental impact assessment so that the Ministry of Environment and Forests could be notified and required to dispose of them within a court-specified period. At the current hearing, some counsel indicated that they had filed such applications, while others had them in court. Dr. T. Chandini, Additional Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests, filed an affidavit dated 14-11-2002, stating inter alia that the application covered by notification dated 27-1-1994 does not cover the district of Faridabad. The court directed that the applications be provided to Mr A.D.N. Rao, Advocate, within one week, and that he, in turn, send them to the Central Empowered Committee.

The State of Haryana filed an additional affidavit through its Commissioner and Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Mr Manik Sonawane. Copies of the affidavits of Dr. T. Chandini and Mr Manik Sonawane were made available through respective counsel for those wishing to respond. The learned amicus curiae, Mr Ranjit Kumar, stated he would examine the aspect of delegation in respect of Gurgaon referred to in the State of Haryana’s affidavit, to be done before the next date. The Central Empowered Committee was directed to file its suggestions regarding a time-frame for considering the applications on or before the next date of hearing.

By the earlier order dated 6-5-2002, the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, had been directed to stop all mining activities and pumping of groundwater in and from an area up to 5 km from the Delhi–Haryana border and also in the Aravalli hills; there were subsequent orders on stopping mining activities in the Aravalli hills. The amicus informed the court that he had reliably learnt that despite these orders, illegal mining activity was continuing. The court clarified that the concerned Deputy Commissioner and Inspector General of Police (Range) must ensure compliance and that, in case of violation, they may be held personally liable. They were directed to file an affidavit of compliance before the next date of hearing.

The court noted that the question of overburdening would be considered on the next date. Regarding disbursement of royalty to villagers, the State of Haryana was directed to file within two weeks an affidavit indicating when it intends to disburse it. The matter was listed for 13-12-2002.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court’s analysis is presented through a series of directions anchored in prior orders and the affidavits placed on record:

• In relation to environmental impact assessment applications by leaseholders, the court acted upon its earlier order (31-10-2002) by formalizing a process: leaseholders are to submit applications to Mr A.D.N. Rao within one week, and he is to forward them to the Central Empowered Committee. This channeling facilitates centralized scrutiny and coordination. The court also recorded the Ministry’s affidavit dated 14-11-2002, which states that the notification dated 27-1-1994 does not cover the district of Faridabad.
• Concerning the State of Haryana’s additional affidavit, the court ensured procedural fairness by allowing parties to obtain copies for response and tasked the amicus curiae to examine the issue of delegation in respect of Gurgaon referenced therein. It further directed the Central Empowered Committee to propose a time-frame for considering the pending applications, indicating the court’s supervisory role over timely administrative action.
• On enforcement of earlier prohibitory orders against mining and groundwater pumping (order dated 6-5-2002 and subsequent orders), the court responded to information from the amicus about ongoing violations by assigning responsibility to the Deputy Commissioner and Inspector General of Police (Range) to ensure compliance and by warning of possible personal liability for non-compliance. The requirement to file affidavits of compliance before the next date underscores accountability.
• The court deferred the “question of overburdening” for consideration on the next date, preserving the issue for focused adjudication.
• Regarding royalty payments to villagers, the court required the State of Haryana to file, within two weeks, an affidavit specifying when disbursement would occur, thereby seeking a concrete timeline.

Overall, the order manages ongoing compliance, seeks administrative timelines, and consolidates the handling of applications through the Central Empowered Committee, relying on prior directions and information placed before the court.

Holding and Implications

INTERIM DIRECTIONS ISSUED; MATTER LISTED FOR 13-12-2002

Key directions include:

• Leaseholders’ applications for environmental impact assessment to be given to Mr A.D.N. Rao within one week; Mr Rao to forward them to the Central Empowered Committee.
• Parties may collect copies of the affidavits filed by Dr. T. Chandini (14-11-2002) and Mr Manik Sonawane for responses as needed.
• The amicus curiae to examine the aspect of delegation in respect of Gurgaon before the next hearing.
• The Central Empowered Committee to file suggestions on a time-frame for considering the applications by the next date.
• The Deputy Commissioner and Inspector General of Police (Range) to ensure compliance with prior orders stopping mining and groundwater pumping near the Delhi–Haryana border and in the Aravalli hills; any violation may attract personal liability. Affidavits of compliance to be filed before the next date.
• The question of overburdening to be considered on the next date.
• The State of Haryana to file, within two weeks, an affidavit indicating when royalty will be disbursed to villagers.
• The matter to be put up on 13-12-2002.

Implications: The order advances administrative processing of applications via the Central Empowered Committee, reinforces enforcement of existing prohibitions on mining and groundwater extraction with potential personal liability for designated officers, and seeks a clear timeline for royalty disbursement. The directions are interim and case-specific; no broader legal precedent is articulated.