JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—Kinkri Devi and C. S. Chauhan, residents of village Sangrah, Tehsil Renuka in District Sirmaur instituted the present petition on March 31,1987 claiming to be right holders of the village. They brought this petition as a social action litigation. A list of the other right holders of the village was appended as Annexure-P-1 to the petition. Initially there were four respondents in the petition which included the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries) ; the Deputy Commissioner, District Sirmaur ; V.K. Walia, who was carrying on limestone mining in the area ; and the Union of India. Later, several other respondents were added to the petition including the Cement Corpn. of India Ltd , a Government of India Enterprise, and the H. P State Pollution Control Board through its Chairman apart from a large number of lessees carrying on mining operations in the area. The mining leases in favour of the lessees enabled them to extract limestone in the area leased out to them for various purposes. According to the petitioners, the lessees were operating the mines in such a manner as to cause havoc to the adjoining land, water resources, pastures, forests, wild life, ecology, environment and inhabitants of the area. 2. When the petition was taken up for preliminary hearing on April 8, 1987, Counsel for the petitioners was permitted to place on record an article which had appeared in the "Indian Express" in its Issue dated April 6, 1987. It was an article by one Devinder Sharma, a Correspondent of the paper, written under the heading "Progress or peoples nightmare". It said that in the name of development, barren Shivalik hills were being ruthlessly blasted for extracting limestone which was causing immense damage to the area in various respects. The Court issued notice of the petition to the first four respondents the same day and directed them to tile separate affidavits in reply and to deal also with the contents of the newspaper article in their affidavits, after paying a visit to village Sangrah and personally verifying the facts on the spot on the basis of the official record available. The affidavits in reply, as directed by this Court, were filed and reports on affidavits were submitted by the officers after spot inspection. 3. On May 29, 1Q87 the Court passed an interim order. The affidavits in reply, as directed by this Court, were filed and reports on affidavits were submitted by the officers after spot inspection. 3. On May 29, 1Q87 the Court passed an interim order. It noticed that the affidavits of the officers and the report placed by them on the record of the petition revealed that the apprehension expressed in the petition and the newspaper article in regard to the danger to the hilly tracts of the Sirmaur District and to its environment, ecology, natural resources and to the well being of the inhabitants on account of the quarrying of the limestone in, what appeared to be, an unscientific and uncontrolled manner was correct to a large extent. It. therefore, directed the State Government to set up a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, with members consisting of Secretaries in the Department of Industries, Public Works, Forests, Science, Technology and Environment and Agriculture to examine the question whether the grant of mining leases in respect of limestone in Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Renuka and Rajgarh in District Sirmaur, and particularly the grant of such leases in or around village Sangrah was in accordance with the statutory provisions or not and whether the mines were being scientifically operated or were being 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 nallahs, the flora and fauna, the ecology, the environment and life and living conditions of the people and their property. The Committee was also asked to incorporate its recommendations about evolution of a long-term plan and scheme for the grant of mining leases in the State and to suggest the preventive, curative and regulatory measures and machinery to ensure that the mining leases were to be operated in a scientific manner. It was also directed to consider and suggest remedial measures for the repair of the damage and for treatment of the affected natural wealth and resources and the local population because of indiscriminate mining operations and payment of compensation to the people inhabiting the area on that account The Committee was constituted on July 23, 1987 It was reconstituted, on the prayer made on behalf of the State Government, under an order dated August 26, 1987. 4. 4. The reconstituted Committee consisted of the: (1) Secretary (Science and Technology), Himachal Pradesh Government (Chairman); (2) Secretary (Industries), H. P. Government; (3) Chief Conservator of Forest, 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; (8) Prof. V. J. Gupta, Department of Geology, Punjab University Chandigarh ; with the Deputy Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as the non-member Secretary thereof. This Committee visited the limestone quarries in District Sirmaur, particularly those in and around village Sangrah and some in Tehsil Shillai and Paonta Sahib and made an interim report which is Annexure-RA. Recommendation No. 11 made by the Committee was that blasting in the mines may be permitted subject to the following provisions i "(a) 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 ; (b) 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; (c) Blasting should be undertaken as per provisions of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations 19ol, as certified by the Department of Industries; (d) Blasting should be undertaken after taking into consideration the matters concerning environment." 5. The fourth condition was found by this Court to be in general terms which did not precisely indicate which of the matters were required to be taken into consideration and what restrictions were required to be imposed in that behalf. The interim order made by the Court on May 29, 1987 was not varied on that account under that order. The third respondent (Shri V. K. Walia) was permitted, in terms of the undertaking to be given by him, to carry on mining operations, except by recourse to blasting, in a manner strictly in accordance with the instructions to be issued to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, who was to ensure that the mining operations were carried out by the third respondent strictly on scientific lines. Further, that no lease for the mining of the limestone was to be granted or renewed nor temporary permits issued in the District till the Committee had made its report. 6. Several miscellaneous applications, by which impleadment of various parties to the petition and clarification of the order dated May 29, 1987 was sought had been made in between. On 3rd November, 1987 various orders were passed which included a direction to place the interim report of the Committee on the record of the case, amendment of the petition and rejection of the prayer made on behalf of the State Government to modify the order dated May 29, 1987. 7. On November 26, 1987 the Deputy Commissioner Sirmaur issued a communication to the Mining Officer Sirmaur directing him to ensure that blasting operation was stopped in all the mines operating in the District, in view of the orders passed by this Court. The Mining Officer, in turn, addressed letters to various mining lessees enclosing therewith the letter of the Deputy Commissioner for information and necessary action. After it a number of lessees approached this Court assailing the direction made by the Deputy Commissioner, according to them, on a misapprehension of the orders passed by this Court. They said that if the direction issued in pursuance of the order dated May 27, 198? was permitted to continue it would materially and adversely affect the production of the high grade limestone used in manufacturing quality cement necessary for various developmental purposes and would affect adversely the economy of the labour community and general population of the District. The applicants included the Cement Corporation of India Ltd which said that it was prepared to carry out blasting operations strictly in accordance with the report of the Committee and that the blanket ban imposed by the Deputy Commissioner be modified and it be allowed to carry out blasting work subject to such terms and directions as the Court felt fit and proper to impose. It also said that unless blasting operation was permitted to be undertaken, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to it since the Cement Plant at Rajban might come to a standstill. The total value of the plant was Rs. 2437 lacs of which the value at that time was Rs 3446 lacs and the annual turnover was Rs. It also said that unless blasting operation was permitted to be undertaken, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to it since the Cement Plant at Rajban might come to a standstill. The total value of the plant was Rs. 2437 lacs of which the value at that time was Rs 3446 lacs and the annual turnover was Rs. 1967 lacs, the production in the plant per day was valued at Rs. 4 lacs and the salary and wages paid to the employees were disclosed at Rs. 50,000. Besides, it was said that the national and State exchequer might lose annually crores of rupees which they were getting by way of taxes, levies, royalties etc The matter was heard at some length and, eventually, the Court took the view, in its order of March 10, 1988, that permitting the Cement Corporation of India to undertake blasting operation in its mines would defeat the very purpose of the petition and render the order dated May 29, 1987 ineffective and further that the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner was in conformity with the direction issued by this Court in that order. The Court, however, said that when the Committee appointed by it submitted its report, it would be open to the Cement Corporation of India to move the Court for appropriate relief. 8. The Chairman of the Committee submitted the report of the Committee along with his letter dated April 26, iy88 Copies thereof were directed to be supplied to the Counsel for the petitioners as well as those of other respondents. Eventually, a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Bhawani Singh, I.) was a member, dealt with the matter at some length while dealing with an application (C M. P. No 77 of 1989) by the Cement Corporation of India Ltd. seeking modification of the earlier orders of the Court dated May 29, 1987 and November 3, 1987, and the one dated November 26, 1987, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur. It went into the antecedent facts and observed, in its order dated April 30, 1990, thus; "We have heard the Counsel for the parties at great length. Documents on record, including the report of the Committee, have been seen. It went into the antecedent facts and observed, in its order dated April 30, 1990, thus; "We have heard the Counsel for the parties at great length. Documents on record, including the report of the Committee, have been seen. Shri K. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the applicant also pointed out that mining plan as well as the management, plan have already been submitted to the concerned departments for sanction, so till the same are sanctioned or rejected, blasting operations for extraction of material from the mine may be permitted subject to the conditions which have been mentioned in the order of the Court dated 3-11-1987 as well as those given in the application. It is also submitted that the blasting operations will be carried out strictly in accordance with these guidelines and under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur or his nominee who may visit the spot on occasions in order to see that the operations were being carried out strictly in accordance with these parameters. Keeping in view all these assurances of the applicant and the fact that it is a Government Company employing large number of workers, producing cement at high scale and paying revenue to the State, it is desirable to allow the prayer to some extent with the hope that it will undertake the mining operations through blasting strictly in accordance with the proposed mining plan and environmental plan already submitted as well as within the parameters and directions issued by this Court from time to time and the assurances held out by the applicant through its Counsel. The blasting operations are, therefore, permitted for a period of six months only The Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, or his nominee may visit the area of mining operations in order to see that the mining operations are being carried out in accordance with this order scientifically and the mining plan and environmental plan already submitted by the applicant. In case the mining operations are not carried out in accordance with this order, the Deputy Commissioner. Sirmaur, is at liberty to report the matter to this Court seeking variation of this order. It is also made clear that in case the mining plan and environmental plan are rejected by the departments concerned, within this period of six months, the State is at liberty to move this Court for the variation of this order. Ordered accordingly." 9. Sirmaur, is at liberty to report the matter to this Court seeking variation of this order. It is also made clear that in case the mining plan and environmental plan are rejected by the departments concerned, within this period of six months, the State is at liberty to move this Court for the variation of this order. Ordered accordingly." 9. However, the Bench dismissed the prayer made on behalf of respondent V. K Walia in C M. P. No 85 of 1989 for being relieved of his under taking given to the Court on May 29, 1987 not to carry on blasting operation for the reasons mentioned in its order of the same date. 10. Earlier, on December 29, 1988 a writ petition was filed by Himachal Chambers of Commerce and Industry (a Company incorporated under section 25 of the Companies. Act, 1956) through Shri Man Mohan Malik, claiming to be duly authorised person, and Man Mohan Malik as a partner of M/s Himalaya Chemicals, 84-Industnal Area, Paonta Sahib. This petition came to be registered as C W. P. No. 26 of 1989. In brief, what is claimed in the writ petition is that the two petitioners came to Himachal Pradesh for establishing their respective industrial units based on the availability of limestone, dolomite, gypsum, barytes, limestone (Marble) on the invitation of the State of Himachal Pradesh to establish their industrial units They had invested huge amounts in setting up their establishment from their own resources and by making borrowings from public financial institutions. However, they were not getting necessary raw-material on account of restraints put by the State Government on the mining operations. The petitioners say that they were not concerned with any mining leases from the Himachal Pradesh Government except for M/s Sirmaur Lime Industries, Sirmaur, and M/s Himachal Mines and Quarries, Batamandi, who were carrying on mining operations in their respective mines properly. Further, that the respondent State of Himachal Pradesh was duty bound to ensure that mining operations were carried out properly but they were further under a legal obligation to ensure that basic raw-material like limestone, dolomite, gypsum, barytes and limestone (marble) etc. were made available to the industrialists concerned whose industries were based on these raw-materials so that the industrial activities do not come to a standstill. were made available to the industrialists concerned whose industries were based on these raw-materials so that the industrial activities do not come to a standstill. More so, when these industries have been set up on the assurances held out by the State of Himachal Pradesh that these raw-materials were available in abundance in the State of Himachal Pradesh and that but for it the members of petitioner No 1 as well as those entrepreneurs, who are detailed in Annexure-PC to the writ petition, would not have set up industries in this State. The petitioners pray for the following reliefs in the writ petition as against the respondents (State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Industries), State Geologist to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan) that they be directed to : "(a) ensure that they take adequate steps by checking that the lessees and mine owners do not carry out mining operations in such a manner so as to injuriously affect the water sources, roads, habitation, residence, etc. etc in any manner whatsoever, (b) ensure that mining operations are carried out in a scientific, proper and lawful manner according to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960 and Himachal Pradesh Mining and Minerals (Concession) Rules as well as in accordance with the provisions of the grant of lease, (c) ensure that wherever the mining operations are being carried out unscientifically by the mining lessees/mine owners despite being forewarned and checked as per instructions/guidance of the respondents issued in that behalf, such operations are stopped immediately, (d) ensure that the respondents provide necessary guidance wherever necessary, regarding Infrastructure like machinery etc as well as to educate the lessees and the mine owners regarding the proper and scientific mining operations so that they carry out the same without any loss to anything as aforesaid, (e) ensure that respondents take the long term schemes/measures by properly guiding the lessees and mine owners for undertaking perennial mining operations and not to carry on mining operations in a haphazard manner, (f) ensure that because of any inaction on their part, the petitioners are not starved of the basic raw materials necessary for their Industrial Units, (g) ensure that they undertake time-bound action so that they make sure and regulate the reining operations in the mines in District Sirmaur on scientific and proper lines so that the petitioners do not suffer for want of raw materials as aforesaid......" 11. The stand which has been taken by the first two respondents in this petition, in substance, is that the State was possessed of rich mineral resources and that a Policy of Industrialisation, in terms of the guidelines issued by the Government, for speedy industrialisation and creation of employment opportunities for youths of the State was adopted by them and further that they had ensured that mining operations were being carried out not only in accordance with the provisions of the various Acts and Rules governing them but also in a scientific and systematic manner with least degradation and minimum waste of minerals having regard to the necessity of ensuring ecological balance and minimum degradation of environment while doing so. The stand also is that no assurance was ever given by any agency of the State for establishment or otherwise of the industries in regard to the supply of raw-material, as alleged by the petitioners. The stand also is that no assurance was ever given by any agency of the State for establishment or otherwise of the industries in regard to the supply of raw-material, as alleged by the petitioners. Petitioners have reiterated their stand in the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed to this reply. 12 Yet another writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 719 of 1990) was filed in this Court on December 10, 1990 by one Sunder Singh impleading therein the same three respondents, as were impleaded in C W. P. No. 26 of 1989. This petitioner says that he applied for grant of mining lease for extracting limestone from village Bhootmari, Tehsil Renukaji of District Sirmaur, to the Director of Industries H P. on March 11, 1983 which was granted to him subject to certain conditions contained in the letter of approval issued by the Regional Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines, appended as Annexure-Pl. This letter contains as many as 12 conditions to which the mining process was subjected. 13. The contention of the petitioner is that thereafter he made an application to the Deputy Commissioner but learnt that he could not carry on blasting due to orders made by this Court in C. W. P. No 82 of 1987 (Kinkri Devi v State of Himachal Pradesh and others). He also says that he was surprised to learn that the Committee appointed by this Court in that case had made certain recommendations in respect of his mine (at page 50-51) saying that face of the mine had been opened On that account, even though the mining plan granted to him on October 19, 1990, had been approved, he cannot be granted permission for carrying on blasting operations As such, he had to approach this Court through the petition filed by him in which he prays that the respondents be directed to grant permission to him for carrying on blasting operation for extracting limestone from his mine situate in village Bhootmari. 14. In this petition the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, has sworn a reply on behalf of the respondents. 14. In this petition the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, has sworn a reply on behalf of the respondents. The stand taken in this reply is that though mining lease for mining limestone had been granted to the petitioner over an area of 36 bighas in village Mandoli, Tehsil Renukaji in District Sirmaur, the ban on blasting had been imposed by the Deputy Commissioner on November 26, 1987 as a corollary to the order of this Court dated November 3, 1987 in C. W. P. No. 82 of 1987. Further, the State Government had no objection it the petitioner obtained ex-post facto licence and adhered to scientific mining and environmental plan without any adverse effect on ecology and environment. The stand also is that sufficient safeguards are provided under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 ; Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ; Mineral Concession Rules, 1960; Mineral Conservation and Development Rules 1988 and other related Mines Acts and Rules and several agencies to oversee the implementation of these to protect the environment and ecology so that this Court may permit economical prudent use of blasting material for scientific optimum output of limestone without any degradation of environment and ecology. 15. It has further been emphasised in this reply that there was no economically viable method of mining limestone in which explosives are not used and mining by use of explosives is being conducted in similar geological, topographical and environmental belts in the world. The concept of environment and ecology is not a static term but to discover a suitable relationship between the needs of living things and their surroundings. The Central Government had authorised: (i) Controller General of Mines of Indian Bureau of Mines ; (ii) Chief Controller of Mines; (iii) Controller of Mines; (iv) Regional Controller of Mines; and (v) Deputy Controller of Mines; to monitor the safeguards of environment and ecology and that State Board for Prevention and Control of Water Pollution has also been delegated the same powers which had been delegated to the officers of Indian Bureau of Mines This State Board has qualified staff with laboratory and necessary equipments to analyse air, water and soil samples and also had the equipments to monitor the noise pollution. These authorities could ensure or take appropriate action in the event of any pollution of specified allowable limits of concentration of various environmental pollutants. These authorities could ensure or take appropriate action in the event of any pollution of specified allowable limits of concentration of various environmental pollutants. A copy of Chapter V on environment contained in the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 has been appended with the reply as Annexure-RA. 16. Several respondents moved applications (including C. M. P. No. 1344 of 1990) before this Court seeking permission to carry on blasting operations which stood stopped on account of an undertaking given by the third respondent, V. K. Walia in C. W. P. No 82 of 1987 and the general order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur. These applications were beard by us and on January 8, 1991, after taking into consideration various documents appended to the application, Including a copy of the letter (Annexure-S. A-7) by which mining plan had been approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines (Ministry of Steel and Mines) in respect of the mine lease of M/s. Jai Singh Thakur and sons, the Court considered the plea made before it for an order that blasting operation:, within the parameters outlined in the approved Mining Plan, should be permitted to the lessee, else, he was likely to face enormous financial difficulties. The Court felt that having regard to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, framed by the Central Government, it was necessary to ensure that a person, qualified to carry on the monitoring of the environment data, should be available on behalf of the Ministry of Environment to whom the task could be entrusted. The Court felt constrained to direct that: "......the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment. Government of India, should depute a person(s) duly qualified to examine the feasibility of permitting blasting operations, consistent with the requirement of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules, to visit the spot and submit a report to this Court......" And, that: "......While doing so, the person(s) deputed by the Secretary of the Ministry, shall also take into account the provisions contained in the approved Mining Plan of the Lessee(s). The lessee(s) or his authorised representative(s) shall be entitled to be associated with any spot inquiry that may be made by the officials) deputed by the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment and to point out to him the relevant provisions in the Mining Plan and the modality of executing the same at the spot......" 17. The Union of India, in the Ministry of Environment, constituted a Committee of three members to visit the area which visited the area between March 11 and March 13, 199! and then forwarded a report to this Court in the month of April 1^91 The Committee consisted of Shri S. K. Das, Scientist (SE), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New Delhi, Professor Avdhesh Kaushal, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. and Shri O. N. Kaul, formerly Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Govt. of Mizoram. Objections to this report (hereafter, "the April report") have been Sled on behalf of the third respondent (V. K. Walia) in respect of Sangrah and Bhootmari mines, as well as on behalf of respondents No. 11 to 58 apart from an objection on behalf of the tenth respondent (Cement Corporation of India Ltd.) 18. By our order of April 9, 1991, after being informed by Mrs. Shyama Dogra, that experts were available from the H.P. Pollution Control Board, we proposed appointment of another Committee to visit the area and make a report to this Court as envisaged in our earlier order dated January 8, 19yi. Later, we were informed that one Shri Chetan Joshi, Asstt. EnvironmentaJ Engineer in the H P State Pollution Control Board, Parwanoo. District Solan, who alone was available for the purpose, bad been instructed to visit the area and submit a report, A report by Chetan Joshi, after a. visit to the area, was filed by Mrs. Shyama Dogra on May 24, 1991. Three separate objections to this report (for brief, "Joshi report") were filed one each on behalf of the Cement Corporation of India, V. K.. Walia and respondents No. 11 to 58 as permitted by us. 19. The case was heard at some length on June 25 and 26. 1991 and orders reserved. We proceed to dispose of these three writ petitions by a common judgment finally, as prayed by learned Counsel for the parties. 20. Walia and respondents No. 11 to 58 as permitted by us. 19. The case was heard at some length on June 25 and 26. 1991 and orders reserved. We proceed to dispose of these three writ petitions by a common judgment finally, as prayed by learned Counsel for the parties. 20. Legal opinion about the approach in a case like the preient is clear. To borrow the words of the Supreme Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1987 SC 359, (in paragraph 19) s ".............It is necessary that the Himalayas and the forest growth on the mountain range should be left uninterfered with so that there may be sufficient quantity of rain. The top soil may be preserved without being eroded and the natural setting of the area may remain intact.........We are not oblivious of the fact that natural resources have got to be tapped for the purposes of social development but one cannot forget at the same time that tapping of resources have to be done with requisite attention and care so that ecology and environment may not be affected in any serious way there may not be any depletion of water resources and long-term planning must be undertaken to keep up the national wealth It has always to be remembered that these are permanent assets of mankind and are not intended to be exhausted in one generation." And, (in paragraph 20) that: “.........Preservation of the environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected is a task which not only Government but also every citizen must undertake. It is a social obligation and let us remind every Indian citizen that it is his fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 5i-A (g) of the Constitution " As well as In M C Mehta and another etc. It is a social obligation and let us remind every Indian citizen that it is his fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 5i-A (g) of the Constitution " As well as In M C Mehta and another etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC 965 (in paragraph 21) that j "...........It is also necessary to point that when science and technology are increasingly employed in producing goods and services calculated to improve the quality of life, there is a certain element of hazard or risk inherent in the very use of science and technology and it is not possible to totally eliminate such hazard or risk altogether............We can only hope to reduce the element of hazard or risk to the community by taking all necessary steps for locating such industries in a manner which would pose least risk or danger to the community and maxa-mising safety requirements in such industries…...." 21. The modality to be adopted by the Court for informing itself about the hazard involved and possible remedial measures to be adopted has also been indicated in the decisions aforesaid. We may only refer to some observations made by the Supreme Court in M. C. Mehta (in paragraph 22) where it was said that: "...............We have noticed that in the past few years there is an increasing trend to the number of cases based on environmental pollution and ecological destruction coming up before the Courts ...... In most of these cases there is need for neutral scientific expertise as an essential input to inform judicial decision making These cases require expertise at a high level of scientific and technical sophistication. We felt the need for such expertise in this very case and we had to appoint several expert committees to inform the Court as to what measures were required to be adopted by the management............" 22. This Court also had to adopt similar modality by appointing expert committees from time to time. That was done in this case as well. That was done also in the case of limestone mining In what has come to be known as the case of "Saproon Valley" decided by us on April 24, 1991. The decision was recorded in C. W. P No. 567 of 1988. General Public of Saproon Valley and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, connected with four more writ petitions. The decision was recorded in C. W. P No. 567 of 1988. General Public of Saproon Valley and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, connected with four more writ petitions. To recall our observations in that judgment: "............The effort that this Court made to ascertain the existing conditions as the spot where mining operations were going on and the effect thereof upon the environment was by deputing, from time to time, officials or a body of persons, asking them to visit the area and make a report to this Court. The reports made to this Court were found to be differing from each other and it was on that account that, eventually, the Committee with Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as Chairman, was directed to be constituted to make an in-depth study of the problem. This Committee, as detailed earlier, included experts like the Directors of Geological Survey of India, of Mines Safety and Professors of Forestry and Geology. The Committee drew up a detailed report........." 23. The first Committee, which was constituted on July 23, J987, and, thereafter re-constituted under an order dated August 26, 1987 made certain recommendations in its interim report (Annexure-RA). We have referred to it earlier. The Court felt that, in view of what has been said in the earlier part of this judgment, a person qualified to carry on the monitoring of the environment data should be available on behalf of the Ministry of Environment to be entrusted with the task of ensuring that mining operations, including blasting, are carried on consistently with the requirement of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder. A Committee was appointed by the Union of India which submitted its report in April 1991 Later, another report, as directed by this Court, was submitted on May 24, 1991 by Shri Chetan Joshi, Asstt Environmental Engineer in the H. P. State Pollution Control Board, Parwanoo. The first of these reports, namely, "the April report" says that: “………………. not only blasting but also mining should be completely stopped as early as possible........." The Committee has recorded its conclusion in paragraph 8 of the report in these words : "8. Conclusion. The first of these reports, namely, "the April report" says that: “………………. not only blasting but also mining should be completely stopped as early as possible........." The Committee has recorded its conclusion in paragraph 8 of the report in these words : "8. Conclusion. — In view of what has been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, it is, therefore, concluded that blasting operations in these mines have led to serious ecological imbalances and environmental repercussions Greatly weakened rocks and unstable slopes extremely prone to land slides and realising the magnitude of destruction that mining activities have caused to the environment, it is suggested that not only blasting but also mining should be completely stopped as early as possible. To obtain one resource (minerals) to the utter detriment of other natural resources (water, soil, vegetation etc.) should not be permitted. Sd/- (S. K. Das) Scientist, SE Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi. Sd/- (Prof. Avdhesh Kaushal) Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. Sd/- (O. N. Kaul) Formerly Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Secretary, Environment and Forest Department, Govt. of Mizoram." 24. The objections filed by the various respondents to this report are many. For example, there is an objection to the effect that the members of the Committee cannot be characterised as experts on environment The basic premise upon which the conclusion reproduced above has been founded has also been challenged. Besides, the objectors, particularly the Cement Corporation of India, have been at pains to place on record the steps that they have taken to ensure that mining operations are carried on scientifically and with minimum damage to the ecology and the surroundings. Opinion, in support of the objections, of some experts has also been placed on the record along with the objections. We did not permit the learned Counsel for the respondents to address us in any detail upon these objections as we did not intend to go into them We had already directed that a report be submitted to the court by an expert from the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board after making the necessary study at the spot The "Joshi report" was, thus, submitted to us in the month of May 1991. We examined the report with the assistance of the Counsel for the parties and felt that the conclusions recorded in it strike a reasonable balance between the requirements of environment protection and continuance of mining operations in the area scientifically. We, therefore, proceed to notice the salient features of this report. 25. In the light of our order dated January 8, 1991 the terms of reference culled out in the report are these: (a) To examine the feasibility of permitting blasting operations consistent with the Environment (Protection) Act and the Rules thereof; (b) If blasting is allowed, the manner in which it should be allowed and what parameters should be monitored to safeguard the environment under the statutory provisions; (c) The agency who will monitor the environmental parameters. 26. Field visits were made by Shri Joshi in the company of Shri Arun Sharma, Assistant Geologist, and to some of the areas also along with Shri S S. Juneja, Member Secretary H.P. State Pollution Control Board, who had nearly twenty years of experience in road construction in hilly areas, involving blasting, and has been working as Member Secretary of the State Pollution Control Board implementing the pollution control and environmental Acts. A number of mines in Sataun, Naddi, Hyona, Kamaroo, Shilla belt, Baldawa Bhanor tract, Bharoli Shiva Rudana tract, Sangrah-Bhootmari tract and Nauradhar tract were visited between May 6-8, 1991. The facts observed during the field visits have been detailed in the report- Some of the facts were that: (i) At the mines of the Cement Corporation of India at Naddi-Sataun in District Sirmaur blasting was being done by using benching method during fixed hours between 12-00 noon and 2.00 p m. by using average charge of explosive per hole around 20 kg. Big cloud of dust was formed at the crusher of the Cement Corporation of India near the base camp and that some urgent measures were required to be taken to suppress dust as also regular sprinkling on the roads in their mining areas was called for ; (ii) Some of the mines were located close to the highways and close to the habitation and agricultural land mote predominantly in Kamaroo and Bhootmari. The fact that mining operations were meant for remote areas away from habitation appeared not to have been considered while granting mining leases; (iii) Rackless blasting operations had resulted in stripping the green hill slopes which presented a gloomy picture; (iv) The waste over burden debris made to slide down the hill degenerate the land and water sources; (v) No rehabilitation, as per mining plans, could be seen except in one or two cases where the lessees had raised some plantation; (vi) Mining and blasting had resulted in unstablized zone and no remedial efforts had been made by lessees or any other agency; (vii) Enquiries made from the public about loss to the property revealed that there was no loss to buildings but damage to land and water regime was clear and self-explanatory; (viii) Most of the mines were owned by local people which had improved their economic position and though the villagers at most of the places were explained the hazard of rackless mining, it appeared that they were not aware of long term consequences and wanted that mining should be allowed as this was the only mean of livelihood because fertile land was not available nor was assured irrigation and most of the agricultural land depends on good rains; (ix) Most of the lessees had small areas and did not appear to be in a position to use latest technology and mechanical equipments like rippers to avoid blasting As such, blasting appeared to be only viable measure and operation left with them. (x) Almost every mine holder expressed a desire to provide measures regarding implementation of environment protection measures as contemplated in their approved mining plans on condition that blasting in a controlled manner was permitted to them ; (xi) The Haulage Roads constructed by the mine-holders in the mining areas were found to have very steep gradients with no extra width and the curves seem to be quite unsafe ; (xii) It was felt that it was not possible to entirely ban the mining but mining on limited scale deserved to be allowed keeping the environment protection in mind. 27. The report then proceeds to discuss the question whether blasting was to be allowed and. If so, to whom and to what extent. 27. The report then proceeds to discuss the question whether blasting was to be allowed and. If so, to whom and to what extent. Some of the approved mining plans, made available by lessees, were examined and it was found that parameters relating to environment provided by Rule 31 to Rule 41 of the Rules notified by the Government of India in Ministry of Steel and Mines vide their notification dated October 24, 1988 (in Chapter-5) for protection of environment had been included in the mining plans but their implementation could hardly be seen at site. These parameters relate to protection of environment; storage and utilisation of top soil; storage of overburden waste rock etc. and reclamation and rehabilitation of land ; precaution against ground vibrations ; damage due to fly rocks , damage due to air blast/shock wave ; damage due to noise ; and precaution against air pollution. 28. The report also makes reference to the effect of the burden of solid waste during mining being dumped into nallahs and at steep slopes which during rainy season trickle down to rivers and thereby affect the regime of rivers and also toxicology of rivers. It further notices that the provisions contained in section 25 of the amended Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 for which the implementing authority is the H. P. State Pollution Control Board are applicable to the waste generated during the mining and they should be observed after finalisation of standards for the mining areas. The report also says that noise generation during mining on account of blasting, movement of equipment and vehicles should be abated or controlled by lessees at the source by muffling of noise producing equipment and proper repair and maintenance and use of silencers, along with their engineering .control measures, in the case of large mines while muffling of the equipment and raising plantation of Neem tree belt at least 10 metres wide around mining areas in the case of small mines. It may also be controlled by limiting the number of blasts per day and by muffle blasting technology. 29. The report further makes a specific reference to restoration of fora and takes note of the fact that plantation of the trees and rehabilitation of the area forms part of the mining plans. It may also be controlled by limiting the number of blasts per day and by muffle blasting technology. 29. The report further makes a specific reference to restoration of fora and takes note of the fact that plantation of the trees and rehabilitation of the area forms part of the mining plans. The principal recommendations contained in the "Joshi report" are that: (a) the blasting adopted in Cement Corporation of India mines at Manal/Naddi, appeared to be systematic. There was some scope of improvement by avoiding falling of debris by providing check dams and strictly and religiously executing mining as per mining plans as approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines ; (b) For a small mine, the mining lease may be cancelled if the mine is located right on the road side or very near to the habitation and the owner may be compensated by giving lease of mines in remote areas sufficiently away from sensitive zone; (c) All mining lessees should apply for consent of the State Pollution Control Board under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 so that the State Pollution Control Board could study the parameters before giving consent and mining operation may be allowed after proper consent is issued by the State Pollution Control Board ; (d) In case of grant of new mining leases or renewal of the existing ones a no objection certificate from the H. P. State Pollution Control Board may be made obligatory; (e) No mining leases should be granted where slope angle is more than 45° from horizontal ; (f) In every mining plan, the important basic data on environment may be included in detail so that parameters could be monitored effectively ; (g) Environment Impact Studies of the entire Sirmaur District should be started at once which include the studies about socio-economic conditions, land use pattern, flora and fauna, air quality, water quality, noise and ground vibrations. All basic data should be compiled in these studies which may include complete land use pattern, that is, to identify and clearly mark mining area where although the minerals are available but due to other environmental reasons it is not open for mining. All basic data should be compiled in these studies which may include complete land use pattern, that is, to identify and clearly mark mining area where although the minerals are available but due to other environmental reasons it is not open for mining. Also, the mining area where mining can be allowed without any degradation to environment, be clearly earmarked in the land use pattern; (h) Ministry of Environment and Forests may be asked to expedite finalization of mining standards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and also identify the authorities who will implement these standards ; (i) No new leases of mining, specially of limestone, should be given till the full Environment Impact Assessment Studies are completed and land use pattern is finalised ; (j) For monitoring the basic data of water quality of the various natural rivers and streams regularly, one sampling point in river Gin may be established upstream of Cement Corporation of India mines and other such point may be set up down stream of C.C.I. Mines The water quality on both these points be monitored quarterly to find out the effect of C. C. C. mining on the river Giri. Later, several water quality monitoring stations can be established ; (k) Air quality data of the entire valley can be monitored by the big mine owners themselves and by formation of cooperatives or associations by small mine owners by establishing monitoring stations in different mines; (1) Mining leases may only be renewed after ensuring that work was carried on strictly in accordance with the approved mining plan and after obtaining consent from the H. P. State Pollution Control Board; (m) Blasting operations may be allowed only for six months whereafter further extension may be allowed only to those mine-holders who are doing blasting as per the approved mining plans and subject to the safeguards to ensure environment protection ; (n) The safeguards and recommendations contained in the report of the Committee on the working of "Saproon Valley" mines in District Solan, appointed by this Court by its order dated April 19, !989 may be made applicable to mining operations in the area in question in the present petition as well and a Monitoring Committee, like the one appointed by this Court for the "Saproon Valley" area under its judgment dated April 24, 1991, in C. W. P. No. 567 of 1988 and the connected petitions may be set-up for this area as well. 30. During the course of the hearing of these petitions Counsel for the various lessees, other than for the Cement Corporation of India, made a statement before us on June 26, 1991 that the modes for carrying out mining operations, suggested in "Joshi report", were acceptable to those lessees. Shri K. D. Sood, appearing for the Cement Corporation of India, however, said that all the mining activities by the C. C. I. were being carried on strictly in terms of the approved mining plan which contained adequate safeguards He, however, added that the improvement suggested in the "Joshi report" that check dams be provided for avoidance of the falling of debris would be made by the Cement Corporation of India in its working. The objection to the use of 20 Kg. The objection to the use of 20 Kg. per hole of charge in the mines of Cement Corporation of India was refuted by Shri K. D Sood who sought to justify it with reference to certain facts stated in the supplementary objection filed on behalf of the Cement Corporation of India in C. W. P. No. 82 of 1987 on June 25, 1991 where it has been asserted that blasting operation by applying 20 Kg. charge per hole, according to the approved mining plans was safe from all considerations and should be permitted to be continued to be resorted to. 31. We may notice, at this stage, that after the order dated April 30, 1990 permitting the Cement Corporation of India to carry on mining with the aid of blasting operations, some of the lessees sought permission from this Court for resuming blasting operations in their mining area. One such application (C M P. No 1344 of 1990) was filed by Jai Singh Thakur and sons, Prohitan Street, Nahan (respondent No. 25) on December 22. 1990. Along with this application were appended copies of the approved mining plans in respect of the two mines of the said respondent, namely, Baldawa Limestone Mine and Bohar Limestone Mine" as Annexures SA-9 and SA-10. Paragraph 13 in each of these mining plans relates to Environment Management Plan. In its various sub-paragraphs it deals with different aspects relating to environment management in the mining area Joshi Report makes a mention of the fact of such provision being contained in the mining plans which were seen before the submission of the report. We have been told by the learned Counsel for the lessees that all the mining plans contain similar provisions relating to Environment Management. 32. Shri Rajiv Kataria, appearing for respondents No. 11 to 58, made a reference to the averments contained in the aforesaid CMP 1344 of 1990 and pointed out that a list of the various lessees in the Kambroo area in District Sirmaur, who have been granted mining leases, has been filed with this application. This list (at pages 41 to 43 of the application) contains the names of as many as 68 lessees who have been granted leases in respect of various areas in District Sirmaur. The mining plans, according to Shri Kataria, had been approved in respect of 27 lessees. This list (at pages 41 to 43 of the application) contains the names of as many as 68 lessees who have been granted leases in respect of various areas in District Sirmaur. The mining plans, according to Shri Kataria, had been approved in respect of 27 lessees. In each of these mining plans, according to him, there was a paragraph similar to paragraph 13 of the mining plans relating to the twenty-fifth respondent. As such, according to the learned Counsel, lessees whose mining plans had been approved, were to carry out mining operations having regard to the various safeguards contemplated in the mining plans about the Environment Management’. 33. We have noticed earlier in this judgment that the Joshi Report makes a reference to the fact that the approved mining plans made available by the lessees, on examination, revealed that parameters relating to environment had been included in the plans but their implementation could hardly be seen at site. This observation in the Joshi Report is significant. Existence of provisions in the approved mining plan for Environment Management is not enough unless its faithful observance, on the part of the lessees, can be ensured- Besides, the need for effective monitoring of the parameters within which mining, with the aid of blasting, should be permitted having regard to the protection of the environment requires inclusion of the basic data on environment in greater detail in the mining plans. The H.P. State Pollution Control Board needs to be associated with the grant of new mining leases and/or renewal of the existing one and a no objection certificate from it needs to be made obligatory Clearer guidelines under which limestone mining can be carried out, having regard to the requirements of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules contained in Chapter 5 of the Rules notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Steel and Mines through their notification dated October 24, 1988 pertaining to environment under the Mining Act, as amended in the year 1987, need to be pro vided without delay. The Ministry of Environment and Forests deserves to be directed to expedite the finalisation of mining standards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 19*6. The Ministry of Environment and Forests deserves to be directed to expedite the finalisation of mining standards under the Environment (Protection) Act, 19*6. In the first instance, we feel, the lessees, whose mining plans have been duly approved, may be permitted to carry out mining operations strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the mining plans subject to the following additional safeguards: (1) All the lessees should obtain the consent of the State Pollution Control Board under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 before carrying on mining with the aid of blasting operations; (2) Blasting operations shall be permissible for a period of six months from now and extension may be allowed only to those mine-holders who are found to be doing blasting as per the mining plans and subject to safeguards contained therein to ensure environment protection ; (3) Remedial measures shall be taken forthwith by the lessees to counteract the effect of mining and blasting which had resulted in unstablized zone ; (4) Measures shall be taken by the lessees to avoid solid waste during mining being dumped into nallahs and at steep slopes so that it does not trickle down to the rivers and affect their regime and toxicology. Proper check dams may be provided for the purpose. 34. For ensuring compliance with the aforesaid we direct the Monitoring Committee, appointed by us through our judgment dared April 24, 1991 in C-W. P. No. 567 of 1988 (connected with other petitions) General Public of Saproon Valley and others v State of Himachal Pradesh and others, to monitor the mines of those lessees who are being permitted to carry on mining operations with the aid of blasting operations in the Sirmaur area as well. That Committee, we may recall, consists of Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as Chairman, and the Chief Engineer (Irrigation and Public Health) Himachal Pradesh, Director Geological Survey of India, Himachal Pradesh, and Professor and Head of Department of Forestry of Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, as Members, with the State Geologist of Himachal Pradesh assisting the Committee as a non-member Secretary. This Committee shall visit the Sirmaur area within two months from today and enquire whether the provisions contained in the approved mining plans are being faithfully followed by the lessee concerned or not. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, as Members, with the State Geologist of Himachal Pradesh assisting the Committee as a non-member Secretary. This Committee shall visit the Sirmaur area within two months from today and enquire whether the provisions contained in the approved mining plans are being faithfully followed by the lessee concerned or not. In addition, this Committee shall also find out whether the mines in respect whereof mining plans have been approved are located at a reasonable distance from roadside and away from the habitation or are located on the roadside and very near to habitation as well as the fact whether the mining leases have been granted in respect of the area where slope angle is more than 45° from horizontal. The Committee would observe whether suitable measures have been taken by the lessees for controlling noise generation during the mining on account of blasting and steps taken for reducing damage due to fly rocks and for avoidance of air pollution. The Committee would also make a note of such Haulage Roads constructed by the mining lessees in the mining areas which have very steep gradients with no extra width and in respect of unsafe curves to enable this Court to make suitable directions in that regard. 35. The Committee would submit its report to this Court within three months from today and would do so, every three months thereafter after visiting the area afresh every time. 36. The matter cannot be left only at this. We also direct that the Union of India in its Ministry of Environment and Forests shall expedite the finalisation of Mining Standards, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and identify the authorities who would implement these standards. It would ensure that Environment Impact Studies of the entire Sirmaur District are undertaken soon and studies about socio-economic conditions, land use pattern, flora and fauna, air quality, water quality, noise and ground vibrations should be undertaken Basic data shall be compiled in these studies which would include complete land use pattern with a view to identify and clearly mark mining areas where although the minerals are available but it is not feasible to permit mining operations due to other environmental reasons. The areas where mining can be allowed, without any degradation to environment, would be clearly earmarked in the land use pattern. 37. The areas where mining can be allowed, without any degradation to environment, would be clearly earmarked in the land use pattern. 37. We also direct the H. P. State Pollution Control Board to establish one sampling point, for monitoring the basic data of water quality, in river Giri up-stream of Cement Corporation of India mines and another such point down-stream thereof The water quality on both these points shall be monitored quarterly to find out the effect of CC I mining on the river Giri. We further direct the H P. State Pollution Control Board to submit a report to this Court about it quarterly. 38. The air quality data shall be provided to this Court by the Cement Corporation of India by establishing monitoring stations at its mines. The data shall be provided to the Court at intervals of three months each. The smaller mine owners may be required to do so later by forming co-operatives or associations and establishing monitoring stations in different mines. 39. The petitions shall stand disposed of finally with these observations and directions, with liberty reserved to the parties to seek further suitable directions from this Court from time to time. Order accordingly.