Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. We have heard Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. No.1574/2008 and W.P. No.13329/2009. He argued that Section 6 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 empowers the Central Government to make rules in respect of the matters which are specified in sub-section (2) of Section 6. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act and the rules or orders made therein shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act. It is submitted that in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 the Central Government has framed rules which are known as Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as '1986 Rules'). Rule 5 of the 1986 Rules deals with prohibition and restriction on the location of industries and carrying on processes and operations in different areas. Rule 5(3)(a) of the 1986 Rules, inter alia, provides that 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. Rule (3)(b) of the 1986 Rules provides that every notification issued under clause (a) shall give a brief description of the area, the industries, processes in the area about which such notification pertains and also specify that reasons for the imposition of prohibition or restrictions on the location of the industries and carrying on of processes or operations in that area. It is further submitted that in exercise of powers under Rule 5(3)(a) of the 1986 Rules initially notification dated 27.1.1994 was issued by the Central Government wherein it was provided in respect of mining projects (major minerals with less than 5 hectares), it was necessary to obtain environmental clearance from the Central Government. The aforesaid notification was superseded by notification dated 14.9.2006 by which in respect of mining operations extraction of natural resources and power generation having an area of more than 5 hectares, requirement of obtaining prior environment clearance has been prescribed. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid notification shall have the over-riding effect and shall prevail over the laws made by the Legislature of the State. In support of the aforesaid submissions learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in S. Jagannath vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 811. It has further been contended that mining operations are hazardous in nature as it impairs ecology and natural resources and, therefore, it needs to be regulated. Learned counsel in this connection has made reference to the decision of Supreme Court in M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 118. It has further been submitted that Section 24 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 has to be read in such a manner so as to secure the object of the Act for which it is enacted. During the course of submissions learned counsel for the petitioner gave up the challenge to the validity of Rule 49 of the 1996 Rules. It was submitted that in view of notification dated 14.9.2006 it is obligatory to obtain prior environmental clearance for mining operations in respect of sand and 'bajri'.

22. In order to appreciate and adjudicate the issue involved in these petitions, it is necessary to first examine relevant provisions of law.

23. It would be necessary to take notice of different enactments made by Parliament namely MMDR Act as well as other laws enacted from time to time pertaining to protection of environment and natural resources. The MMDR Act is an Act to provide for the development and regulation of mines and minerals under the control of the Union. Section 15 of the MMDR Act confers power on State Governments to make rules in respect of minor minerals. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the MMDR Act provides that the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 came into force on 12.11.1986, whereas Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 came into force in the year 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1971 had come into force in the year 1971. Thereafter, the Parliament incorporated sub-section (1A) in Section 15 of the MMDR Act by Act No.37 of 1986 and it came into force with effect from 10.2.1987. It is to be noted that sub-section (1A) in Section 15 of MMDR Act was inserted by the Parliament in the year 1987 i.e. subsequent to enactment of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1971 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Clause (i) of sub- section (1A) of Section 15 of the MMDR Act, inter alia, empowers the State Government to frame Rules in the manner in which rehabilitation of flora and other vegetation, such as trees, shrubs and the like destroyed by reason of any quarrying or mining operations shall be made in the same area or in any other area selected by the State Government by the person holding the quarrying or mining lease. The 1996 Rules are enacted by the State Legislature in exercise of powers under Section 15 of MMDR Act and therefore Rule 49 of the 1996 Rules is a validly enacted provision of law. Chapter VIII of the 1996 Rules deals with protection of environment. Rule 44 of the 1996 Rules enjoins a duty on every holder of quarry lease to take all possible precautions for the protection of environment and control of pollution while conducting quarrying operations in the manner prescribed therein. It reads as under:

26. Now we may advert to the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is an Act to provide for the protection and improvement of environment and for matters connected therewith. Section 7 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides that no person carrying on any industry, operation and process shall discharge or emit or permit to be discharged or emitted any environmental pollutants in excess of such standards as may be prescribed. Section 25 empowers the State Government to make rules with regard to the matters which have been enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. Section 24 of the Act which is relevant for the purpose of controversy involved in the instant writ petitions is extracted below:-

28 That apart, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 namely Act No.29 of 1986 was enacted on 23 rd of May, 1986 after receiving the assent of the President of India which came into force with effect from 19.11.1986 whereas Section 15(1A) of the MMDR Act was enacted vide Act No.37 of 1986 subsequent to the Act No.29 of 1986 and came into force on 10.2.1987. Thus, the Parliament was aware of the earlier legislation and its non-obstante clause yet power was conferred by the later enactment authorizing the State Legislature to make rules in respect of minor minerals. Therefore, it would be assumed that the legislative intent or mandate is that the rule framed by the State under Section 15(1A) of MMDR Act should prevail over all previous enactments on the subject. It is well settled preposition of law that if the legislature does not want the later enactment to prevail then it could and would provide in the later enactment that provisions of the earlier enactment continue to apply. It is also cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that later enactment must prevail over the earlier one even if the non-obstante clause is provided in the earlier enactment. Therefore, Section 15(1A) of the MMDR Act since was brought in the statute book at later point of time cannot be made inoperative because of non-obstante clause of the Act which was enacted earlier in point of time namely Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Supreme Court in KSL and Industries Ltd. v. Arihant Threads Ltd., (2008) 9 SCC 763 wherein the Supreme Court has held that where there are two special statutes which contain non-obstante clauses, later statute mus prevail. Besides that, if the petitioner's aforesaid contention is accepted then it would amount to giving higher status or putting the Notification on higher pedestal than the statutory Rules. However, we need not to further deliberate on this issue and suffice it to say on this since the Notification under Rule 5(3) of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 is not an enactment within the meaning of Section 24(1) of the Environment Protection Act and, therefore, it cannot have overriding effect on Rule 49 of the 1996 Rules.