JUDGMENT P.D. Desai, C.J.—This is an application by the Cement Corporation of India Ltd , (A Government of India Enterprise) (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant") making a two-fold prayer : (i) that the interim directions No. 3 and 4 issued on May 29, 1987 in Civil Writ Petition No 82 of 1987 (Kinkri Devi and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others), (hereinafter referred to as "the writ petition") and the order dated November 3, 1987, passed in Civil Misc. Petition No 313 of 1987, State of Himachal Pradesh and others v Kinkri Devi and another\ be clarified and (2) that directions be issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour (hereinafter referred to as "the fourth opponent") for the withdrawal of the directions issued vide Annexure A-l to the application. 2. The application was instituted during the vacation on January 14, 1988 and it was listed for orders on January 15, 1988 before the learned Vacation Judge. Notice returnable on February 12, 1988 was issued on that day and affidavit(s)-in-reply were directed to be filed on or before February 8, 1988. Pursuant to the direction aforesaid, the fourth opponent has filed an affidavit-in-reply dated February 7, 1988. 3. The application reached hearing before the learned Vacation Judge on February 17, 1988, when it was directed that it be listed before this Bench immediately after the opening of the Court after the Winter Vacation, and, meanwhile, the applicant was permitted to go ahead with the blasting operation and to that extent the order of the fourth opponent, Annexure A-I, was directed to be non-operative. The applicant was, however, ordered to carry out the blasting operations under the rules and regulations. The matter has accordingly been listed before this Court pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Vacation Judge. 4. The matter has been heard at length. The material on record of the present application as well as on the record of the writ petition to which attention was drawn has been perused and considered. In order to appreciate the issues involved and to consider the application on merits, it is necessary to trace the background in detail, 5. The applicant owns and runs a cement factory at Rajban in District Sirmour. The factory needs supply of lime-stone. The applicant has, therefore, been granted a mining lease for the excavation of lime-stone in the Paonta Sahib Tehsil of Sirmour District. The applicant owns and runs a cement factory at Rajban in District Sirmour. The factory needs supply of lime-stone. The applicant has, therefore, been granted a mining lease for the excavation of lime-stone in the Paonta Sahib Tehsil of Sirmour District. The area covered by the mining lease is approximately 794 Hectares. Besides the applicant, there are fifty-eight other lime-stone mining lessees operating in different Tehsils of Sirmour District. One of such lessees is V. K. Walia who has been excavating lime-stone from an area of about 165-19 Bighas pursuant to a mining lease granted in his favour. The said mine is situate in Renuka Tehsil of Sirmour District, *Full Judgment in the case of Kinkri Devi v. State of H, P. is reported at p. 32 of Sim. L.C. 1988, Vol. I. But for the convenience and continuity of (he case it is again reported hereinafter this Judgment. 6. Kinkri Devi and C.S. Chauhan, instituted the Writ Petition against the State of Himachal Pradesh, the fourth opponent, V. K. Walia and other(s) seeking the reliefs that the mining lease for the excavation of limestone granted in favour of V. K. Walia be ordered to be cancelled, that he be restrained from operating the mines on the land in such a manner as to cause havoc to the adjoining lands, water resources, pastures, forests, wild life, ecology, environment and inhabitants of the Illaqua, that a commission be appointed at the cost of the respondents to assess the damage caused to the lands, water resources, pastures, forests, wild life, ecology, environment and inhabitants of the lllaqua by the operation of the mines and the respondents be directed to pay damages to the right holders of village Sangrah as a result of the excavation of the lime-stone by the said person and that the State Government be directed to prepare a scheme for treating the lands, water resources, pastures, forests, wild life, ecology, environment etc. and for repairing the damage caused by the mining operations. and for repairing the damage caused by the mining operations. Subsequently, the petition was permitted to be amended by adding parties as well as prayer(s) and the additional prater was that a Commission be appointed to investigate whether the mines granted in favour of V. K. Walia and other lessees, in District Sirmour were being worked systematically and scientifically and in accordance with law and, if not, to make a report as to the extent of damage caused to the water resources, ecology, environment, wild life, soil conservation etc. etc. and to make recommendation for future mining as well as for repairing the damage already caused to the water resources, ecology, environment, wild life, soil conservation etc. etc. 7. The petition, which is in the nature of a social action litigation, was instituted on March 31, 1987. When the petition first reached preliminary hearing on April 8, 1987, the learned Counsel for the petitioners was permitted to place on record an article which had appeared in the daily edition dated April 6, 1987 of the Indian Express under the heading "Progress or peoples nightmare ?", which purported to highlight the damage caused to the Shivalik Hills in Sirmour District on account of being "ruthlessly blasted for extracting lime-stone" and the dangers and hazards faced by the inhabitants of the locality and the disturbance to the environment and ecology as a consequence thereof. The article was stated to have been based on an investigative exercise undertaken by a team of journalists who visited a number of mining sites in Sirmour District. 8. It would be pertinent at this stage to extract the following passages from the said article: "To assess the damage being wrought on the hills, an Express team visited a number of mining sites in the district, about 9 k. m. from Sataun near Paonta Sahib, the road winds its way up to the top of a hill. The moment one reaches the hill top, it appears that the hills are being flattened to construct an Olympic-sized stadium. The Cement Corporation of India (C. C. I.), which is the sole extractor of lime-stone on the hill top, has already ravaged the hill. A number of bull-dozers and tractors are in operation collecting stone deposits on one corner from where it slides down the slope. The Cement Corporation of India (C. C. I.), which is the sole extractor of lime-stone on the hill top, has already ravaged the hill. A number of bull-dozers and tractors are in operation collecting stone deposits on one corner from where it slides down the slope. At the base of the hill is a crushing station from where the stone is loaded into buckets plying on a ropeway to the cement plant at Rajbans. About 900 tonnes of lime-stone is required by the C. C. I. to produce nearly 600 tonnes of cement everyday. The sliding of lime stone from the hill top is being done ostensibly to save on road carriage though it is not permitted under mining norms. From across the hill it appears that a massive landslide has taken place. The Panchayats of Kandoh, Sara and Kal villages situated around the mining sites, have made a number of representations seeking closure of mining activity as it threatens the very existance of these villages. The Sandoh village, some women said, literally vibrated whenever blasting was done. The floors of some houses have developed cracks. The villagers fear that it is a matter of time before the entire village succumbs to the land-slides. The C. C. I. plans to run the plant for another 50 years. Seeing the damage already done, one can imagine the magnitude of the devastation that would be caused in the next 50 years. The C. C. I. plant has been in operation for only six years. XX XX XX XX Scientists at the regional research station of the Agricultural University at Dhaulakuan are equally worried about the damage caused to crops. On the basis of a two year survey, they have concluded that the dust from the plants does not allow pod formation in gram and linseed. The dust has also settled on the precious sal trees near Rajbans restricting their growth. A spokesman for the C. C. I., however, maintained that the plant was not causing air pollution. He said that the Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) unit, which takes care of dust in the smoke, is operating satisfactorily. He asserted that the dust that emanates from the kiln does not cause any health problems. Doctors in the town, on the other hand, said that the number of patients suffering from respiratory diseases have increased after the commissioning of the cement plant. He asserted that the dust that emanates from the kiln does not cause any health problems. Doctors in the town, on the other hand, said that the number of patients suffering from respiratory diseases have increased after the commissioning of the cement plant. XX XX XX XX The Shivalik ranges comprise of unstable and immature rock formations. Blasting with dynamite and mining can play havoc with the hills. And yet there seems to be no concern on the part of the authorities. In addition, lime-stone is known to be a good conservator of water. If the entire lime-stone is extracted even drinking water is likely to become scarce in the district. Already Himachal Pradesh is faced with a gigantic task of supplying safe drinking water to its villages." 9. The Court issued notice of the writ petition to the respondents on April 8, 1987 and directed them to file separate affidavits-in-reply and to deal also with the contents of the newspaper article in their affidavits. The first respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh) was also directed to place on record the affidavits of the following officers specifically dealing with the allegations made and grievances ventilated in paragraph 6 of the petition and the facts disclosed in the newspaper report insofar as they concerned the respective fields of operation of each of them: (1) The Conservator of Forests, Sirmour District at Nahan. (2) The Conservator of Forests (Soil Conservation), Simla. (2) Sim LC—28 (3) The Conservator of Forests (Wild Life), Simla. (4) The Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Department, District Sirmour. Each one of those officers as well as the fourth opponent herein (Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour) was directed to pay a visit to village Sangrah, Tehsil Renuka, District Sirmour, and to personally verify the facts on the spot on the basis of the official record available and to report whether the allegations made in the petition as well as in the newspaper article were true. The directions issued accordingly were substantially complied with. The affidavits-in-reply as directed were filed and reports on affidavits were submitted by the concerned officers after spot verification. 10. It would not be out of place to extract at this stage the findings recorded in some of those reports with specific reference to the mining operations carried out by the applicant pursuant to the mining lease granted in its favour as aforesaid. 11. 10. It would not be out of place to extract at this stage the findings recorded in some of those reports with specific reference to the mining operations carried out by the applicant pursuant to the mining lease granted in its favour as aforesaid. 11. Shri G. C. Gupta, 1FS, Conservator of Forests, Nahan Circle, in the course of his report on affidavit dated May 8, 1987, has made the following observations :— "That it is further submitted that the total area leased out to C.C.I. at Sara is 794 hac. including 2380.14 Bighas of private land. The present quarrying site was a scrub forest with a few scattered trees. However the rest of compartments of Sara forests which are also included in the leased area support very good sal forests. The report of deployment of number of bulldozers and tractors for collecting stones and then sliding the quarried material along the slopes is correct. The rolling of material along the steep slopes is causing dust storm apart from accelerating the movement of debries into river Giri. This is causing environmental pollution in the locality and there is a definite scope for improvement." 12. Shri S. C. Sharma, IFS, Conservator of Forests, Soil (Headquarters), made the following observations in the course of his report on affidavit dated May 12, 198? : - "(B) Cement Corporation of India -Mining leased area.—This area is situated in Sarah reserve forests of Paonta Sahib Division in Shiwalik hills. An area of approximately 694 ha. has been leased out by the H. P Government to Cement Corporation of India for quarrying lime stone for use in Cement Plant at Rajban. Mining operations are going on the top of the hill. This top is being flattened and stone is being removed in layers after blasting. The stone and debris is being rolled down to the base where it is crushed and sent in trollies plying on rope way to the Cement Plant at Rajban. The C.C.I. has damaged vegetation all around the quarry by dumping the debris here and there. The Giri river bed is being flooded with debris. The site presents very dreadful scene, because of heavy denudation and soil ccuc. The following observations are offered: — (i) There has been severe erosion all around fragile Shiwalik area of the mining lease. (ii) Ecology of the area has been adversely disturbed. The Giri river bed is being flooded with debris. The site presents very dreadful scene, because of heavy denudation and soil ccuc. The following observations are offered: — (i) There has been severe erosion all around fragile Shiwalik area of the mining lease. (ii) Ecology of the area has been adversely disturbed. (iii) Due to rolling down the stone there is excessive damage to the soil which is causing heavy siltation, (iv) The Cement Plant has polluted the entire atmosphere upto a radius of about 6-7 kms. due to dust coming out of the Cement Plant which settles down the leaves of vegetation and c op around the Cement Plant, This dust adversely affects the photosynthesis thereby arresting the future growth of the vegetation. This layer of dust gets washed only after the rains. (v) Scientific and systematic mining and soil conservation operations are lacking. I generally, agree with the facts narrated in the Indian Express News Paper report dated 6-4-1987 under the heading "Progress or peoples nightmare 9" by Shri Devender Sharma, so far they relate to the soil erosion and sliding of lime stone " 12. The fourth opponent herein also filed an affidavit dated May 8, 1987 and he, inter alia, made the following submissions in the course of the said affidavit with reference to*the news paper article:-— "II. As far as the newspaper article of April 6, 1987 in the Indian Express is concerned, the parawise comments are as under:— Para 1— In all there are 12 mini Cement plants in District Sirmour in production or about to be in production. One large scale cement plant at Rajban and 12 hyderated lime units are also in operation in the district. The estimated monthly extraction of lime stone is to the tune of 65,000 tonnes both for use in district and export outside. Para 2.—In all there are 59 mining lessees in the district. As for the owners of the mines kindly see Annexure ‘A’ attached which gives the details of the owners of these mines. Paras 3, 4, 5. As far as CCI Rajban is concerned to the best of my knowledge they are employing scientific methods of mining and I have received no complaints in this direction from anywhere. Paras 5, 6, 7, 8. — I have received no complaint against the CCI Rajban till now. Para 9. Paras 3, 4, 5. As far as CCI Rajban is concerned to the best of my knowledge they are employing scientific methods of mining and I have received no complaints in this direction from anywhere. Paras 5, 6, 7, 8. — I have received no complaint against the CCI Rajban till now. Para 9. —There has been no scientific study or research on the effect of pollution caused by the cement plants in this district. Similarly I do not have any knowledge about the finding of the Agricultural University, Dhaulakuan about the adverse effects of pollution on vegetation. From time to time I have been directing the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Paonta to easure that CCI uses E. S. P. unit. * * * * Para 11.—ft is a fact that none of the mini cement plant has installed E. S. P. unit. Similarly for the hyderated lime units the design presently made available by the State Pollution Board is unworkable and ineffective." 13. The Court recorded an interim order on May 29, 1987, which may be read as part of this order. In the course of the said interim order, it was found that the affidavit of the fourth opponent and the reports of the four senior officers of the State Government tended to reveal that the contents of the petition as well as of the newspaper article and the apprehension therein expressed with respect to the danger to the hilly tracts of Sirmour District and to its environment, ecology, natural resources et el and to the well-being of the inhabitants of the locality because of the quarrying of the lime-stone in the area in what appeared to be an unscientific and uncontrolled manner was true to a large extent. Having reviewed the entire factual and legal position, the Court directed the State Government to set up a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary and consisting of the Secretaries in the Departments of Industry, Public Works, Forests, Agriculture and Science, Technology and Environment to examine, inter alia, the question whether the grant of mining leases in respect of lime-stone in Tehsils Paonta Sahib, Renuka and Rajgarh, as per the particulars furnished in the annexure.to the affidavit dated May 8, 1987, filed by the fourth opponent in the main proceedings and, more particularly, the grant of such leases in or around village Sangrah, Tehsil Renuka, District Sirmaur, and specifically to the third respondent, was in accordance with the statutory provisions and whether the need of maintaining a proper balance between the tapping of the mineral resources for the development and industrial growth on one hand and the ecology, environment etc. on the other had been kept in view while making such grant and whether those mines were being scientifically operated or worked in an erratic and uncontrolled manner posing a present and potential danger to the soil, the agriculture, the forests, the water resources and the water supply schemes, the rivers, streams and nahallas, the flora and fauna, the ecology, the environment and life and living conditions of the people and their property. The report, which the Committee was ordered to submit after holding such inquiry as it thought fit, to this Court as well as to the State Government, was directed to contain not only the conclusions on the matters abovementioned but also to incorporate recommendations for the evolution of a long-term plan and/or scheme for the grant of mining leases in the State in light of all the relevant and material factors and to suggest the preventive, curative and regulatory measures and machinery in order to ensure that the mining leases are operated in a scientific manner. The Committee was also ordered to consider and suggest remedial measures for the repair of the damage, if any, affecting the natural wealth and resources and the local population caused on account of indiscriminate mining operations, if any, carried out in District Sirmour and, more particularly, in or around village Sangrah and to suggest the treatment of the affected natural wealth and resources and the payment of compensation to the people inhabiting the area. The Court also issued the following further directions : — "(3) The third respondent, who is present in the Court, has orally undertaken through his counsel not to carry out mining operations in the areas leased to him through blasting till further orders and to carry out such operations in other manner, if any, Strictly in accordance with the instructions which may be issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Sinnaur, The written undertaking on affidavit in the aforesaid terms will be filed by the third respondent in the Registry of this Court on or before June 2, 1987. The Deputy Commissioner will, while issuing such instructions, take into consideration the reports on affidavits submitted by different senior officers of the State Government in the course of this proceeding and Annexure R-3/2 to the affidavit dated May 12, 198 7 of the third respondent and Annexure R-2 and R-3 to the affidavit dated May 14, 1987, filed by the Deputy Secretary (Industries) to the State Government, insofar as they require the compliance, if any, of any of the matters therein mentioned and will ensure that the mining operations, if any, are carried out by the third respondent in future strictly on scientific lines. The Deputy Commissioner will, for the purposes of giving such directions, be at liberty to take the assistance of any other officers/authorities including those who have submitted their reports herein. (4) No lease for the mining of lime-stone will be granted or renewed nor temporary permits, if any, will be issued in District Sirmaur till the Committee, which has been directed to be appointed as aforesaid, has submitted its report and the second respondent will meanwhile maintain strict superintendence and supervision over the exploitation of the mines under the existing leases in the Sirmaur District in the same manner as indicated in the interim direction No. (3) hereinabove." Since the matter required urgent attention, the Committee was directed to complete its deliberations and to submit the report on or before July 30, F87. The State Government was directed to set-up the Committee within a period of one week of the receipt of a certified copy of the order. 14. On June 19, 1987, the State Government instituted CMP No. 513 of 1981 seeking "certain clarifications, modifications and review of the aforesaid order and for abundant caution". The State Government was directed to set-up the Committee within a period of one week of the receipt of a certified copy of the order. 14. On June 19, 1987, the State Government instituted CMP No. 513 of 1981 seeking "certain clarifications, modifications and review of the aforesaid order and for abundant caution". In the first place, while expressing keenness to appoint a fact-finding Enquiry Committee as soon as possible to ascertain the true state-of-affairs and to take the appropriate remedial measures, the State Government prayed for a modification of the constitution of the Committee so as to give it “all the requisite inputs of specialised experience covering the entire scope of the enquiry while at the same time retaining the high quality of the members of the Committee and involving minimal adverse effect on the exigencies of State Administration”. In the next place, the State Government submitted that although a decision had already been taken on December 8, 1986 not to consider further applications for mining leases in lime-stone in the mining area in District Sirmaur, an exception was required to be made in respect of applications for mining leases already filed and pending upul December 5, ;986 as also in respect of mining leases already granted and under execution and prayed that a blanket moratorium on the mining activity in the concerned area should not be imposed and that “as a reasonable and effective via-media this Honble Court should permit some blasting on a small scale to enable essential mining operations to continue" after imposing such technical restrictions on the force and kind of explosive used as also the distance at which explosives are detonated as may be considered fit and proper. In the last place, the State Government submitted that there was tremendous need and requirement of lime-stone for the essential core industry sector, viz., cement since it was the primary and the most essential raw material for the manufacture of cement The following further averments made in the application in that connection being material are quoted in extenso : "In Sirmour District there is one large cement plant set-up by Cement Corporation of India, wholly owned Central Government Undertaking, producing 2 lacs tonnes of cement annually. In addition, there are several tiny cement plants in production and under erection Limestone is also consumed by hydrated lime, Calcium Carbonate and lime producing units in the District. In addition, there are several tiny cement plants in production and under erection Limestone is also consumed by hydrated lime, Calcium Carbonate and lime producing units in the District. Limestone is also being supplied to Sugar, Paper, Chemical etc. industries outside the State, The total consumption within the District for mineral based industries is about 4 lacs tonnes per annum. The limestone transported outside the District to industries such as Sugar, Paper, Chemical, lime, hydrated lime, Fertilizer etc is about 2 lacs tonnes per annum. Cement is core industry without which modern development is impossible. If the cement plants are allowed to close down for want of basic raw material i.e. limestone the direct effect will be on the development not only in Himachal Pradesh but in the adjoining States as well. Major projects of national importance such as Nathapa Jakhari, Yamuna Hydel Project, Sanjay Vidyut Pariyojana and manyother development projects will be critically effected. Such adverse effect on projects would also create avoidable unemployment. Further more, it need not be emphasised that both the limestone quarry industry and the cement industry leads to huge direct and indirect employment and is the basis of livelihood of a large number of persons. At a conservative estimate, the number of persons supported by the Limestone quarries in Sirmaur and by the Cement industry in Sirmaur District of Himachal Pradesh would be approximately more than 13,500. It is, therefore, submitted that although the mine of respondent No, 3 may not be subjected to blasting in view of his direct presence in the writ proceedings before this Honble Court, this Honble Court should suitably modify its interim direction in respect of blasting as applicable to other parties in that area." 15. When the application was listed for hearing on July 20, 1987, the Court directed the State Government to first comply with the interim directions issued on May 29, I9&7, with regard to the constitution of the Committee within 48 hours so that the application could then be taken up for consideration and the question of granting appropriate relief, if any, in accordance with law, as prayed, could receive attention, Pursuant to the said directions, the Committee was constituted on July 23, 1987, as ordered vide order dated May 29, 1987. 16. 16. When the application next reached hearing on August 5, 1987, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to the State Government to get in touch with several public autaorities so as to invite from them names of their expert representatives, equal in status at least to the Heads of Departments, who could be nominated on the Committee in place and stead of some of the existing Members of the Committee, The Court further directed that the Committee already constituted may not, for the time being, undertake the functions and duties entrusted to it under the interim order dated May 29, 1987, save and except that two of the Members of the Committee, namely, Secretaries to the State Government in the Departments of Industries and Science and Technology and Environment, who were to continue to be the Members of the Committee, may undertake the appropriate preliminary exercises so that when the Committee starts actually functioning with the addition/substitution of Members, its time would not be consumed in attending to those matters and it would be able to submit its report expeditiously and within the fresh time-limit to be fixed later. 17. By an order passed on August 26, 1987, the prayer with regard to the reconstitution of the Committee was granted and the interim order dated May 29, 1987 was modified to the extent that the reconstituted Committee was directed to be constituted of the following persons : (1) Secretary (Science and Technology), Himachal Pradesh Government (Chairman), (2) Secretary (Industries), Himachal Pradesh Government, (3) Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh, (4) Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, (5) Shri S.S. Dass, Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, Dehradun, (6) Dr. O. N. Bhargava, Director, Geological Survey of India, Himachal Pradesh, (7) Shri S. Kumar, Director of Mines Safety, Ghaziabad and (8) Prof. V. J. Gupta, Department of Geology, Punjab University, Chandigarh (all Members). The State Govt. was directed to place the services of the Deputy Secretary (Industries) to the Government at the disposal of the Committee to function as the Non-Member Secretary of the Committee. V. J. Gupta, Department of Geology, Punjab University, Chandigarh (all Members). The State Govt. was directed to place the services of the Deputy Secretary (Industries) to the Government at the disposal of the Committee to function as the Non-Member Secretary of the Committee. The Committee was directed to submit its interim report to the Court as well as to the State Government on or before October 5, 1987 in light of the directions issued in the previous interim order dated May 29, 1937, in order to enable the Court to consider the other prayers made in the application. 18. The reconstituted Committee submitted an interim report (Annexure RA) after visiting the limestone quarries in District Sirmaur, particularly the quarries in and around village Sangrah and some quarries of Tehsil Shillai and Paonta Sahib. When the application next reached hearing on November 3, 1987, the Court passed the following order after hearing the parties: "The Committee has submitted an interim report which has been placed on the record of the main case as Annexure RA. In the course of its interim report, the Committee has made certain recommendations. Recommendation No. 11 reads as follows: ‘The Committee was of the view that the Honble High Court may consider permitting of blasting in the mines with the following conditions: 1. The blasting in the mines should be undertaken only if the qualified blaster/mining mate having certificate from the Mines Safety Department is employed in the mine. 2. The blasting should not be undertaken within a radius of 200 metres from roadside, water course, habitation, forest and monuments and places of public interest. 3. Blasting should be undertaken as per provisions of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, as certified by the Department of Industries. 4. Blasting should be undertaken after taking into consideration the matters concerning environment. The Court finds that condition No. 4 recommended to be imposed by the Committee is in general terms and does not precisely indicate which of the matters concerning environment are required to be taken into consideration and what restrictions are required to be imposed in that behalf and how the implementation of the said condition is to be ensured. In fact, the suggested imposition of the said condition leaves open the very question which was referred to the Committee for its consideration. In fact, the suggested imposition of the said condition leaves open the very question which was referred to the Committee for its consideration. Under the circumstances, on the basis of the interim report, it is not just or expedient or proper for the Court to modify the interim directions issued vide order dated May 29, 1987, passed in the main case. Liberty is, however, reserved to move the Court, if a supplementary report is submitted by the Committee clarifying the true ambit and scope of condition No. 4 of recommendation No. II abovementioned." 19. Be it stated that the Committee has not submitted any supplementary interim report. The final report has also not been submitted still, since a request having been received in that behalf, the time for submitting the report has been extended upto March 26, 1988. 20. The position which emerges, therefore, is that the State Governments application to review and modify the interim order dated May 29, 1987 stood rejected, save and except with respect to the reconstitution of the Committee, for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid order dated November 3, 1987. Before passing the order of rejection, the Court had taken into consideration all the material aspects and factors set-out and pleas raised in the application including the requirement of lime-stone by the cement industry and, more particularly, that of the applicant herein. No material change in circumstances is shown to have taken place after the said order was passed and apparently for that reason no further application has been submitted by the State Government. 21. It would be pertinent to mention at this stage that before the aforesaid application was finally heard and decided, the petitioners had instituted C. M. P. No. 692 of 1987 on August 7, 1987 seeking permission to prosecute the writ petition against V.K. Walia in a representative capacity so that he could resist and defend the petition on behalf and for the benefit of all the mining lessees of District Sirmaur. The Court passed an order on August 26, 1987 granting the said application and directing that the third respondent be permitted to be sued in a representative capacity for and on behalf of all the lease holders to whom leases for the mining of lime-stone had been granted in District Sirmaur and directing the publication of a notice of the petition in the newspapers and making it returnable on October 12, 1987. Pursuant to the publication of the notice, the applicant came forward with an application, C. M. P. No. 1176 of 1987, instituted on October 26, 1987, praying that it may be allowed to be impleaded as a respondent and to place before the Court all the relevant facts. A similar application, C. M. P. No. 1105 of 1987, was instituted on the same day by 48 other mining lessees and an identical prayer was made therein. The Court passed an identical order on both the applications on January 5, 1988 directing the Registry that the applications be listed alongwith the main matter and further directing those applicants to keep their affidavits-in-reply ready and to serve copies thereof on the parties to the petition. It was further directed that in case their applications were granted, the affidavit(s)-in-reply would be taken on the record of the main case. These applications have still not been granted and, therefore, the applicants have not been impleaded as parties eo nomine although they may have to be regarded as deemed parties ever since August 26, 1987 when the permission to prosecute the writ petition in a representative capacity was granted. The result, therefore, is that when the aforesaid order dated November 3, 1987 was passed on the application institute by the State Government seeking certain clarifications, modifications and review of the interim order dated May 29, 1987, all the mining lessees of the Sirmaur District, including the applicant herein, were deemed parties to the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the applicant, who is also the Counsel representing V. K. Walia, was actually present before the Court when the order dated November 3, 1987 was passed. 22. The learned Counsel for the applicant, who is also the Counsel representing V. K. Walia, was actually present before the Court when the order dated November 3, 1987 was passed. 22. On November 26, 1987, the fourth opponent, that is, the Deputy Commissioner Sirmaur, who, is authorised also to exercise the powers and to perform the duties of Inspector (subject to the general or special orders of the Central Government) under section 5 of the Mines Act, 1952, addressed a letter (Annexure A-l hereto) to the Mining Officer, Sirmaur District, Nahan, in the following terms : "The undersigned had been seeking clarification from the Secretary (Industries) and Advocate General H. P. with regard to the interpretation of para 4 page 15 of the orders of the Honble High Court dated 29th May/4th June, 1987 in the abovemen-tioned case. The order was not clear whether the stoppage of blasting was applicable only with respect to the mine of Mr. Walia or to all the mines in district Sirmaur. However, now with the orders of the Honble High Court dated 3-11-87 read alongwith the interim report of the Committee headed by Secretary Science and Technology appointed by the Honble High Court in this regard which was submitted by the Director of Industries on 6-10-1987 before the Honble High Court it is clear that blasting operation is to be stopped throughout the district with respect to all the mines. In view of this and the powers conferred to me by the Honble High Court vide its order dated 3-1 f-1987 in the above mentioned case 1 direct you to ensure that blasting is stopped in all the mines operating in district Sirmaur. Above orders be complied with strictly.” Pursuant to this communication, the Mining Officer addressed a letter dated December 5, 1987 (Annexure A-2 hereto) to various mining lessees including the applicant and enclosed with the said letter the aforesaid communication of the fourth opponent "for favour of information and necessary action at your end please." 23. Two applications came to be instituted after the issue of the aforesaid directions by the fourth opponent CM P. No 1372 of 1987 was filed on December 18, 1987 by 11 mining lessees. They were amongst those mining lessees who had already prayed to be joined as parties eo nomine. The instant application was instituted, as earlier stated, on January 14, 1988. They were amongst those mining lessees who had already prayed to be joined as parties eo nomine. The instant application was instituted, as earlier stated, on January 14, 1988. 1 he reliefs claimed in both the applications are substantially identical and the substance thereof has already been set-out in the earlier part of the judgment. C. M. P. No, 1372 of 1987 was listed for orders on January 5, 1988 and the Court directed that it be heard alongwith the main matter in view of an application having been made meanwhile by and on behalf of the State Government seeking extension of time for submitting the report of the Expert Committee which extension was granted upto March 26, 1988. 24. In the memo of the present application, the applicant has challenged the direction (Annexure A-J) issued by the fourth .opponent on the ground that it is without power, authority and jurisdiction and that the interim order dated May 29, 1987 passed in the writ petition by this Court did not authorise the said respondent to issue the said directions. According to the applicant, all that the said interim order authorised the second respondent to do was to maintain strict superintendence/supervision over the exploitation of the mineral under the existing leases in Sirmaur District in the same manner as indicated in interim direction No. 3 contained therein. The applicant has, inter alia, pointed out that if the said order was allowed to stand, it would materially and adversely affect the production of high grade lime-stone, which is one of the essential items used in manufacturing quality cement used for various development purposes and that it was also likely to affect the economy of the labour community and general population of District Sirmaur, The applicant has stated that it is prepared to carry out the blasting operations strictly in accordance with the report of the Committee and that, therefore, the blanket ban imposed by the fourth opponent be modified and the applicant be allowed to carry out the blasting work subject to such terms and directions as the court deems fit and proper to impose. In the supporting affidavit dated January 15, 1988 filed by the Deputy Manager (Personnel and Administration), it is stated that unless blasting operation was permitted to be undertaken, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss and injury since the cement plant at Rajban might come to a standstill According to the deponent, the book value of the cement plant is Rs. 2437 lacs, the present value thereof is Rs. 3446 lacs, the average turnover per year is Rs. 1967 lacs, the value of production in the plant per day is Rs. 4 lacs and the salary and wages paid to the employees per day are Rs. 50,000. it has also been pointed out that the payment of taxes, levies, royalties etc. to the national and State exchequer per year is to the tune of crores of rupees. 25. The question before the Court at the present stage is whether against the aforesaid background and against the backdrop of the developments which have taken place during the course of this litigation from time to time, it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice and in accordance with law to review/modify the interim directions issued on May 29, 1987 and November 3, 1987, by this Court and/or to modify or suspend the operation of the directions, Annexure A-l, issued by the fourth opponent vide his letter dated November 26, 1987. 26. There are certain initial hurdles in the way of the applicant which have to be crossed before any relief can be sought by way of the present application. They may be referred to first. 27. The application made by the applicant to be joined as party-respondent in the writ petition is still pending consideration, as found earlier. The applicant is thus not a party eo nomine to the writ petition as yet. The law is well settled that when a proceeding is permitted to be instituted in a representative capacity by resorting to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant(s), who is impleaded in the proceeding, represents the larger body of persons having sufficient community of interestand that the entire body of such persons would be bound by a judgment or order rendered in such a proceeding by virtue of Explanation V] to section II of the Code of Civil Procedure. However much the defendant(s) in the action may represent the others having adequate community of interest, still the party to the proceeding is only the defendant(s) who is actually impleaded and not others. A party to such a proceeding is only the one who is actually impleaded as a party or one who, upon an application made under Order 1 Rule 8 sub-Rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, is brought on record, that is, one who is eo nomine made a party. The others who are not brought on record could only be deemed to be parties and they will not be parties as such. In other words, although a person may have interest similar to the defendant(s) in the proceeding and may be bound by any decision or order recorded in the course of such proceeding, he can be treated as a party to the proceeding eo nomine only when he has been brought on record pursuant to the grant of an application under sub-Rule (3) of Rule 8 of Order 1 of the C. P. C. (See : Kodia Goundar and another v. Velandi Goundar and others, AIR 1955 Madras 28 (F8). The law is also equally well settled that unless a party has been brought on record eo nomine, he cannot prefer an appeal against any order or judgment passed in the course of a representative proceeding which has accordingly become binding on him. If a person is deemed to be a party under Order 1 Rule 8 for the purposes of Section 11, Explanation VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate Court may grant leave to appeal in an appropriate case, if the decision rendered in those proceedings will adversely affect him. It is not in every case where a person may be remotely or indirectly affected that leave should be granted but it should be granted to persons who, though not eo nomine parties, would be bound by the decree or judgment in the proceeding and who could not by reason of Explanation VI to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure could agitate the same question in separate proceedings (See: Dimmiti Pullayya and others v. Abdebolu Nagbhushanam and others, AIR 1962 Andhra Pradesh 140 (FB)). In the present case, an application made by the applicant to be joined as party-respondent in the writ petition has still not been granted and, therefore, although the applicant can be regarded as a deemed respondent, it is still not a respondent eo nomine, The applicant cannot, therefore, save and except with the leave of the Court, prefer an appeal or seek any modification or clarification of any judicial order made in the course of the writ petition. No such leave is sought herein nor any separate application seeking leave of the Court has been preferred. The instant application for such relief is, therefore, not maintainable. 28. The applicant is precluded from moving such application in view of the fact also that the order made on November 3, 1987 in C. M. P. No 513 of 1987 instituted by the State Government operates as resjudicata against the applicant. As earlier pointed out, one of the prayers made by the State Government in the said application was that the interim order passed on May 29, 1987 should be reviewed, modified or clarified so as to permit essential or minimal blasting operations being carried out by persons other than V. K. Walia as suggested in the course of the said application. Particular reference was made in the said application to the need and requirement of lime-stone for the industry of cement and to the mining lease granted in favour of the applicant and to the requirement of modifying the interim order with a view to facilitating the operation of the cement plant of the applicant and also other mini cement plants so as to avoid hardship, inconvenience and economic loss. Be it noted that although the said application was made before the application under Order 1 Rule 8 was made or granted, it was heard after the permission to prosecute the writ petition in a representative capacity was allowed and that the order dated November 3, 1987 was passed much thereafter, that is, even after the application of the applicant to be joined as a party-respondent was filed. Since an order rejecting the said prayer was made, the principle of resjudicata would be attracted against all persons who are deemed to be parties to the proceeding whether or not they are parties eo nomine. Since an order rejecting the said prayer was made, the principle of resjudicata would be attracted against all persons who are deemed to be parties to the proceeding whether or not they are parties eo nomine. It cannot be and it is rightly not disputed that even an interim order may operate as res judicata. True if is that the Court has the power to vary or set-aside an interim order on the application of an affected party where such variation or setting-aside has been necessitated by a change in the circumstances or the Court is satisfied that the order has caused undue hardship to that party. However, the applicant could not have resorted to this proviso unless it had either been impleaded as a party or had specifically sought the leave of the Court to move such an application. Besides, there has been no change of circumstances and no new factor, which was not considered by the Court earlier, indicating that undue hardship has been caused to the applicant, is brought on record. The difficulties, if any, experienced be the applicant are of its own making and they have to be viewed and weighed in the context of the larger public interest. More when we examine the matter on merits presently. The application is, therefore, not maintainable even on this ground. 29. The Court cannot also overlook the fact that an earlier application seeking similar relief filed by 11 other mining lessees, which was listed before the Court on January 5, 1988, was ordered to be heard alongwith the main matter in view of the extension of time for submission of the report of the Committee granted on the same day. In view of the order accordingly passed on an application seeking substantially similar relief by other interested persons having almost identical grievances, it would be unfair and unjust to pass any order in favour of the applicant. To do so would undoubtedly result in discrimination even though it may not be conscious or intended. 30. Apart from the factors above mentioned, even if the application is considered on merits, it is not capable of being entertained and/or granted. The Committee has yet not submitted its supplementary/final report. To do so would undoubtedly result in discrimination even though it may not be conscious or intended. 30. Apart from the factors above mentioned, even if the application is considered on merits, it is not capable of being entertained and/or granted. The Committee has yet not submitted its supplementary/final report. There are thus no objective and independent appraisal and materials available to the Court to consider the prayer with respect to the granting of permission for the blasting operations in the mines of the applicant or generally in the area in question subject to restrictions/conditions. The article published in the Indian Express, to which a reference has been made earlier, details the allegedly extensive damage caused due to the mining operations carried out by the applicant and also by the running of its cement plant. The newspaper article has received a broad support from the reports on affidavit of two responsible officers of the State Government extracts whereof have been reproduced earlier. Be it stated that those officers are directly concerned with the subject of environment since one of them is the Conservator of Forests, Soil (Headquarters), and the other is the Conservator of Forests, Nahan. Our attention has not been drawn to any specific material on record which controverts the observations made and the findings recorded in the course of the said reports. What is still more pertinent and important, however, is that even after the fourth opponent issued the impugned directions, Annexure-A-1, some authentic material has come on record which lends further support to those reports. The applicant made an application on December 16, 1987 to the fourth opponent, Annexure A-3 hereto, inter alia, seeking exemption/relaxation in respect of the impugned order "so that the blasting operations in our mines are not completely stopped, leading to stoppage of cement manufacture and subsequent closure of the factory". It undertook to follow any technical as well as administrative instructions/orders issued in that respect. Another application presumably on similar lines appears to have been made on February I, 1983 to the fourth opponent, a copy whereof being not on the record of the case, it is not possible to know precisely what reliefs were claimed therein. Pursuant to the said application^,), the fourth opponent sought a detailed report from the Mining Officer, Nahan, regarding the functioning of the mines of the applicant. Pursuant to the said application^,), the fourth opponent sought a detailed report from the Mining Officer, Nahan, regarding the functioning of the mines of the applicant. The fourth opponent has annexed to his affidavit dated February 7, 1986 a copy of the report submitted by the Mining Officer, Nahan, to him, after paying a visit to the site in the presence of the Mine Manager of the applicant. 31. In the course of his report the Mining Officer has observed that the mining operation was being carried out scientifically under the strict supervision of the technical staff of the applicant with proper benching. However, “the method of dozing down the material along slope is objectionable as the same causes damage to the soil cover below and also may cause air pollution". He was informed that the applicant had no alternative but to slide the material down the hill in order to transport the same to the crushing site as the road from the hill top to the crusher has been disrupted due to slide. Action to relink the road by taking appropriate protective measures was initiated which may take about a year. The only protective measure which the applicant had taken meanwhile to check the rolling down of the lime-stone was to initiate the construction of a retaining wall about nine meters wide at the base and six meters at the top having a height of about six meters and about 500 meters in length out of which 300 meters of wall had been completed. The Mining Officer further observed that the discharge of the rain water being accumulated at the hill top by means of a drain was causing direct silting in Giri river and that the rain water had traversed "the dumping site of water" and that much of it was washed away into Kandon-ka-Khala and from there into River Giri, The mining scheme of lime-stone, which was still under preparation, was shown to the Mining Officer by the Mine Manager of the applicant. The Mining Officer was of the opinion that if, in addition to the preventive measures which were proposed in the letter dated February I, 1988, addressed to the fourth respondent on behalf of the applicant, check dams were constructed "upstream the fan of the drainage made to drain the rain water from the hill top, the chances of silting or air pollution could be minimised". The Mining Officer recommended that keeping in view the public interest and the socio-economic development of the area based on the mines as well as on the cement factory of the applicant, the blasting of the mines should be opened. 32. The fourth opponent in the course of his affidavit dated February 7, 1988, has stated that the applicant has given an undertaking on affidavit that they would start the transportation of the lime-stone via the road the moment it is repaired and that the dumping site would not be used unless adequate steps are taken as directed by him. The work of repairs was reportedly under progress. 33. Now, a copy of the letter dated February 1, 1988, in which the applicant had proposed certain protective measures is not on record. A copy of the undertaking given to the fourth opponent has also not been placed on the record of the case. The Court does not, therefore, have the benefit of appreciating the true effect of the proposal and of the undertaking. Besides, with regard to the transportation of the material/limestone, which used to take place by sliding down the hill, there is only an assurance that the transportation shall take place via road after it is repaired. The repair is stated to be under progress but there is no knowing where the work rests According to the Mining Officer, it would take about a year to relink the road. Till this is done, no blasting can be permitted since one of the major factors/causing pollution and damage to the soil, as per the reports of the Conservator of Forests (Soil) headquarters, the Conservator of Forests, Nahan, and the Mining Officer, Nahan, is the sliding down of the material from the hill top. The construction of the retaining wall as a protective measure, which has been taken up in hand, is also not complete. The construction of the retaining wall as a protective measure, which has been taken up in hand, is also not complete. There is no reference in the affidavit of the fourth respondent to the installation of check dams upstream the fan of the drainage which protective measure is recommended by the Mining Officer in his report, the mining scheme also is still stated to be under preparation. 34. It would thus appear that on merits also there is no case for the relaxation of the ban imposed on the blasting operations qua the mine of the applicant. The it is that the Mining Officer has recommended that blasting operations in the mine of the applicant should be permitted but the recommendation has to be read in light of the remedial/protective measures suggested by him and their due implementation. No such implementation as discussed earlier, is shown to have been made still. It cannot be overlooked also that the Committee in its interim report has clearly stipulated that blasting should be permitted only after taking into consideration the matter concerning environment. The material on record does not indicate that this stipulation has been satisfied by the applicant. Taking into consideration the totality of the materials on record to which our attention was drawn, there is no manner of doubt that permitting the applicant to undertake blasting operation in its mine would defeat the very purpose of the petition and render the interim order dated May 29, 1987, in its application to the applicant wholly ineffective. Needless to add that in the opinion of the Court, the impugned order, Annexure A I, issued by the fourth opponent, is clearly to conformity with the directions issued in the said interim order. 35. The Court is conscious of the fact that a just balance has to be maintained between the two competing claims, namely, the exploitation of the mineral resources of the State keeping in view the need for industrial growth and development and the impact of such exploitation on the environment and its effect on the inhabitants of the area. 35. The Court is conscious of the fact that a just balance has to be maintained between the two competing claims, namely, the exploitation of the mineral resources of the State keeping in view the need for industrial growth and development and the impact of such exploitation on the environment and its effect on the inhabitants of the area. Having applied its mind closely 10 all the relevant factors the Court is convinced that the relaxation of the ban at this stage, without providing for and ensuring adequate safeguards, would irreparably harm and damage the environment, ecology and inhabitants of the locality, it cannot be overlooked in this connection, that although the applicant is an organ or an agency of the State, it has been found to be carrying on the mining operations to the detriment of the natural wealth and environment for a period of over eight years and that it has still not taken all the requisite measures to safeguard against pollution and injury to the ecology and environment. Till adequate measures are taken by the applicant, who should have shown a greater awareness to work in conformity with the Directive Principle of State Policy contained in Article 48-A and who should have really s6t up a model for others to emulate, it cannot be heard to say that the order should be modified on the grounds urged. If the production in its factory is hampered to some extent on account of the directions issued in the interim order and if that results in any hardship, it is the price that has to be paid for its own defaults and for protecting and safeguarding the right of the people to live in healthy environment with minimal disturbance of ecological balance and without avoidable hazard to them and to their cattle, homes and agricultural land and undue affectation of air, water and environment. The Court can do no better than to quote in this connection the following observations of A. N. Sen, J. in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun and others v. Slate of U.P. and others, (1985) 2 SCAL8 906 : “….....Advantage gained by working the mines for industrial growth and national development in a manner which may seriously prejudice the interests of a large Dumber of human beings and disturb the ecological balance, may very much be out-weighed by the serious consequences which are likely to follow. Industrial development is necessary for economic growth of the country in the larger interests of the nation. If, however, industrial growth is sought to be achieved by haphazard and reckless working of the mines resulting in loss of life, loss of property, loss of basic amenities like supply of water and creation of ecological imbalance, there may ultimately be no real economic growth and no real prosperity, It is necessary to strike a proper balance......” Besides, the working of the nine of the applicant is not stopped altogether. Only the blasting operation is prohibited. If the mining can take place in any other scientific manner and in conformity with rules and regulations, there is nothing to prevent the applicant from doing so. 36. The Court expects the Committee to submit its report within the extended time-limit, that is, on or before March 26, 1988. The present case highlights the need for the Committee to submit its report with the utmost expedition so that wherever possible the blasting operation can be permitted to be undertaken, if recommended by them, subject to such safeguards as may be suggested. The State Government will bring these observations to the notice of the Committee. The applicant may, meanwhile, consider taking adequate scientific and technical measures to minimise to the maximum possible extent the injury to the ecology and environment and to the livelihood and living conditions of the people of the area resulting from its working of the mine and the factory and place the relevant material before the fourth opponent and, with the permission of the Court, on the record of the writ petition. It will be at liberty to move the Court for appropriate relief thereafter. It will be at liberty to move the Court for appropriate relief thereafter. In any case, the Court will issue suitable directions with respect to the blasting operations after the report of the Committee is received and at that stage also it would be competent to the applicant to move the Court for appropriate directions, so far as its own mines are concerned, after obtaining leave, if it is not joined as a party till then. 37. For the foregoing reasons, the application is rejected at this stage. Needless to add that as a result of the rejection of the application, the ad interim order will cease to be operative and that the order passed by the fourth opponent (Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur) will continue to apply to the applicant. 38. Dasti copy on usual terms. Application rejected.