1 3 and 10 of 1989 and 12 of 1990
IN Writ Petition C No 8209 of 1983 etc
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
VA Bobde V Gauri Shankar MK Ramamurthy Prashant Bhushan T Sridharan Ms Shobha Dixit and MA Krishna murthy fox the Petitioners
Ms Anil Katiyar Ms A Subhashini RP Srivastava NP Promod Dayal RB Mehrotra and Raju Ramachandran for the Respondents
The Order of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
On 30th of August 1988 while disposing of two writ petitions being Nos 8209 and 8821 of 1983 this Court came to the conclusion that the entire mining operation in the Doon Valley should come to a halt
With a view to effectuating this conclusion all mining activity was directed to be stopped excepting in the case of a few for reasons indicated in that order
Several applications thereafter came before this Court for permission to remove stacked material and almost for one and a half years now many rounds of such applications have been filed before this Court which have led to inquiries being made by executive authorities a joint inspection by the District Judge and the District Magistrate as also separate reports from the Monitoring Committee appointed by this Court
After hearing parties in some cases the court has granted permission for removal and extended time for appropriating the mined material
On the plea that within the time given by the Court removal was not possible fresh extensions of extended dates have also been asked for
At one stage the Monitoring Committee reported that taking advantage of such extensions further mining was being illegally undertaken
The Monitoring Committee also pointed out that where the 74 mined material was spread over it had consolidated and grass as also other vegetations have started growing
In these circumstances while either allowing or rejecting the appli cations for removal or extension or allowing removal under restrictions this Court has been expressing itself clearly that the Doon Valley should be made available for afforesta tion to make good the loss that had been caused to the ecology and that work should no longer be interfered with
A fresh set of applications have now been made for permission to remove the mined material machinery andor extension of time for the same
This Court had called for a report on the basis of joint inspection by the District Judge and the District Magistrate of Dehradun and after the said report was received the Monitoring Committee has made its report on the basis of this Court s direction
A group of these applications had been heard on 12th of February 1990 but as some other applications remained to be disposed of on the basis of the report of the Monitoring Committee which was yet to be received no orders had then been made
The Monitoring Committee sent its report dated 6th of April 1990 and the other group of applications which were then pending have in the meantime been heard on 26th of April 1990
We proceed to dispose of all the pending applications by this order
We have considered the submissions with some amount of anxiety particularly as we are of the definite view that the Doon Valley should be left free to the planters for reaffor estation and the mine owners should be put out in every respect of the same
Two or three aspects have however to be borne in mind while dealing with a case of this type
Mining was stopped by our order all of a sudden within a month from 30th of August988
Though fresh mining is stopped mined material which had been appropriated by the mine owner by his own efforts should ordinarily be allowed to be taken by him
There is no doubt that the mined materi al has been loosened from the original place by digging and even if it is allowed to be stacked consolidation of such material is bound to take quite some time and within one year it is not likely to consolidate appropriately
The mined material has a market and with the closure of the mining operation substantially in the Doon Valley this material seems to have been fetching good price as there is demand for the same
When mining was stopped no compensa tion was provided and the only hope our order held out was rehabilitation
At this stage it is appropriate to extract a portion from the letter 75 Of the Chairman of the Monitoring Committee dated April 6 1990 addressed to the Registrar of this Court
The Chairman is no other than the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment and Forests
He has pointed out The Committee would seek the indulgence of the Court to submit to the Hon ble Justices that the areas ravaged by these mines including the roads leading to the mine areas are in immediate need of afforestation to consolidate the soil and prevent soil erosion
Permission granted to the miners will inevitably delay the process of afforestation and will destroy any natural vegetation that has come up along the roads and the mine areas since the last monsoon
Shri David Paul Lease No 99 in fact broke several check dams in the process of lifting material taking advantage of this Court s orders granting him permission to remove quar ried material
The process of afforestation of these areas cannot even be started as long as various applications of these miners for removal of material are pending before this Hon ble Court
It is humbly submitted that this Court must therefore once and for all put an end to such applica tions in order that the Monitoring Committee may vigorously take up the task of afforestation of these areas
 We can quite appreciate the anxiety of the Monitoring Committee that initial permission and extension of time for removal has disturbed afforestation
The Monitoring Commit tee must however appreciate that the enthusiasm which it is prepared to exhibit has to be sobered down in the initial period by such judicial directions as are called for taking the cause of equity and justice into consideration
Even in such of the cases where permission or extension for removal would be granted now we are of the view that the mine owners should not be permitted to operate and the District Magistrate should set up a machinery under his control and subject to the supervision of the Monitoring Committee to enable removal
We do not propose to allow the process of removal to continue beyond 15th of June 1990
The process of afforestation for the year would begin only by that time awaiting the onset of the monsoons
The ex lessees in whose case original or extended orders permitting removal would now be made have therefore to contact the District Magistrate within one week of this order and the District Magistrate would work out removal on appropriate payment from the respective areas of the ex lessees of 76 the extracted material as mentioned in this Court s order of today on or before 15th of June 1990
We make it clear that no application either for original permission or for exten sion shall hereafter be entertained by this Court and the Registry is directed by this order not to entertain such petitions
It may be that such direction may affect some one who has not been vigilant or has on account of some other difficulty or hardship been not able to remove the stacked material within his leasehold area in the Doon Valley but taking the broad interests of the entire Valley into account such individual losses or inconveniences have to be sacri ficed andor overlooked and equities can no longer be al lowed to be invoked
B INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS IN DISPOSED OF WRIT PETTION NO
8209 OF 1983 1
A NO
I OF 1989 This application is by the former lessee of lease No 16 Ved Pal Singh Chaudhary
The mine closed down on 30th of September 1988 in terms of this Court s direction dated 3081988
The first report on the record is dated 18th of February 1989 jointly given by the Additional District Magistrate Dehradun DP Sharma Geologist of Dehradun and the Forest Range Officer Mussoorie
This report indicated that limestone extracted was found lying scattered in dif ferent marble pits and also heaps of different shapes
The estimated quantity in the heaps appeared to be 11500 metric tons
This Court permitted removal of the mined material and the report of the Monitoring Committee shows that between March and May 1989 with extensions obtained from the Court 11539 metric tons have already been removed
The joint inspection report of the District Judge and the District Magistrate has indicated that there was no fresh mining in the area after 30th of August 1988 and it appeared that the scattered material had been collected and removed while the stack has remained untouched
The present petition is for removal of the stack which is claimed to be more than 11000 metric tons
The Monitoring Committee on the basis of the fact that 11539 metric tons had been removed has assumed that there must have been fresh mining to justify the presence of the stack
It has also indicated in the report that there is no danger whatsoever of any scree or stacked 77 material rolling down and affecting and choking the streams
According to the Committee giving fresh opportunity for removal would encourage illicit mining and several mine owners are likely to carry on that clandestinely
Keeping the two reports in view we are inclined to hold that there has been no fresh mining and the stack now found is the old one it would not be appropriate to assume that the stack has consolidated nor is it possible that the vegetation on such a stack would grow within a year
For the reasons we have already indicated earlier we think it appropriate that ex mine owner of lease No 16 should be permitted to have the existing stacked material of 11500 metric tons removed from the leasehold area but the same shall be through the agency set up by the district Magistrate on terms of payment and the removal shall be completed on or before the 15th June 1990
It is made clear that the removal shall be supervised by the Monitoring Committee
1 A Nos 3 and 10 of 1989 and 12 of 1990 These are applications made on behalf of Punjab Lime  Limestone Company for extension of time for lifting the mined material lying in the first two lease areas held by the aforesaid lessee and for original permission for the lease No 96
Under the final order of this Court dated 30th August 1988 in Paragraph 51 of the deci sion three mines including lease No 96 valid up to 1212
1989 were permitted to work
Therefore mining activity in respect of lease No 96 must have stopped after 12th Decem ber 1989
The joint inspection report of the District Judge and the District Magistrate indicated that 2269 metric tons of material were lying at the face of the mine in lease No 14ii while in regard to lease No 14i there was no materi al found and the scattered scree was reported to have total ly stabilised
The Monitoring Committee has opposed removal from lease No 14ii by saying that permission to remove had been given and utilised
We are of the view that the peti tion in regards to lease No 14i should be rejected in view of the concurrent reports of the joint inspection and the Monitoring Committee that the scree has already consolidat ed
So far as 2269 metric tons from lease No 14i are concerned there is no particular reason to take a different view and we direct that the same shall be removed through the machinery set up by the District Magistrate upon payment of the cost by the ex mineowner
This removal shall also to be made prior to 15th June 1990
Lease No 96 closed down operations on 12th December 1989
5000 metric tons of limestone are claimed to have been scattered over 78 the area and reliance is placed upon the rule permitting six months  time from the date of closing for removal of such material The Monitoring Committee has reported that there was no scree lying on the leased area
It found that there is some scattered material on the surface of the mine which cannot conveniently be stacked up
Since this is the first application of the ex lessee after the mining has been closed we would have directed the Monitoring Committee to make a fresh inspection in the presence of the ex mine owner but in view of the clear report that there was no stacked material found by the Monitoring Committee and the further fact stated in the report that the scree has already consol idated even during the currency of the mining lease we do not think it will be appropriate at this stage to permit any removal
The petition is accordingly dismissed
1 A Nos 5 and 6 of 1989 This petition is by the legal representatives of CG Gujral who as lessee of lease No 76
The first petition is for substitution of his legal representatives
It is allowed
So far as the second one is concerned the legal representa tives of Shri Gujral ex mine owner requests for permission for removal of the extracted mineral as also some machine parts from the leasehold area
At the instance of Shri Gujral this Court on 30189 had made the following order Heard learned counsel in CMP for permission to remove the mining material already lying at the quarry site
Subject to the verification by the Collector either person ally or by a responsible officer that the allegation is correct removal may be permitted
The entire stock either near the quarry or stocked in the stacking site should be removed within four weeks from the day permission is granted   
It is alleged that soon after on 18th September 1989 CG Gujral original mine lessee died and his legal repre sentatives had instituted a suit
The suit has now been dismissed by a separate order of this Court and interim relief granted has also been vacated
This petition filed in July 1989 seeks permission for removal of the stacked material and for permission to remove the machinery which comprises of compressors and tools said to be lying at the mine site
The joint inspection report indicates that the mine site was not accessible
16 Kms
pathway had been damaged and even walking was not possible
If we permit the roadway to be repaired there is apprehension of 79 damage to the land in the locality
If the work is left to the legal representatives of the ex mine owner they are likely to collect material for the purpose of repair which would definitely affect the ecology
Yet there are valuable machines apart from the mined material to be collected
We leave it to the Collector and the Monitoring Committee to find out if by some convenient path or any other process by which the machinery and the mined material can be moved out
The legal representatives of the ex mine owner may now contact the Collector and the Monitoring Committee to find out the modality of removal and in case some convenient way is found out the stacked material and the machinery may be removed with the help of the agency of the Collector subject to the payment of the cost on or before 15th June 1990
CMP No 18702 of 1989 This application is by the ex lessee of lease No 31
The joint inspection report indicates that the mining was stopped on 12th March 1985 and there has been no fresh quarrying
The report indicates Under the mining faces in the slopes and in the river beds scree and fine material were seen lying and scattered
Natu ral vegetation is overgrown
Plants like   were grow ing
At some spots pine plants and furns were also found growing indicating that there is existence of humus and the already quarried material has compacted and settled binding the soil
 In this view of the matter it becomes difficult to entertain this petition at this stage the petition is accordingly dismissed
1 A No 4 of 1989 This application is by the ex lessee of mine No 17 asking for permission for removal of already extracted mineral lying at the mine site
In the joint inspection report it has been indicated that this Court had granted some time for removal
The ex lessee had also obtained an order from the Addl
District Judge of Dehradun
The report indicated that there was no sign of fresh mining
We have taken all aspects into account and we are of the view that this application has to be rejected
80 CMP No 18703 of 1989 This application is on behalf of the ex lessee of lease No 8 for extension of time for lifting of mined mineral
The joint inspection report indicates that mining in this area was stopped as early as 12th March 1985 and Natural vegetation has overgrown in and around the mining faces
Considerable quarried material was lying scattered in the slopes the quantity of which could not be ascertained or measured
The Monitoring Committee in its report dated 10889 assessed that approximately 7000 metric tons of the mining material was lying scattered in the mining area
 We have no intention to permit any meddling to unsettle the settled situation
As the mining has stopped for more than five years and the report is that there has been overgrowth of natural vegetation we do not intend to permit extension of time as prayed for
The petition is accordingly dis missed
CMP 11756 of 1988 The two writ petition Nos 8209 and 8821 of 1983 clearly relate to the Doon Valley and mining activity falling within the district of Tehri Garhwal was not be the subject matter of those two writ petitions
The CMP filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh is dismissed leaving it open to the State to agitate its contentions in regard to mining activity in Tehri Garhwal separately
WP No 151 of 1990 This is an application under article 32 of the Constitution asking for grant of leases in respect of five mines falling within the A  category of the Bhargava Committee Report as also Category 1 of the Working Group Report to the Calcium Carbonate Manufacturers Association for carrying out limited mining activity to meet the essential and captive need of the Calcium Carbonate Industry
When the main writ petitions were pending CMP 3070787 had been filed for the self same relief and it wanted to be impleaded in those two writ petitions
The application was rejected on 30th of August 1988 by saying From time to time Civil Miscellaneous Petitions had been moved and orders were made
We do not see any justification to make any further order in such cases
All CMPs are disposed of
 Thereafter the petitioner made another application for the same relief 81 but the Registry did not entertain it in view of the final order of 30th August 1988
The present writ petition in these circumstances is not maintainable
That apart this Court had come to the conclusion on 30th of August 1988 that mining activity in the Doon Valley area must ultimately stop
The Court has taken into consideration the need for availability of minimum supply of the mineral in question and to make available such supply controlled and regulated mining activity has been permitted
Mining leases are not granted by this Court and in view of the conclusion already reached that no fresh mining activity should be carried on we see no justification for entertaining this writ petition
Contempt Petition No 25 of 1989 There is already an order that the proceeding for con tempt is misconceived
We do not find any justification to give any further time for lifting or removal
The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed
1 A No 9 of 1989 This application is by the Monitoring Committee appoint ed by this Court and the prayer is to recall the order of 19th October 1989 and to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh to sell the material and utilise the proceeds for the pur poses of reafforestation and conservation
In view of the steps we have taken in the connected matters no particular directions are necessary
C The only other question that is left for consideration is the recommendation of the Monitoring Committee that the payment of Rs5 per metric ton of the extracted material fixed by this Court in 1988 should be raised to Rs20 per metric ton
We have heard counsel for the parties
We have also perused the report and the papers produced on behalf of the lessees who are still running
We are inclined on the materials placed to take the view that the rate should be enhanced to Rs 10 from Rs5 with effect from 1st June 1990
Since this will not have any retrospective effect the liability for such payment would be only in respect of the lessees who are running by permission of the Court given in the main judgment of August 30 1988
It has been contended by some of the lessees before us that the money which has been collected on the basis of Rs5 per metric ton has 82 not yet been utilised for plantation
We hope and trust that there is no basis for the criticism but would like to advise the Monitoring Committee to activise its steps in the proper direction
A detailed report on the afforestation scheme may now be placed by the Monitoring Committee by 30th June 1990 for the consideration of the Court on the 23rd July 1990
The rehabilitation scheme which has already been fur nished by the appropriate Committee should now be placed before the Court for orders also on 23rd July 1990 RNJ Petition dis posed of


Summary:
The respondent who bad not been assessed to income tax prior to the assessment year 1948 49 made suo motu returns on July 4 1949 showing an income of Rs 4494 and Rs 31646 respectively for the assessment years 1948 49 and 1949 5o but failed to send an estimate of the tax on his income as provided in section 18A3 of the Indian Income tax Act 1922
The Incometax Officer took action under section 28 read with section 18A9 of the Act and imposed a penalty on him for the years 1948 49 and 1949 50 395 The Appellate Tribunal held that the order imposing the penalty was ultra vires on the ground that section 28 would in terms apply only when a person failed to furnish the return when he was required so to do by notice under section 22 or section 34 of the Act and that there could be no such notices with reference to estimates of tax on income to be sent under section 18A3
The High Court on reference agreed with the view of the Tribunal
Held that in view of the legal fiction contained in section 18A9 of the Act that when an assessee has failed to comply with section 18A3 he shall be deemed to have failed to furnish the return of his total income and the provisions of section 28 so far as may be shall apply accordingly  the failure to send an estimate of the tax under section 18A3 should be treated as failure to furnish return of income under section 22
Accordingly it was competent to the Income tax authorities to impose a penalty under section 28 read with section 18A9b where there has been a failure to comply with section 18A3
The relevant provisions of the Indian Income tax Act 1922 are set out in the judgment