JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J —By way of this writ petition, this Court took suo motu cognizance of the reports appearing in the daily edition of the Tribune on 31st December, 1992 and Indian Express on 10th January, 1993 hat illegal mining and installation of stone crushers have caused havoc at twelve places in the suburbs of Shimla, including Kamla Nagar, Tara Devi, Dhalli, Nal Dehra and Choora Chowki, Kamla Nagar is also known as Bhatha Kuffar. 2. Initially, State of Himachai Pradesh and Secretary (P.W.D.) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh were made respondents No. 1 and 2. Lateron, when the writ petition come up for bearing before this Court for the first time on 14th January, 1993, Secretaries of the Departments of Industries and Forests to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Secretary, H. P. State Pollution Control Board, the State Geologist, Director of Industries and the Labour Commissioner were ordered to be impleaded as respondents No 3 to 8. Learned Deputy Advocate General, Ms. Shyama Dogra, who appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Secretary (P.W D) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, accepted notice on behalf of the newly added respondents. She was directed to supply the list of lessees and owners of stone crushers so that they may be impleaded as party respondents. As the complaint made in the News Paper reports was of emergent nature, this Court proceeded to pass an interim order staying all mining operations being carried out in all those places which were mentioned in the News Paper reports and directed the respondents to ensure compliance thereof by filing affidavits within a period of seven days. Respondent No. 8, the Labour Commissioner, was directed to visit the mines situated at Kamla Nagar and report by filing an affidavit whether any child labour was being engaged by the lessees as reported in the News Papers. The writ petition was ordered to be placed before the Vacation Judge in view of the ensuing winter vacation from 18th January, 1993. 3 When the writ petition came up before the learned Vacation Judge on 22nd January, 1993, Shri Subhash Negi, the then Director (Industries) filed affidavit stating that all mining operations in the suburbs of Shimla had been stopped in compliance to the Courts orders. 3 When the writ petition came up before the learned Vacation Judge on 22nd January, 1993, Shri Subhash Negi, the then Director (Industries) filed affidavit stating that all mining operations in the suburbs of Shimla had been stopped in compliance to the Courts orders. Along-with his affidavit, a list of lessees Annexure A and report of Mining Officer, Annexure B( in respect of service of stay orders on the lessees were filed. All the lessees whose names and addresses were given in the list Annexure A were ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 9 to 27 and notices of the writ petition were ordered to be seat to them. M/s M. S. Chandel and D. C. Jishtu, Advocates, accepted service on behalf of the lessees mentioned at Serial Nos. 1, t>, 8 to 11, 14, 7 to 19 of the list Annexure A and took four weeks time to rile reply affidavits on their behalf. Notices to other lessees at serial Nos. 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 15 and 16 as mentioned in the list Annexure *A were made returnable on 19th March, 1993. Lateron, all of them put in appearance and filed reply affidavits to contest the petition. 4. The Court directed respondent No. 7, Director (Industries), to file further affidavit disclosing full particulars of the lessees, such as, the tenure of permit granted to each lessee and the nature of the mining operation being undertaken by them. Respondent No. ft, the Labour Commissioner, who had failed to file his affidavit in compliance to the earlier order, was granted further time to file the affidavit on or before 28th January, 1993 5. The Court perused the affidavit dated 21st January, 199J filed by the then Secretary, H. P. State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter called *the Board) and finding it deficient, ordered him to file further affidavit disclosing that in which of the cases the lessees had already provided the pollution control devices, the period upto which consent had been given to them for operating their units and also the cases in which six months time was allowed to make provision for the necessary pollution control devices. 6. 6. The Court also permitted one of the lessees Smt. Kusum Kapur, respondent No. 26, to continue with the work of setting up and installing her stone crusher in her land situated in village Kuwalag Majhar on Shimla Junga road on her application C. M. P. No. 207 of 1993 but it was made clear that she will not commence mining operations without the express leave of the Court, 7. The writ petition again came up for hearing before the learned Vacation Judge on 29th January, 1993 when application, C M. P. No. 206 of 1993 filed by the lessees (respondents No. 9. 14, 16 to 18, 22 and 25) was considered wherein they had prayed for the vacation of the interim stay on the ground that they have taken adequate measures to prevent air pollution by covering the screens which emit dust and by providing water sprinklers as per the directions of the Board. M/s. Ashok Kumar Bharat Bhushan and Roop Industries, respondents No. 14 and 22, also stated that in order to keep the environment pollution free, they have also planted a number of plants in the vicinity of their mines and stones crushers. 8 The learned Vacation Judge again pointed out that the stand taken by respondent No. 5, Secretary of the Board, in his affidavit dated 21st January, 1993 was conflicting and in his fresh affidavit which he was ordered to file he should clearly state the nature of the control equipment with specifications which are required to be installed where stones are extracted manually and crushed mechanically to make grit. Respondent No. 5 was also directed to state in his affidavit whether the applicants lessees in C. M P s No. 06 of 1993 and 220 of 1993 (filed on behalf of respondents No 20 and 21) were complying with the requirements of sub-section (b) of section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called the Act of l!?8i) These lessees were also directed to file comprehensive affidavit(s) stating the nature of permits granted in their favour, details of the areas where they had been permitted to extract stones and whether these areas fell within forest area and they had duly met with the requirement of having mining plans approved. Respondent No. 3, the Secretary (Industries) was also asked to file an affidavit disclosing whether mining plans, if required, were approved in the case of these mining lessees. The case was ordered to be listed on 5th February, 1993 for considering the prayer of vacation of stay made by these lessees, 9 On 5th February, 1993 when case was taken up for hearing by the learned Vacation Judge, the affidavits of respondent No. 3, 5 and 7 were on record but the case was adjourned to 12th February, 1993 at the request of the learned Counsel Ms. Preetpal Grewal who was assisting the court amicus curiae On 12th February, 1993 in C M P No. 220 of 1993, M/s. Laxmi Stone Crushers and M/s Gita Industries, respondents No. 20 and 21 were granted interim order to extract stones and carry out stone crushing work in accordance with law and the conditions to be imposed by respondents No 5 to 7. Similarly, Smt. Kusum Kapur respondent No, 26 in C. M P. No 251 of 1993, was permitted to remove and dispose of the extracted stones in the market under the supervision of the Mining Officer to the extent of 75 trucks of stones for which permit was granted in her favour. Both these applications were ordered to be listed on 1st March, )S93, on which date no proceeding could be held as one of the learned Judges constituting the Bench declined to hear the matter. 10 Thereafter, on 12th April, 1993, the matter was placed before another Division Bench which considered the supplementary affidavit dated 3rd February, 1993 filed by respondent No. 5 stating that certain measures which are insisted upon by the Board at the time of granting consent are recommended by the Central Pollution Control Board. These are based en the research carried out by the National Productivity Council, New Delhi and are also in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Board under section 21 (5) of the Act of 1981. On compliance of these measures by the stone crusher owners, no objection certificate/consent is issued to them. Respondent No. 5 has also given details of each lease whether he has complied with these measures or not and whether he has been granted consent or not. On compliance of these measures by the stone crusher owners, no objection certificate/consent is issued to them. Respondent No. 5 has also given details of each lease whether he has complied with these measures or not and whether he has been granted consent or not. According to respondent No. 5, the information whether the stone mines are being worked scientifically or not is to be supplied by the Controller of Mines and Director of Industries. He has also opined that air pollution is caused mainly due to mechanical operation of stone crushers and not from manual extraction of stones, in which case the emission ot dust remains within the standards of Ambient Air Quality. He has also stated that all owners of stone crushers have now given undertaking that they will make pucca arrangements for covering crushing screens if they are permitted to operate their crushers. 11. In its order dated 12th April, 1993, this Court also considered the affidavit dated 15th February, 1993 filed by Sh B. B. Tandon, Secretary (Industries) who has submitted that in accordance with section 5 (b) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with Rule 22-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the provision of mining plan alongwith environment plan is mandatory since 1988. Accordingly, M/s. Sushma Minerals, respondent No. 9, got its mining plan approved for operating its mines. So far other quarries granted under H. P. Mines Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 are concerned, the provisions of mining plan is not mandatory. But two of the lessees, namely, M/s. Rockdale Quarries and M/s Quarries and M/s Saurabh Minerals submitted mining plans of their own and are working according to the plans- The other quarries are also working as per rules and guidelines issued from time to time. The Secretary (Industries) has pointed out that in the case of mining for stone crushers on Dhalli-Shogi road, guidelines Annexure “B" to his affidavit were issued on the directions of this Court in L. P. As. No. 11, 12 and 13 of 1983. He has also supplied the details of each quarry and stone crusher installed in District Shimla in a statement Annexure ‘A’ to his affidavit It is also stated by the Secretary (Industries) that the State Government is giving great importance to the prevention of environmental degradation and to safeguard the ecological balance. No. 11, 12 and 13 of 1983. He has also supplied the details of each quarry and stone crusher installed in District Shimla in a statement Annexure ‘A’ to his affidavit It is also stated by the Secretary (Industries) that the State Government is giving great importance to the prevention of environmental degradation and to safeguard the ecological balance. A high level committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has been set up to look into the matter regarding environmental degradation caused by mining operations, pollutant industries like stone crushers and cement plants, particularly in areas which are located on the National and State Highways and places of tourist importance and its report was expected shortly, Therefore, he sought three months tine to file final reply on behalf of the Government on receipt of the recommendations/report of the said committee. 12. During the course of hearings, the minutes of the first meeting of the Committee held on 1st February, 1993 were brought to the notice of the Court which were ordered to be placed on record. After discussing the details, the high level committee had taken the decision, inter alia, that the recommendations should be made to the Government of India for declaring certain areas of Shimla and its suburbs as Environment Protection Zone so that no industrial activity and processes leading to environmental degradation can be allowed To recommend such a Zone a committee was constituted with Additional Chief Conservator of Forests as its Chairman and Member Secretary, H. P« State Pollution Control Board and Director (Industries) as its members, it was also decided that committee should associate as member representatives from Public Works Department of Building and Roads and irrigation and Public Health as well as Tourism, if need be. To ensure that no mining activity is carried out from time to time and stay order of this Court is complied with, a Flying Squad with Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shimla as Chairman, and Divisional Forest Officer and representatives of H. P State Pollution Control Board and Mining Officer as member, was also constituted. The Flying Squad was directed to carry out inspection of mines immediately and also from time to time and give its report to Department of Industries. 13. The Flying Squad was directed to carry out inspection of mines immediately and also from time to time and give its report to Department of Industries. 13. The Court impleaded the High Level Committee through the Secretary (industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as party respondent No. 28 and notice in its behalf was accepted by learned Additional Advocate General This Court ?n order to consider the prayer of respondents No. 9 to 27 for modification or vacation of stay order called for the report of the High Level Committee to the following effect : — "In view of the facts and circumstances, we direct the High Level Committee to inspect the Mines and 17 crushers located in Shimla and its suburbs from the point of environment including air and water sources, keeping in view the interests of the local inhabitants, from the point of view of tourism, forest conservancy etc. and submit its report to the Court within a period of three weeks from today, specifically pointed out as to whether it will be appropriate in the interests of environment to allow extraction of stones manually and allow stone crushing activity as per the norms fixed by the State Pollution Control Board, as detailed in affidavit of respondent No. 5 dated 5th February, 1993. Or whether any additional safeguards are to be adopted The report will be submitted on the affidavit to be filed on behalf of the Committee by the Secretary (Industries) dealing separately with each mine and stone crusher." Noticing inclination on the part of the Government to declare certain areas of Shimla and its suburbs as environment protection zone, this Court observed that: — " . it is high time that some areas are selected by the State Government where stone crushing units can be allowed to be set up, for which purpose, it will be necessary for the Committee to select a site and make suitable proposals for rehabilitating the stone crushing uoits. Affidavit of the Committee will also disclose the alternative steps, if any, where stone crushing activity can be permitted without adversely affecting the environment." 14. It was clarified that respondent No. 5 will consider the applications of the owners of Stone Crushers for consent/no objection certificate irrespective of the pendency of the writ petition and decide them in accordance with law. It was clarified that respondent No. 5 will consider the applications of the owners of Stone Crushers for consent/no objection certificate irrespective of the pendency of the writ petition and decide them in accordance with law. Similarly, respondent No 6 was permitted to process the applications for the grant of short term permits in accordance with law irrespective of the pendency of the writ petition but he was asked to give final permission for mining after obtaining express orders from this Court. 15. Further, by order dated 12th April, 1993, respondents No. 20 and 21 were stopped from carrying out any stone crushing activity and respondent No. 26 was restrained from removing the already extracted stones in view of certain complaints against respondents No. 20 and 21 and the report of the Mining Officer in respect of respondent No. 26. 16. Thereafter, the case was taken up for hearing on 4th May, 1993, when it was noticed that the Secretary (Industries) bad not filed his affidavit as ordered on 12th April, 1993 but on the information given by Sh. M. S Chandel, learned Counsel for some of the lessees, that the members of the Committee had visited stone crushers and mines on 27th and 28th April, 1993, the case was adjourned to 17th May, 1993 though request for adjournment for two months was made by learned Additional Advocate General. On 18th May, 1993, this Court ordered that since the parties have exchanged affidavits and the Secretary (Industries) has also filed an affidavit, the matter be listed for disposal on 31st May, 1993, In the meantime, the parties were given further opportunity to exchange additional affidavits to supplement their pleadings, if they so desired. But on 31st May, 1993, the matter could not be heard as one of the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench declined to hear the case. This is how this case has come up before this Bench on 26th June, 1993 when the learned Additional Advocate General informed the court that the State Government (Governor id Council) had already taken a decision on 2nd June, 1993 on the recommendations of the High Level Committee and he sought some time to bring the said decision on record. This is how this case has come up before this Bench on 26th June, 1993 when the learned Additional Advocate General informed the court that the State Government (Governor id Council) had already taken a decision on 2nd June, 1993 on the recommendations of the High Level Committee and he sought some time to bring the said decision on record. While granting the permission it was also directed that the material being sent to the Central Government alongwith the proposed notification under section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the Act of 1986) be also placed on record. Further, during the course of arguments, it was noticed that in the affidavit dated 15th May, 193 filed by Sh B. B. Tandon, Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachai Pradesh it was not disclosed, what steps have been taken by the State Government for the rehabilitation of the stone crushing units, including respondents No. 9 to 27 despite specific directions by this Court on I2th April, 1993, therefore, it was again ordered that such an information be also placed on the record by way of an affidavit of the Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachai Pradesh. The case was finally heard on I4thand I5th July, 1993. 17. In his affidavit dated 15th May, 1993 Sh. B. B. Tandon, Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachai Pradesh has stated that the Mate Government in its industrial policy of 1991 had taken a conscious decision that :~ "........conservation of environment will be essential parameters for selection of industrial projects and also in order to prevent aesthetic pollution from industries detrimental to the tourism industries of the State, no such industries will be allowed to be set up within the public view of National/State Highways or main tourist traffic routes-" 18. The extract of the industrial policy of 1991 is placed on record as Annexure-R& to the affidavit. It is: — "Environment friendliness is viewed as a basic criteria for selection of industrial projects for establishment in the State. Projects causing incidence of air and water pollution and industrial toxicology, beyond prescribed standards shall not be permitted to come up in the State. It is: — "Environment friendliness is viewed as a basic criteria for selection of industrial projects for establishment in the State. Projects causing incidence of air and water pollution and industrial toxicology, beyond prescribed standards shall not be permitted to come up in the State. Likewise, establishment of Industrial causing falling of trees and degradation of forests or dangerous soil erosion shall be actively discouraged Similarly, in order to prevent aesthetic pollution arising from industries notified by the Government as detrimental to the tourism interest of the State, no such industries shall be allowed to be set up within the public view of National/State Highway or main tourist traffic routes." 19. The notification dated 8th February, 1993 of the State Government constituting the High Level Committee to look into the matter regarding environment degradation caused by mining operations and officer pollutant industries is also placed on record as Annexure-RC to the affidavit of the Secretary (Industries)- The constitution of High Level Committee is ;— "1. Chief Secretary to the Govt. of H. P. Chairman 2. Secretary (Industries) to the Govt. of H. P. Member 3. Secretary (Forests) to the Govt. of H. P Member 4. Secretary (Environment) to the Govt. of H. P. Member 5. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, H. P. Member 6. Advisor (Planning), H. P. Member 7. Director of Industries, H. P. Member-Secy." 20. The Secretary (Industries) has further stated in his affidavit that the High Level Committee in its 1st meeting decided to recommend to the Central Government for issuing a notification under Rule 5 (3) (d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 to declare certain areas of Shimla and its suburbs as environment protection zone to ban all raining and industrial activities and processes leading to environmental degradation. He has also placed on record notification dated 12th February, 1993 Annexure-RD, whereby on the recommendations of the High Level Committee, a Sub-Committee was constituted to look into the importance of environment with a view to make recommendations to the Government of India to declare Shimla and its suburbs as Environment Protection Zone so as to avoid industrial/mining activity and process leading to environment degradation. The Sub-Commit tee after several deliberations has recommended that 295 Sq Kilometers of area felling in parts of toposheets No, 53-E/4 and 53-E/8 should be included in Shimla Environment Protection Zone keeping in view the following parameters :— 1 Visibility from Shimla town. 2 Visibility from National Bighway-22-State Highways, roads, places/circuits of Tourist importance. 3. Green forest and patches surrounding Shimla. 4. Shimla planning area as notified under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977. 21. The report of the Sub-Committee is placed on record as Annexure-RE to the affidavit. This report was considered by the High Level Committee on 11th May, 1993 and a copy of the proceedings of the meeting is on record as Annexure-RF to the affidavit. It was decided by the High Level Committee that the matter may be taken up with the Ministry of Environment, Government of India after getting the approval of the State Government It also considered the report of another Sub-Committee headed by the Secretary, H. P. State Pollution Control Board and decided that in view of the proposal to make an environment protection zone, no mining and stone crushing and other industry of polluting nature should be allowed in the said zone. In the end of his affidavit, the Secretary (Industries) has prayed that the interim order passed by this Court staying mining operations in all mines falling in the proposed Shimla Protection Zone may be affirmed in the interest of local residents, tourists and environment. It is pointed out that, "The lessees may apply for suitable sites outside the Zone for mining and establishment of crushers which will be considered on priority keeping in view the rules, regulations, guidelines and instructions issued by the Government and the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh from time to time." A draft notification under section 3 of the Environment Protection Rules, 1984 which the State Government proposes to send to the Central Government is also placed on record alongwith the affidavit of the Secretary (Industries). 22. 22. In another affidavit dated 14th July, 1993, the Secretary (Industries) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shri B. B. Tandon, has stated that the Governor in Council has approved the points for consideration submitted to them on 22nd June, 1993 which are :— "1 Whether Shimla Environment Protection Zone as proposed should be approved and recommended to the Ministry of Environment, Government of India for notifying under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 2. Whether the concerned Departments of the State Government should not grant any permission for carrying out mining and stone crusher operation in the proposed zone." It is also stated that now the matter is being taken up with the Government of India for taking further action as per Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Environment Protection Rules, 1988 through the Department of Science and Technology and Environment, Government of Himachal Pradesh. In respect of alternate sites, the Secretary (Industries) has clarified that, "the alternative sites available outside the Shimla Protection Zone are private lands or Government waste lands. In case of private lands the lessee themselves have to negotiate with the owners for outright purchase ot land or decide annual lease money for use of surface rights. As far as Government waste lands are concerned, these according to the Forest Department come under the purview of the Forest Conservation Act, 1970 and need Government of Indias approval for any non-forest use. The procedure for such permission is lengthy and time consuming and would take at least six months, with no surety whether the Government of India would give the consent. One of the respondents crusher owner, namely, B. D. Vij, has already applied for mining lease for establishment of crusher units and his application is under active consideration of the department. The area applied for is privately owned lands and applicants have negotiated with owners for use of surface rights of his own. Similarly, if any other existing units/lessees apply for alternate site outside the zone, such application will be decided within rules and guidelines expeditiously on merit. 23. There is another affidavit dated 13th July, 1993 filed by Sh. §. K. Justa, Additional Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, inter (nine alia, stating that out of twenty one contractors/lessees, eleven nine in private lands and two in Government land) were operating their units on purely temporary short-term permit basis. 23. There is another affidavit dated 13th July, 1993 filed by Sh. §. K. Justa, Additional Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, inter (nine alia, stating that out of twenty one contractors/lessees, eleven nine in private lands and two in Government land) were operating their units on purely temporary short-term permit basis. Seven units in private land and three units in Government land had obtained mining leases under the H. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971. According to Mr. Justa so far rehabilitation of these units is concerned, the Government does not own any responsibility. It is in this context that all contractors/lessees have been asked to locate alternate cites outside the Environment Protection Zone preferably in private lands. In case of Governments lands, the Provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 are applicable and for granting mining leases prior permission of the Government of India is required. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dehradun Lime Stone Quarries, Mr. Justa submits that the matter of rehabilitation of lessees in the present writ petition does not call for consideration. 24, On the other hand, all the respondents No 9 to 27 have filed separate applications for vacation of stay and also reply-affidavits. They have given full particulars of the parcels of land and their nature where their mines are situated and Stone Crushers are installed by them. Except mines and units of respondents No 9, 14 and 2.1 to 24 all other mines and units are situated on private lands, They have also brought on record the permits granted in their favour for mining and all other correspondence which they had with authorities for seeking requisite permissions under law and executive instructions The case set up by all of them, except respondents No. 9, 11 and 12, is that they have been working the mines/quarries manually and blasting is not involved at all. They have also not engaged arty child labourer at any point of time. Respondents No. 9, l1 and 12 Have moved an application, C M. P. No. 2108 of 1993, for deleting their names from the array of respondents as they already are party respondents in C. W. P. No. 865 of 3992 titled Tejinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, pending in this Court. We shall deal with this application in the latter part of this judgment. 25. We shall deal with this application in the latter part of this judgment. 25. All the respondents 9 to 27 have tried to show by placing orders of clearance/consent from the H. P State Pollution Control Board, photographs and ether material on record that they have duly complied with the directions of the Board and provided all those measures which are necessary for preventing air pollution, such as, covering crushing screens and providing water sprinklers. They have pointed out that crushers in Kamla Nagar (Bhatha Kuffar) were shifted in the year 1975 from their earlier sites as per the policy of the Government, where they have purchased lands for extracting stones and installed stone crushers by making heavy investments. All of them have denied that they have caused any damage to the environment by unscientific mining or by cutting trees as reported in the News Papers. According to them, they are aware of their obligations to protect the environment and maintain ecological balance, therefore, they have been operating the mines/quarries and doing the business of crushing stones by observing all the measures/ conditions imposed by the Board. They have resisted the decision of closing their existing mints and stone crushers but have also expressed their willingness to shift their mining operations and crushers to another suitable alternative site which the Government may allot to them and for carrying out mining and crushing of stones necessary permission may be granted to them. They have already suggested a site which is situated at a distance of 27 Kilometers from Shimla at Shimla-Tattapani road but the Government has not taken any decision so far. 26. From the material on record, it is proved that the Government had practically closed its eyes to environmental degradation and ecological imbalance being caused by mining and industrial activities in and around Shimla, which has been acknowledged as Queen of the Hills for the last one century Though the Government has brought on record its declaration made in. the industrial Policy of I >9! the industrial Policy of I >9! (Annexure-RA to the affidavit dated 15th May, 1993 of the Secretary (Industries), that environment friendIiness is viewed as basic criteria for selection of industrial projects in the State and industries causing air and water j pollution, industrial toxicology, degradation of forests and soil erosion will be discouraged and industries detrimental to tourism will not be set up within the public view of National/State Highways and main tourist traffic routes, yet no effective measures were taken to implement this policy, till interim injunction was issued by this Court in C. W P. No. 865 of 1992, Tejinder Singh v. State of Himachai Pradesh, staying mining activities at Dhalli-Naldehra road and in the present writ petition stopping ruining operations being carried out at 12 places in the suburbs of Shimla 27. The High Level Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was constituted by order dated 8th February, 1993 which had already held its first meeting on 1st February, 1993 It examined the whole issue by taking stock of the existing status and considered what steps are required to be taken in future. It deliberated in detail about the judicial pronouncements, Government policy and procedure for the establishment of various types of industries and took a number of decisions in respect of the procedure to be adopted for the grant of raining leases, implementation of the interim orders granted by this Court, to make recommendations to the Government of India to declare certain areas of Shim la and its suburbs as Environment Protection Zone and to prepare compensatory afforestation plan etc, etc As already stated in the earlier part of the judgment, the High Level Committee constituted a Flying Squad to carry out inspection of mines immediately and from time to time and to report 10 the Department of Industries that no mining activity was being carried in the suburbs of Shimla and the stay order of the High Court was being duly complied with The High Level Committee also constituted another Sub Committee headed by Sh. S. C. Sharma, Additional Chief Conservator of Forests to recommend certain artvs of Shimla and its suburbs as Environment Protection Zone, to ban industrial activity and processes leading to environmental degradation therein We notice from the proceedings of the High Level Committee that it also constituted District Level Committee comprising of the Deputy Commissioner as its Chairman and the Executive Engineer (1PH), the Executive Engineer (B & R) and the Divisional Forest Officer as its members and assisted by the Mining Officer of the District, to study the entire rivet beds and other such raining areas already leased out and put to auction and likely to be leased out and put to auction and prepare detailed mister plan/mapping indicating the following :— "(a) The existing quarries which can be freely exploited. (b) The existing quarries which can be operated with certain safeguards. (c) The existing quarries which should be closed from ecological and environmental point of view. (d) Identifying alternative quarrying area in the District," 28. The said committee was directed to give its report by 30th April, 1993 One of the important decisions taken by the High Level Committee in its meeting held on 1st February, 1993 was that the Industries Department and the Forest Department will prepare compensatory afforestation plan cost of which will be borne by the mining lessees. It also called for the details of such mining lessees and mineral based industries which are located along the National/State Highway within a period of fortnight. 29. The third meeting of the High Level Committee was held on 11th May, 1993 (Annexure-RF to the affidavit dated 15th May, 1993 of the Secretary (Industries) and from its proceedings it appears that in pursuance to the earlier decision dated 1st February, 1993, with the approval of the Governor-in-Council, the Government issued notification dated 26th April, 1993 (Annexure-RB to the affidavit dated 15th May, 1993 of the Secretary (Industries) banning mining and certain industrial activities, as identified and enlisted in the notification, within the public view of National/State Highways or main tourist traffic routes. The Chairman of the High Level Committee desired that it should be examined whether such notification could be issued under certain provision of Jaw also. The recommendations made by the Sub Committee headed by Sh H C Sharma. The Chairman of the High Level Committee desired that it should be examined whether such notification could be issued under certain provision of Jaw also. The recommendations made by the Sub Committee headed by Sh H C Sharma. Additional Chief Conservator of Forests in its report dated 19th April, 1993 were accepted by the High Level Committee with following conditions:— "(i) No mining and crushing of stones through mechanical process should be allowed to be set up in this zone without prior approval of Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. However, activities like road construction, land development and construction of houses should be allowed. (ii) The list of industries categorised under the green, orange and red should be examined in detail separately by the Department of Industries and Pollution Control Board. Basically, only the tourism related, cottage industries and other environment friendly industries without involving hazardous processes and without causing air and water pollution should be allowed to be set up in this zone and rest of the industries should not; be allowed to be set up." 30. It was further decided that the above recommendations will now be submitted for approval to the Government and thereafter sent to the Government of India for further action under the provision? of the Environment Protection Act 31. The High Level Committee also considered the recommendations of another Sub Committee headed by the Member Secretary, H. p. State Pollution Control Board and decided, °......the mining leases/crushers in Naldehra and near Dhalli/Bhatha Kuffar, which are either of tourist importance or located in the area close to habitation, alongwith the by-pass road and public view, should be completely barned," It rejected the recommendation of the Sub Committee that out of 18 mines/ stone crushers six mines/stone crushers may be permitted to operate for a period of six months, as these are located reasonably away from Shimla town and also for other reasons stated in the report. According to the High Level Committee, .........In the same location closing of certain units and allowing others will not achieve the basic objects of protection of environment. In so far as other six units which the Sub-Committee recommends to allow permission with proper safeguards, is in contradiction to the objectives of creation of Eco Protection Zone Since these units also fall within the proposed Protection Zone, hence these units should also not be allowed to operate." 32. In so far as other six units which the Sub-Committee recommends to allow permission with proper safeguards, is in contradiction to the objectives of creation of Eco Protection Zone Since these units also fall within the proposed Protection Zone, hence these units should also not be allowed to operate." 32. The High Level Committee also decided that, .......-By closing these units/activities, some of the existing enterpreneurs/lessees may like to shift their activities on an alternative site outside the proposed Protection Zone. For this purpose, the lessees/enterpreneurs should be advised by the Department for such actions alongwith the conditions laid down under various provisions of rules/Acts as well as the conditions laid down by State Pollution Control Board. If any proposal for alternative site is received by the Department, such proposals should be decided in a time bound manner on merits." 33. The District Level Committees which were constituted for studying river beds/quarries did not submit their reports and were asked by the Chairman of the High Level Committee to follow up. Regarding afforestation plan for rehabilitation of mining areas as well as compensatory afforestation, the local authorities of Forest Department and Industries Department were asked to prepare Mining and afforestation plan in consultation with mining lessees. The Forest Department was asked to identify proper species of the trees for this purpose and carry out afforestation It was also observed that cost of afforestation should be realistic, based on specific sites instead of having uniform norms. 34. From the affidavit dated 14th July, 1993 of Shri B B. Tandon, Secretary (Industries) and the Memorandum for the consideration of the Governor-in-Council and the decision taken by it Copies annexed to the affidavit dated l1th July, 1993 of Sh S. K Justa, Additional Director of Industries), it is clear that in its meeting held on 22nd June, 1993 the Governor-in-Council gave its approval to the proposal of creation of Shimla Environment Protection Zone and also that it should be recommended to the Ministry of Environment, Government of India for notifying under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It also resolved that the concerned Departments of the State Government should not grant any permission for carrying out mining and stone crusher operation in the proposed zone. 35. It also resolved that the concerned Departments of the State Government should not grant any permission for carrying out mining and stone crusher operation in the proposed zone. 35. The Environment Protection Zone approved by the Governor-in Council is bounded in the North near Naldehra, in the East by village fagu (Boni), in the South by village Junga (Chduri) and in the West by village Jubbar Hatti (Kalog). The latitudes and longitudes of these locations are as under i Sr. INo. Name of village/ location- Latitudes Longitudes 1. Shimla 77°—ll-OO" 310-06—25" 2. Naldehra 7?o_ll_42» 31o_10«_55» 3 Fagu (Boni) 77o_18>_45» 31°—5—30" 4. Junga (Chduri) 77<>_09—24" 31°—Or—55" 5. Jubbar Hatti (Kalog) 770_o4_i2" 3l°—05—06" 6. Ghanna Hatti 7jo_05._. 25" 31° -08—15" 7. Shogi 77O._08_i0" 31o_o3_0" 36 There is no dispute that all the mines as well as stone crushers of respondents No. 9 to 27 are situated within the Environment Protection Zone. The setting up of such industries within the public view of National/State Highways or main tourist traffic routes has been banned by notification dated 26th April, 1993. Further-for establishing such industries, the suitability of the site will be decided by the site-appraisal Committee constituted vide notification dated 13th January. 1992 and {he said committee will keep these parameters in view in addition to norms already laid down for the Units In the notification dated 26th April, 1993, it is further directed that for granting mining leases by the Industries Department, a joint inspection will be compulsory carried out by a Committee headed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Divisional Forest Officer, Executive Engineer (B & R) Executive Engineer (IPH), representatives of the Tourism Department and the H.P. State Pollution Control Boards General Manager, District Industries Centre And Geologist of Industries Department as its members for ensuring time bonbon disposal of applications received for setting up of projects and grant of mining leases, it is further ordered that the meeting of the Committed will be attended by all the members and it will said Committee within one month of the date of receipt of application by die Connor If relaxation is to be granted, on merits, such cases will be considered by the State Government. 37. 37. In view of the above mentioned decision taken by the: State Government to approach the Government of India for declaring Shimla Environment Protection Zone, as described hereinabove by issuing notification under Clause 5 of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment Protection) Rules 1986 read with Clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rules 5 of the sub-Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. the prayer of respondents No 9to27 to vacate stay order and allow them mining and Churshing of stone" in their stone crushers as before has become redundant However we a« not oblivious of the fact that the State Government is yet to approach the Central Government which may declare Shimla Protection Zone, as proposed but it has to follow the procedure laid down in Clauses (a) to (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. These provisions are:— "(3) (a) Whenever it appears to the Central Government that it is expedient to impose prohibition or restrictions on the location of an industry or the carrying on of processes and operations in an area, it may, by notification in the official Gazette, and in such other manner as the Central Government may deem necessary from time to time, give notice of its intention to do so. (b) Every notification under Clause (a) shall give brief description of the area, the industries, operations, processes in that area about which such notification pertains and also specify the reasons for the imposition of prohibition or restrictions on the location of the industries and carrying on of processes or operations in that area. (c) Any person interested in Sling an objection against the imposition of prohibition or operations as notified under Clause (a) may do so in writing to the Central Government within sixty days from the date of publication of the notification in the official Gazette. (d) The Central Government shall, within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the day of publication of the notification in the official Gazette, consider al! the objections received against such notification and may impose prohibition or restrictions on location of such industries and the carrying on of any process or operation in an area " 38. (d) The Central Government shall, within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the day of publication of the notification in the official Gazette, consider al! the objections received against such notification and may impose prohibition or restrictions on location of such industries and the carrying on of any process or operation in an area " 38. As per the procedure prescribed in these Rules, if the Central Government will be satisfied that it is expedient to impose prohibition on restrictions on the location of industries or the carrying on of processes and operations in Shimla Protection Zone, as proposed by the State Government, it has to give notice of its intention by publishing a notification in the official Gazette or in such other manner as it deems necessary. Besides giving the description of the area, the industries, operations, processes in that area to which such notification pertains, the reasons for imposition of prohibition or restrictions on the locations of industries and carrying on of processes or operations in that area are also required to be given in the notification. Any person objecting against the proposed imposition of prohibitions or restrictions on carrying on of processes or operations as notified, may file objections within sixty days from the date of publication of the notification in the official Gazette The objections are to be decided by the Central Government within a period of 120 days from the date of publication of the notification in the official Gazette and thereafter prohibitions or restrictions may be imposed It cannot be denied that keeping in view the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1986, minimum six months time is required by the Central Government to create the proposed Shimla Environment Protection Zone from the date of receipt of the proposal from the State Government. 39. Therefore, the next question arises whether respondents No. 9 to 27 should be permitted to work their mines/quarries and to operate their stone crushers till the Shimla Environment Protection Zone is created. From the proceedings of the third meeting of the High Level Committee held on 11th May, 1993, it appears that while it accepted the recommendations of the Sub-Committee headed by Sh. From the proceedings of the third meeting of the High Level Committee held on 11th May, 1993, it appears that while it accepted the recommendations of the Sub-Committee headed by Sh. H. C- Sharma, Additional Chief Conservator of Forests, it did not keep in view that creation of Shimla Environment Protection Zone by the Central Government will take minimum six months time and what will happen during the interregnum to the business of respondents No 9 to 27 and how the needs of common man as well as the Government will be met who are consumers for their produce, that is, stones, grit and sand for the construction of buildings, roads, bridges and other development projects. The Subcommittee headed by the Secretary, H. P State Pollution Control Board had recommended that out of 18 mines and stone crushers seven mines and stone crushers may be permitted to function for a period of six months and five mines and stone crushers may be permitted for indefinite period, as these are located reasonably away from Shimla town and also for other reasons stated in its report but these recommendations have been rejected by the High Level Committee for the reason that these mines and stone crushers fall within the proposed Shimla Environment Protection Zone. The approach of the High Level Committee was not realistic and balanced. The responsibility of State Government is not over by taking decision to make recommendations to Central Government to create Shimla Environment Zone. It must look into the problems which are fall out of its said decision. It has been brought on record by respondents No 9 to 2? in their separate affidavits that since the operation of stay order and closure of their business, not only have (hey lost their source of livelihood and incurred heavy financial losses, the labourers engaged by £hem have been rendered unemployed and the consumers of their goods are also suffering heavily as they are paying four times high price for purchasing stones, grit and sand which are now required to be brought from far off places near Nalagarh and Kalka. Neither these allegations have been retrieved on behalf of the Government nor any inclination is shown to consider and find out solution to the difficulties of lessees or consumers. 40. Neither these allegations have been retrieved on behalf of the Government nor any inclination is shown to consider and find out solution to the difficulties of lessees or consumers. 40. It is correct that for this larger public interest of the protection of environment and ecological balance, the interests of a group of individuals should be sacrificed but eyes cannot be closed to the hard realities that mines and industries, even if hazardous to the environment and the health of the people, are required to be worked and set up since they are essential for economic development and advancement of the well being of the people. All efforts are required to be made to minimize the element of hazard or risk to the environment and people by taking all necessary steps by locating such industries and mines at such places and by adopting such safety measures which will pose least risk and hazard to environment and people (Please see ; M. C. Mehta and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1987 SC %5). 41, The facts which are proved on record show that the mines and Stone Crushers at Kamla Nagar (Bhatta Kuffar) were started in the year 1975 by shifting them from their earlier sites as per the Policy of the Government - For establishing these as well as others, the lessees had obtained leases under the H P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 and short term permits under the H. P. Mining Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1971, particulars of which have been given in a statement filed by Sh. Subhash Sharma, State Geologist, as Annexure-A to his affidavit dated 5th February, 1993. In fact, in his affidavits, dated 5th February, 1993, 15th May, 1993 and J4th July, 199% the Secretary (Industries) has only supplied the information sought for by the Court and has not made complaint of misconduct of any of these lessees and owners of Stone crushing units that he has violated any provision of law or the directions issued by the Department Similarly, Sh. Subhash Negi, Director (Industries) in his affidavits dated 11th February, 1993 and 19th March, 1993 has not pointed out any default committed by these lessees and owners of Stone Crushers. He has admitted that these crushers were established by following due process of law. Subhash Negi, Director (Industries) in his affidavits dated 11th February, 1993 and 19th March, 1993 has not pointed out any default committed by these lessees and owners of Stone Crushers. He has admitted that these crushers were established by following due process of law. Further, he has pointed out that these mines are being worked for the last about fifteen years and very negligible rock formation is left which can be mined scientifically and excessive mining would certainly lead to soil erosion and land slides, therefore, it should be stopped in future. The Newspaper report of engagement of child labour by the Stone Crusher owners has also not been verified by the Labour Commission, respondent No. 8, in his affidavit dated 28th January, 1993. In nut shell, the stand taken by the State Government is that since it has decided to recommend to the Central Government to create Shimla Environment Protection Zone to prevent environmental degradation and ecological balance of Shimla town and its suburb? which has great tourism potential, all mines. Stone Crushers falling within the area of proposed Shimla Environment Protection Zone should be closed. The object of the decision of the State Government is laudable but it is required to make provision for the interregnum and also rehabilitation of the lessees. Moreover, the object can only be achieved if the State Government promptly sends its proposal and pursues it seriously which has not been shown so far, as the decision was taken on 13th May, 1993 by the High Level Committee, it was approved by the Governor-in Council on 22nd June, 1993 but the proposal has not been sent to the Central Government so far as admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General at the Bar. 42. In the affidavits dated 21st January, 1993 and 3rd February, 1993 filed by Sh. S. S. Juneja, the then Secretary, H. P. State Pollution Control Board, it is reported that though there were deficiencies in providing measures for preventing air pollution by the owners of Stone Crushers, but now these have been made good by and large and they have undertaken to comply with the directions issued by the Board from time to time. The lessees and owners of Stone Crushers have also placed material on record that now they have adopted all measures to prevent air pollution. The lessees and owners of Stone Crushers have also placed material on record that now they have adopted all measures to prevent air pollution. It is admitted by the Government that lessees, respondents 10 and 13 to 27, work their mines manually and not by blasting, which causes minimum damage to environment. In the report of the Sub-Committee headed by the Secretary, H. P. State Pollution Control fiords, which it gave after inspecting all the Stone Crushers, it has been recommended that respondents No 16 to 21 and 23 to 27 may be permitted to operate, seven of them for a period of six months and others indefinitely. The perusal of the report of this Sub-Committee shows that recommendations in respect of remaining seven lessees that they may be permitted to operate is mainly for the reason that these are visible from the National/State Highway. The terms of reference to this Sub-Committee, as given in its report, were:— "1. Impending adverse effect on air and water due to mining and stone crushing activities. 2. Impending adverse effect on local inhabitants due to mining and stone crushing activities. 3. Impact on tourism activities and forest conservation. 4. Whether it will be appropriate in the interest of environment to allow extraction of stone manually and allow stone crushing activities as per the norms fixed by the State Pollution Control Board. 5. If it is not possible to permit mining and stone crushing activities at the present sites, the alternative steps, if any, where mining and stone crushing activities can be permitted without adversely effecting the environment, shall also be suggested." The recommendations made by the Sub-Committee are: — "In view of the comments of the Committee based on site inspection of the units, the units can be broadly divided into three categories as under:— 1. Units which are required to be closed. 2. Units which can be operated temporarily say for a period of six months or less till the alternative sites are selected by units in consultation with concerned Departments. 3. The Units which are safely located and can be allowed to operate with effective measures. Units which are required to be closed. 2. Units which can be operated temporarily say for a period of six months or less till the alternative sites are selected by units in consultation with concerned Departments. 3. The Units which are safely located and can be allowed to operate with effective measures. Regarding the unit which can be allowed operation temporarily, it is recommended that till they do not select alternative sites they will strictly adhere and comply with the norms and equipment prescribed by the State Pollution Control Board, and Soil Conservation and will carry out mining strictly as per guidelines of the Mining Department. Alternative sites shall also have to be permitted to units which needs immediate closure From the point of reference, it is now clear that the stone crushers and mining can adversely affect air/water pollution. However, on the other hand, there is huge demand of grit and other crusher products required for developmental works by the private people as well as by the Government departments. On a rough estimate in Shimla and its suburbs nearly 800 MTs. to 1,000 MTs of grit of various sizes is required daily by the private and Government Departments for construction purpose. The Sub-Committee feels that the some of the crushers recommended to be closed above are required to be re-established at places, which are environmental friendly and as per the guidelines prescribed by the Stare Industries Department and other concerned departments. Moreover, it is also learnt that the Government is also going to notify the Shimla Environment Protection Zone. Therefore, the sites for such stone crushers may be selected outside the protection zone, if so created. This Sub-Committee was notified on 24th April, 1993 and the report of this Sub-Committee was required to be finalised on or before 30th April, 1993. It is thus not possible for the Sub Committee to locate alternative sites for the stone crushers which have been recommended to be closed or to be operated only for six months So it is recommended that the unit owners may select suitable alternative sites after ascertaining the guidelines from the Industries Department and the sites so selected may be inspected by the concerned Departments before finalising the proposal for the setting up of stone crushers. During discussion with the Mining Department it learnt that the mine owners are being given short term permits to carry out the mining operation on monthly basis. The Sub-Committee members are of the view that this procedure should be discouraged as the systematic and scientific mining cannot be planned for such a short period, resulting into degradation of environment and soil erosion It is thus recommended that longer period permits and larger areas may be given for carrying out proper systematic mining based on proper long term mining plans and Environmental Management Plans." 43. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances brought on record by the parties, in the opinion of this Court, it will be in the interest of justice and fair play to allow respondents No 10 and 13 to 27 to work their mines and operate their stone crushers for a period of only six months from the date of this order or till the Shimla Environment Protection Zone is created, whichever is earlier subject to their strictly complying with all the laws, rules, instructions and directions applicable and providing all measures under the Act of 1981 to prevent Air pollution and also subject to their undertaking that they will implement the scheme of afforestation in the mined areas at their own cost. During the period of six months, alternative mining site for mining and installing their stone crushers wili be selected and approved by the State Government and they will be rehabilitated there. The contention of the Additional Director (Industries), Mr. S. K- Justa, in his affidavit dated 13th July, 1993 that rehabilitation of the lessees and owners of the Stone Crusher is not the responsibility of the Government does not seem to be reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 44. For adopting this course, this Court has been guided by the ratio of judgments in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun and others v. State of U. P. and others, AIR 1985 SC 652 ; Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P., AIR 1987 SC 2426 and Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v State of U. P., AIR 1988 SG 2187. 45. 45. In the first case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehradun, AIR 1985 SC 652, the Supreme Court while considering the effect of closure of lime stone quarries observed in para 12- “ _.....This would undoubtedly cause hardship to them, but it is a price that has to be paid 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. However, in order to mitigate their hardship we would direct the Government of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh that whenever any other area in the State of Uttar Pradesh is thrown open for grant of lime-stone of dolomite quarrying, the lessees who are displaced as a result of this order shall be afforded priority in grant of lease of such area and intimation that such area is available for grant of lease shall be given to the lessees who are displaced so that they can apply for grant of lease of such area and on the basis of such application, priority may be given to them subject, of course, to their otherwise being found fit and eligible. We have no doubt that while throwing open new areas for grant of lease for lime stone or dolomite quarrying, the Government of India and the State of Uttar Pradesh will take into account the considerations to which we have adverted to in this order." 46. Similarly in the further judgment passed in the same case reported in AIR 1988 SC 2187, in Para 58, the Court said:- "..........On-going leases have been terminated under orders of this Court without provision for compensation Indisputably displacement has been suffered by these lessees and the sudden displacement must have up-set their activities and brought about substantial inconvenience to them. The Court has no other option but to close down the mining activity in the broad interests of the community. This, however, does not mean that, the displaced mine owners should not be provided with alternative occupation Pious observations or even a direction in that regard may not be adequate, what is necessary is a time frame functioning if rehabilitation is to be made effective. This, however, does not mean that, the displaced mine owners should not be provided with alternative occupation Pious observations or even a direction in that regard may not be adequate, what is necessary is a time frame functioning if rehabilitation is to be made effective. It is, therefore, necessary that a Committee should be set up to over-see the rehabilitation of the displacsd mine owners " 47. The Supreme Court had itself set up a Committee for miking recommendations for rehabilitation of lessees on alternative sites 48. In view of our decision to allow respondents 10 and 13 to 27 to work their mines and operate their Stone Crushers for a period of six months from the date of this judgment, we need not consider the argument raised by Sh K.. D So)d, learned Counsel for some of them, that the lessees and owners of Stones crushers had a right to be heard before working of their mines and Stone crushers was banned by the Government because they had reasonable expectations to continue with their business. In fact, all the lessees and owners of Stone Crushers have shown their willingness to shift their mines and units if alternative site(s) is provided to them and have limited their prayer to the interregnum. Respondents No 9, 11 and (2 have moved an application C. M. P. No. 2108 of 1993 for deleting their names from the array of respondents of this writ petition on the ground that they are already party-respondents in C W. P. No. 865 of 1992, Tejinder Singh v. State of H. P., and their mines fall in a different category. This application has not been opposed either by the Counsel who are appearing amicus curiae or by the learned Additional Advocate General. Hence allowed. The names of respondents No. 9, 11 and 12 are ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents. 49. The result of the above discussion is that this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions t— (1) The State Government will approach the Central Government for creation of Shimla Environment Protection Zone by issuing notification under clause (5), sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with clause (a), sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 within a period of fifteen days from the date of this order. The State Government will depute a responsible officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to pursue the matter with the Central Government and supply all necessary documents and material required by it without any delay. (2) The Government of India will finally decide and issue the notification, if it deems necessary, for creating Shimla Environment Protection Zone, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the request of the State Government. Since the Central Government is not a party to this writ petition, we direct that it be impleaded as party respondent No 29 and a copy of this judgment be sent to it through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Government of India, New Delhi. (3) Respondents No. 10 and 13 to 27 are permitted to work their mines and operate their stone crushers for a period of six months from the date of this judgment or till the notification creating Shimla Environment Protection Zone is issued by the Central Government, whichever is earlier For working their mines and operating their stone crushers, they will strictly follow all laws, rules, instructions issued/to be issued by the State Government for mining, soil and forest conservation and other purposes and also of the H. P. State Pollution Control Board for the prevention of environmental degradation. The period of six months will not be extended even if the notification creating Shimla Environment Protection Zone is not issued by the Central Government and mining lessees and Stone Crusher owners are not rehabilitated on alternative site(s) within the period of six months. There will be no mines/quarries and Stone Crushers in the proposed Shimla Environment Protection Zone on the expiry of the period of six months from the date of this judgment and the mines/ quarries and Stone crushers of respondents No. 10 and 13 to 27 will be wound up. (4) The State Government is directed to rehabilitate respondents No. 10 and 13 to 27 on alternative site(s) by granting all necessary permissions within a period of six months. (5) For making recommendations to the State Government in respect of alternative site(s) for the rehabilitation of respondents No 10 and 13 to 27, this Court set up a Committee comprising of Secretary (Industries) to the Government of HP. (5) For making recommendations to the State Government in respect of alternative site(s) for the rehabilitation of respondents No 10 and 13 to 27, this Court set up a Committee comprising of Secretary (Industries) to the Government of HP. as its Chairman and Secretaries of Public Works, Forest and Tourism Departments of the Government and the Secretary, H. P. State Pollution Control Board as its members. This Committee will give its report to the State Government within a period of three months from the date of this judgment The Committee will keep in view all mining laws, forest conservation laws and environment protection laws while making recommendations The Committee may call for the report of the District Level Committee already constituted vide notification dated 26th April, 1V93 for selecting alternative site(s) This Committee will also recommend the scheme of afforestation of the mined areas for which a decision has already been taken by the High Level Committee. (6) Respondents No. 10 and 13 to 27 will give their proposals in respect of alternative site(s) within a period of fifteen days from the date of this judgment. If the selected alternative site(s) is private land, the Government may take steps to acquire it in accordance with law, the cost of which will be borne by the lessees and Stone crusher owners. (7) The proprietors and partners of respondents No. 10 and 13 to 27 will file separate undertakings to the Secretary (Industries) to the Government of H P , Chairman of the Committee appointed by this Court, that they will work their mines and operate their Stone crushers by taking all care and attention to preserve environmental and ecological balance and will pay 20% of their gross profits for creating a Fund out of which afforestation and other necessary operations will be undertaken on the mined area to repair the damage caused to it. 50. Before we close, we wish to express our sense of appreciation for the assistance rendered to us by Mr D D Sood, Ms. Pritpal Grewal, Ms. Meenakshi Sharma and Ms Anu Sharma, Advocates, who were appointed amicus-curiae on the first date of hearing. We direct the State Government to pay to each one of them a sum of R.s 2,000 in recognition of the assistance rendered by them to the Court Writ Petition disposed with directions.