c No 509 of 199 1
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Dr Rajiv Dhawan V Akshya Bali and Miss Kamini Jaiswal for the Petitioner
MC Bhandare P Chidambaram Sushil Kumar Jain Ms Meenakshi Arora SS Jauhar Aruneshwar Gupta and EC Agrawala for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 29 BP JEEVAN REDDY J
Tarun Bharat Sangh a voluntary Organisation interested inter alia in protection of environment approached this court complaining that widespread illegal mining activity was going on in the area declared as Tiger Reserve in Altar District of Rajasthan
In the interest of ecology environment and rule of law it said the activity should stop
The petitioner s case is that the area wherein the illegal mining is going on has been declared as a tiger reserve under Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act 195 1 as a Sanctuary and a National Park under Wild Life Protection Act 1972 and as protected forest under the Rajasthan Forest Act 1953
These various notifications said the petitioner prohibit all or any mining activity and yet the Government of Rajasthan had granted hundred of Licences for mining marble dolomite and other minerals in late 1980s contrary to law
After issuing notices to the Government of Rajasthan and the mine owners which expression is used in this order to denote lessees and licences under the leases and licences granted by the State of Rajasthan this court gave certain directions on October 11 1991
An interlocutory direction was issued to the effect that no mining operation of whatever nature shall be carried on in the protected area
A Committee under the chairmanship of Shri ML Jain J former Judge of the Rajasthan High Court was appointed to ensure due observance of the various Acts and Notifications issued there under with respect to the said protected area
In particular the committee was asked to demarcate the area declared as protected forest under the notification dated January 1 1975 issued by the Rajasthan Government under section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act
This demarcation was felt necessary in view of the ambiguity prevailing with respect to the precise boundaries of the protected forest declared as such under the notification aforesaid
Petitioner s case was that no mining lease licence can be granted within the protected forest except with the prior permission of the Government of India Section 2 of the and Rule 46 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and that no such permission was obtained in fact
By its order dated November 26 1991 the court clarified that the order dated October 11 1991 was not intended to permit the mine 30 owners to carry on their mining activity where such activity was prohibited by any Act Rule or Notification having the force of Law
In effect the order said it meant to prohibit and not to permit the mining activity
In its order dated May 14 1992 the court clarified the meaning if the expression protected area used in the order dated October 11 1991
The expression it was clarified was intended to and does refer to all the areas which have had legal protection against non forest activities that devastated the environment including poaching mining felling of trees etc
It was further clarified that once an area is declared as protected forest it becomes a protected forest notwithstanding the fact that a part of that area is waste
The idea behind declaring an area as protected forest it was pointed out is not merely the protection of the existing forest but also afforestation
The Committee submitted its report dated September 28 1992
The Report states that the Committee verified and cross checked the tracing maps furnished by the Forest Department with the maps furnished by the Revenue Department and found that both of them Watched
After looking into the khasra numbers mentioned in the notification dated January 1 1975 and all other material placed before it by the parties including the mine owners the report states the committee identified the areas declared as protected forest
The report indicates that the areas declared as protected forest under the said notification was not in one contiguous block but was comprised in several blocks or areas as it may be called
As per the said Report 215 mines mentioned in appendix A to the Report fall completely within the areas declared as protected forest while 47 mines mentioned in Appendix B to tile Report fall partly inside and partly outside the areas declared as protected forest
These 262 mines are referred to hereinafter as Listed mines
To this extent
there is no difference of opinion among the members of the committee
Differing opinions have however been expressed when it came to making of recommendations for the consideration of this court
The Chairman Shri Justice ML Jain recommended that the mining operations in all the 215 mines listed in appendix A should be stopped forthwith and that the mining operations in the 47 mines listed 31 in appendix B should be stopped forthwith to the extent they fell within the area declared as protected forest
Three other members of the Committee Collector
Always
the Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wild Life Warden Rajasthan and the Additional Director of Mines differed from the Chairman
They suggested that this Court be pleased to accept the representation of the State Government appended as appendix C to the Report wherein it was prayed that the area covered by the mines should be allowed to be excluded from the protected forest in lieu of which the Government of Rajasthan will provide an equal extent of area for being included in the protected forest
An application has also been filed by the State of Rajasthan to the same effect
It is stated therein that the protected forest area measures about 800 sq
km whereas the 262 mines mentioned in appendix A and B cover only an area of 208 sq
In the interest of economy of the State industry and the workers engaged therein it is submitted
an extent of 502 sq
including the area covered by the said mines be allowed to be deleted from the protected forest
In lieu thereof the Government of Rajasthan offered to place an equal extent for the purpose of being declared as protected forest
It is submitted further that when the mining leases with respect to the said 262 mines were granted
the Government of Rajasthan was under the impression that the said mines did not fall within the protected forest area Indeed it was so certified by the Forest Department
This happened because of want of clarity about the precise boundaries of the areas declared as protected forest
The mine owners too have filed objections to the Report of the Committee to the recommendation made by the Chairman of the Committee and submitted alternately that the proposal of the Government of Rajasthan be
accepted and they be allowed to continue their mining operations
At this stage we directed the Government of India to file an affidavit making their stand clear in the matter
Accordingly an affidavit sworn to by Shri section P Singh Deputy Director in the Ministry of Environment and Forest Project Tiger New Delhi has been filed
It is stated in the affidavit that the area declared as project tigertiger reserve is covered by notifications issued under the Rajasthan Forest Act Environment Protection Act 1986 and Mines and Minerals 32 Regulation and Development Act 1957
It is submitted that the applies not only to reserve and protected forest but to all areas recorded as forest in Government records
Mining is non forestry activity and therefore cannot be carried on in the areas to which applies without the prior approval of the Government of India
It is stated further that on May 7 1992 the Government of India has issued the final notification under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 prohibiting all mining activity except with the approval of the Government of India in the protected forest Sariska National Park and certain areas of Alwar District mentioned in the Notification
Since no permission is obtained under any of the said enactments with respect to the said 262 mines it is submitted no mining operations can be carried on in the area until and unless they obtain the permission of the Central Government
Indeed
the prohibition extends not merely to protected forest areas but to the entire area declared as tiger reserve and as Sariska National Park
A copy of the notification dated May 7 1992 issued under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act is appended to the affidavit
It is necessary to notice the relevation portions of the said notification
They read Now therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub section 1 and clause v of sub section 2 of section 3 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 29 of 1986 read with rule 5 of the Environment Protection Rules 1986 the Central Government hereby prohibits the carrying on of the following processes and operations except with the prior permission in the areas specified in the Table appended to this Notification i Location of any new industry including expansionmodernisation ii a All new mining operations including renewals of mining lease
b Existing mining leases in sanctuaries National Park and areas covered under Project Tiger and or 33 c Mining is being done without permission of the competent authority iiiCutting of trees iv Construction of any clusters of dwelling units farms houses sheds community centers information centres and any other activity connected with such construction including roads a part of any infrastructure relating thereto v Electrificationlaying of new transmission lines
TABLE Areas where carrying on of processes and operations without permission is prohibited
i all reserved forests protected forests or any other area shown as forest in the land records maintained by the State Government as on the date of this notification in relation to Gurgaon District of the State of Haryana and the Alwar District of the State of Rajasthan
ii all areas shown as a Gair Mumkin Pahar or b Gain Mumkin Rada or c Gain Mumkin Behed or d Banjad Beed or e Rundh In the land records maintained by the State Government as on the date of this notification in relation to Gurgaon District of the State of Haryana and the Alwar district of the State of Rajasthan
34 iiiall areas covered by notifications issued under sections 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act 1900 as applicable to the State of Haryana in the district of Gurgaon upto the date of this Notification
iv all areas of Sariska National Park and Sariska Sanctuary notified under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 53 of 1972  emphasis added We have heard Dr Rajiv Dhawan counsel for the writ petitioner Shri Aruneshwar Gupta counsel for the State of Rajasthan and SShri MC Bhandare and P Chidambaram council appearing for the mine owners
Certain other mine owners have intervened
We permitted them to file their written Submissions
Dr Rajiv Dhawan submitted that in view of the earlier orders of this court and the report of the committee all the mining activity in all the areas declared as protected forest and in the areas notified under the notification dated May 7 1992 should stop forthwith
Indeed he says it should have stopped long ago
Continuance of mining activity is in gross contempt of this court and constitutes a clear violation of its orders
The Government of Rajasthan is equally guilty of contempt in as much as it has come forward with an application for directions instead of taking stringent action forthwith to stop the mining activity in all the listed mines
As a matter of fact he says the Government of  Rajasthan appears to be colluding with the mine owners which is evident from the dissent expressed by the officers of the Rajasthan Government who were members of the Committee appointed by this Court to the straight forward and logical recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee
The Government of India s affidavit places the matter beyond doubt
Not only the mining operations in the listed mines should be injunction forthwith but the mine owners and the Government of Rajasthan should be proceeded against for contempt says the counsel
He pointed out further that the mining leases granted by the Government of Rajasthan are ex facie illegal inasmuch as prior permission of the Central Government was admittedly not obtained for the said leases as required by the and Rule 46 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules
Prohibition of 35 mining flows from the provisions of the as well as the notification issued under the Environment Protection Act in May 1992
Shri Aninseshwar Gupta learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan submitted that the Rajasthan Government and its officers were not aware when they granted leaseslicences in respect of listed mines that they fell within the area declared as protected forest
Indeed a certificate was issued by the Forest Department to the effect that they did not fall within the protected forest area
It was thus a bonafide grant
The boundaries of the areas declared as protected areas were not clearly known nor were they demarcated on the spot
Of course it now turns out that the said listed mines fall wholly or partly within the protected forest but for the reasons mentioned in the application filed by the Government of Rajasthan the area of five sq
kilometers should be allowed to be deleted from out of the protected forest subject to the conditions offered in the said application
Counsel says that the Government of Rajasthan is neither colluding with the mine owners nor has it any intention to flout the orders of the court
It is prepared to abide fully by the orders of this court
It has already shut down 54 mines
It is also prepared to shut down all the other listed mines if this court so directs
It is
however making an earnest request that it may be allowed to exclude the areas covered by these mines from the protected forest in public interest
Learned counsel has placed before us map said to have been prepared by the officers of the Rajasthan State showing the areas covered by tiger reserve sanctuary protected forest and the location of the listed mines
Shri MC Bhandare learned counsel appearing for the mine owners in Mallana village submitted that demarcation of protected forest by the committee is defective erroneous and unacceptable for the various reasons set out in the objections filed by his clients
It is technically imperfect
The very description of the boundaries in the notification dated January 1 1975 is vague and misleading
It mentions old khasra numbers which were not in vogue in the year 1975The map produced by the Government of Rajasthan for the perusal of this court delineating the tiger reserve is equally incorrect besides being unauthenticated
It is not know who prepared the map and on what basis
The mine owners do not admit that their mines fall within the 36 tiger reserve or within the protected forest areas
Closing down hundreds of mines employing thousands of workers wherein a large amount of capital is invested would disturb the economy of the State besides affecting the supplies of marble and other minerals
No public purpose would be served by such closure
The mine owners are not guilty of contempt of this court inasmuch as their mines do not fall within the protected forest or protected area
Even otherwise it appears that the areas declared as protected forest are in disparate patches away from each other
Mines are located not only within the areas declared as protected forest but also in the adjacent areas which are not declared as protected forest
In such a case no purpose is served by closing the mines within the protected forest inasmuch as the mining activity in the mines located outside the protected forest will continue uninterrupted
The purpose of ecology and environment would not be served by such a situation
Moreover the notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan on January 1 1975 declaring certain areas as protected areas is only a provisional or an interim notification
It is not a final notification
The final notification is yet to be issued
Since there is no forest in the areas covered by the mines nor is any afforestation possible in such areas they should be allowed to be deleted from the protected forest in the final notification to be issued
Shri P Chidambaram learned counsel appearing for some of the mine owners submitted that it is unsafe for this court to act upon and or to pass any orders based upon the map produced by State of Rajasthan showing the tiger reserve and identifying the areas declared as protected forest
It is not known who prepared the said map and on what basis and for what purpose
The declaration as tiger reserve by the Government of India is not under any statutory authority
The area declared as tiger reserve and the area notified as sanctuary under Section 18 of the Wildlife Protection Act as also the area declared as National Park under Section 35 of the Wildlife Protection Act are not co extensive with each other
More particularly the areas declared as protected forest are not co extensive with the area declared as tiger reserve sanctuary or National Park
It is not known how many areas declared as protected forest fall within tiger reserve and how many in the sanctuary andor National Park
The Government of India has not prepared or submitted any map showing these various areas
None of 37 the mines fall within the sanctuary or the National Park not even within project tiger
In such a situation any orders stopping the mining operations merely on the basis of the report of the commission or the unauthenticated map produced by the Government of Rajasthan would be wholly unsafe
The proper course would be to appoint a committee or to call upon the Government of India to identify the areas declared as tiger reserve sanctuary National Park and the areas declared as protected forest indicating at the same time the location of mines if any in the said areas
Only then will the correct position be known
Counsel also submitted that the proposal of the Government of Rajasthan merits acceptance by this court
Both the counsel appearing for the mine owners affirmed that the mine owners are not acting in a spirit of adversarial litigation but in a spirit of cooperation
They are as much interested in protecting the environment and ecology as the petitioner but they say it should not be a one sided affair
At the outset we may be permitted to clarify an aspect
This is not a case where we are called upon to shut down an activity being carried on lawfully in the name of higher considerations of ecology and environment
This is a simple case where we are called upon to ensure observance of enacted laws made by the State to protect the environment and ecology of the area
In such a case we need not be oppressed by considerations of balancing the interests of economy and ecology
Mat has already been done by the Legislature and Parliament
The grievance of tile petitioner is against the executive
Charged with the delegation of implementing the laws of the land the executive is yet failing to do its duty by law and by people when faced with the might of money respect for law is dissolving into respect for gammon says the petitioner
Let us therefore first find out which laws are violated if any and then decide what are the proper directions to make
A Section 2 of the ForestConservationAct read with Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act and Rule 4 6 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concessions Rule
Section 29 of the Rajasthan Act empowers the Government to declare any forest land or waste land to be a protected forest
Subsection 1 says that the State Government may by notification in the official gazette declare the provisions of this chapter applicable to any 38 forest land or waste land which is not included in a reserve forest hut which is the property of the State Government or over which the State Government has proprietary rights It is not disputed in this case that the land over which the listed mines mines listed in Appendix A and to the Report of the Justice ML Jain Committee are situated is the property of the State Government
The State Government is empowered not only to declare any forest land as a protected forest but also any waste land as such
The idea evidently is not only to protect the existing forest hut also to bring waste lands under schemes of afforestation
Once declared as protected forest the distinction between forest land and waste land disappears
The entire area becomes a protected forest
Before however declaring any forest land or waste land as a protected forest the State Government is obliged to make an enquiry into the nature and extent of the rights of the State Government and of private persons in or over the forest land or waste land proposed to be declared as protected forest and record the same at a survey or settlement or in such other manner as the State Government thinks sufficient
This is the requirement of sub section 3
However the proviso to sub section 3 empowers the State Government in case it thinks that such an enquiry and record will occupy such length of time as in the meantime to endanger the rights of the State Government it may pending such enquiry and record declare a particular area to be a protected forest without of course abridging or affecting any rights of individuals or communities
Sub section 4 empowers the State Government to delete any area from out of the area declared as protected forest
Reading Section 29 as a whole it appears the normal rule is to make an enquiry into the rights of the State Government and of the private parties over the land proposed to be declared as protected forest in the first instance prepare a record thereof and then declare it as a protected forest
But in case of urgency it is open to the State Government to issue such notification forthwith subject of course to the existing rights of individuals and communities in the area concerned
In this case the notification dated January 1 1975 issued by the Government of Rajasthan appears to be one issued under the proviso to sub section 3
Sri Bhandare submits that a notification issued under the proviso to sub section 3 is only an interim or provisional notification and that after conducting the enquiry contemplated by the main limb of sub section3 a regular and proper notification under sub section 1 has still to be issued
Until then he submits the declaration as protected forest does not take effect
We are not 39 prepared to agree
Section 29 contemplates only one notification declaring an area as a protected forest
Whether issued after a normal enquiry and record or without enquiry or record Section 29 contemplates only one notification and not two in any event
Therefore the notification issued is the valid and effective one
It is not a provisional or preliminary notification
It is not also the case of the mine owners that leases or licences in their favour were granted prior to January 1 1975
All of them were granted in the middle of or in the late eighties
The savings clause contained in the proviso to sub section 3 does not avail them
In view of the ambiguity prevailing with respect to the precise boundaries of the area or areas declared as protected forest under the notification dated January 1 1975 the Justice ML Jain committee was appointed by this court to demarcate and identify the areas declared as protected forest under the said notification with the help of the Revenue and Forest Departments of the State of Rajasthan
It has done so
Besides being headed by a former Judge of the Rajasthan High Court it was composed of high officials of the Government of Rajasthan
They have undertaken an elaborate and intensive exercise and have demarcated the areas declared as protected forest with the help of the official maps and records
We see no reason not to accept the said report
The several objections submitted by the mine owners cannot prevail over the official maps and records
They were represented before the Commission at the time of the said exercise
It is significant to notice that the dissent note appended by the officers of the Government of Rajasthan was not with respect to the demarcation or identification of areas declared as protected forest but only with respect to the closure of the mines operating within those areas
The report of the committee is accordingly accepted herewith
Once an area is declared as a protected forest it comes within the purview of the 
It becomes a forest land within the meaning of Section 2
The effect of this position is that no non forest activity can be carried on in the said area except with the prior approval of the Central Government
Even the State Government cannot carry on any such non forest activity in the said area without such prior approval
That the mining activity amounts to non forest purpose is beyond dispute
Thus the grant of mining leaseslicences 40 and their renewal by the State Government
without obtaining the prior approval of the Central Government in respect of the mines situated within the protected forest after January 1 1975 is contrary to law
All the mines listed in Appendix A to the committee s report do fall within the areas declared as protected forest while the mines listed in Appendix B fall partly within and partly outside such areas
According to Rule 46 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1986 too no mining ease could have been granted or renewed within the forest without clearance from the Central Government
in accordance with the and the Rules made thereunder
Admittedly no such prior approval or clearance of Central Government was obtained
The Chairman of the Committee Sri justice ML Jain has recommended that 215 mines mentioned in appendix A to his report which are situated wholly within the protected forest should he closed forthwith
There can hardly be any valid objection in law to the said recommendation
Similarly with respect to 47 mines mentioned in appendix B to the report the learned Chairman has recommended that they should be closed forthwith in so far as they fall within the protected forest
To this recommendation also there can be no valid objection in law
At this stage it would be appropriate to consider the application filed by State of Rajasthan for permission to delete an extent of 502 sq
from out of the protected forest
The application is confined only to 208 mines out of 262 listed mines
54 mines mentioned in para 9 of the application are proposed to be closed indeed according to the counsel for the State they have already been closed
Reliance is placed upon the order dated May 14 1992 in this behalf
It is pointed out that the said order does contemplate such modification of course with the permission of this Court and for valid reasons
It is pointed out that for such deletion or modification the prior approval of the Central Government is not required
No such requirement is prescribed either in the or Rajasthan Forest Act it is submitted
In this context the submission of Sri MC Bhandare may also be considered
He says that there are a number of mines around and outside the area declared as protected forests and that no purpose would be served by merely closings the mines within the protected forest and leaving those outside unhindered
He says that all these mines within and outside are within the tiger reserve as per the Rajasthan Government map though outside the sanctuary
May be so
41 But it cannot he forgotten that purpose of Forest Acts and purpose of Environmental Protection Acts may not always be the same
Such closure may not serve the environmental purpose assuming that factual situation asserted by the learned counsel is true upon which aspect we need not and do not make any pronouncement but it may serve the forest purpose
Be that as it may both the purposes appear to be intertwined in this case
In this situation we think it appropriate that the merits of the said proposal be examined by the Ministry of Environment and Forests Government of India and a report submitted to this Court within three months from today
Orders will be passed on the application for directions filed by the State of Rajasthan after considering tile said report
B Notification issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 on May 7 1992 This notification expressly prohibits the carrying on of the mining operations except with the Central Government s prior permission in the areas covered under project tiger
The prohibition extends to existing mining leases in SanctuariesNational Park
All mining operations are prohibited therein
The table appended to the notification particularises the areas where carrying on the processes and operations aforesaid is prohibited without the permission of the Central Government
They include all reserve forest
protected forest or any other area shown as forest in the land records maintained by the State Government as on the date of the issuance of tile said notification in relation to inter alia Alwar district of the State of Rajasthan
The table also includes all areas of Sariska National Park and Sariska Sanctuary notified under the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 53 of 72
we cannot agree with the learned counsel for mine owners that the area declared as project tiger in the Alwar district has not been properly identified or that it is not properly identifiable
Both the State Government and Central Government have demarcated them in exactly identical manner
The map produced before us by the State Government is a detailed plan prepared with great care
There is no reason to presume that it is not prepared by competent persons on the basis of the relevant material
The map delineates the area declared as sanctuary within the area declared as tiger reserve
The location of listed mines is clearly marked
They fall within the tiger reserve 42 though outside the sanctuary
A publication by the Forest Survey of India
Dehradun
Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of Indiaentitled Status of Forest covering in Project  Tiger Reserve has been placed before us
At pages 92 94
we find the map of Sariska Tiger reserve Rajasthan
The boundaries shape and dimensions of the said map tally fully and perfectly with the map prepared by the State of Rajasthan
Thus there can be no legitimate dispute with respect to the correctness of the map produced by Government of Rajasthan or with respect to the area declared as tiger reserve
Both the State Government and Central Government have delineated it
May be that the declaration as tiger reserve was without any statutory authority and is relatable to the executive power of the Union of India but tile notification issued under Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act puts the stamp of statutory authority over it
The Central Government has specifically stated in its affidavit that no prior permission was obtained with respect to the mines located within the tiger reserve
On this ground the mining operations being carried on in the tiger reserve including the listed mines also appears to be contrary to law of course this notification has come only in May 1992
Now coming to the appropriate directions to be made in this behalf it should be borne in mind that there is a distinction between the listed mines and those mines which are situated outside he protected forest but within the tiger reserve
So far as the listed mines are concerned the very grant and renewal of those mining leaselicences is itself illegal
These areas were declared as protected forest is far back as January 1 1975
If so no mining lease or licence could have been granted in respect of the mines situated within the protected forest without clearance from the Central Government as required by Rule 46 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules and without prior approval of the Central Government under section 2 of the 
It is an admitted fact that all these leases and licences were granted after 1980
There is also he order of this Court dated October 11 1991 directing that no mining operation of whatever nature shall be carried on in the protected area Protected area does without a doubt include the areas declared as protected forest
The recommendation of the Chairman of the Committee Sri justice ML Jainisal so to the effect that the mining activity in the listed mines should be stopped forthwith
Even with respect to the mines in appendix B which partly full within and partly outside the protected 43 forest areas the recommendation of the Chairman is that they should he closed to the extent they fall within the protected forest
The Central Government has also taken the stand that the mining activity in these areas is illegal and cannot PO on
As against this is the plea of the Rajasthan Government and of the mine owners that the area covered by these mines should be allowed to be deleted excluded from the protected forest in lieu of their offer to include an equal extent of area within the protected forest
We do not propose to express any opinion on this plea of the Rajasthan Government and the mine owners for the reasons recorded hereinbefore
We would like to have the opinion of the Central Government on the said plea or proposal as it may be called Only thereafter shall we consider the request of the State Government
But is on today the situation is that the mining activity in the listed mines according to the Rajasthan Government it has already stopped all mining activities in 54 mines specified in its application is illegal and has to stop
May be that this will have the effect of mining to halt the activity involving a good amount of capital and a large number of workers
But in view of the inherent illegality attaching to them indicated hereinbefore
we have no option but to close them
We cannot permit them to operate
If and when the central government recommends the plea of the State Government and any of the areas already declared as protected forest are deleted with leave of this court can the mining activity go on in these areas
It is accordingly directed that all mining activity in the mines mentioned in appendix A to the report of Sri justice M I 
Jain Committee shall stop forthwith
Similarly the mining activity in the mines mentioned in appendix B to the said report shall also stop forthwith in so far as they fall within the protected forest areas The plea of the Rajasthan Government and of  the mine owners shall he considered by Department of Forest and Environment Government of India and report submitted to this Court within three months
Now coming to the mines located outside the protected forest areas but within the tiger reserve it cannot be said that the very grant of mining leaselicence is itself illegal in their case unless of course such mining lease licence or its renewal has been granted on or after May 71992 particulars in this behalf are not made available to us
The illegality has attached to these mines by virtue of the notification issued by the central government under Section 3 of the Environment 44 Protection Act on May 71992
In the circumstances it is directed that the mining activity in the mines situated outside the protected forest areas but within the tiger reserve may continue for a period of four months
Within this period it shall be open to the concerned mine owners to approach the Department of Forest and Environment Government of India for permission to continue their mining operations
They can continue the mining operations in these mines only if the central government permits them and subject to the orders of the central government in that behalf
If no permission is obtained from the central government within the said period of four months the mining activity in the entire area declared as tiger reserve shall stop and cease on the expiry of four months
List this matter for further orders on July 12 1993


Summary:
The respondent was defendant in a suit
He engaged the appellant as an Advocate
The suit was compromised on 14677 ordering that out of the amount lying with the Court receiver plaintiff was to be paid a sum of Rs 64000 and the balance to be paid to the defendant respondent and possession of suit property to be handed over to the respondent
During the tendency of the suit the Court Receiver inducted a tenant in a suit property
The tenant filed a suit praying for an interim injunction restraining the court receiver from handing over possession to the respondent
Tenant s suit was continued
After the compromise decree was passed on 14677 the appellant withdrew a total amount of Rs 50379 from the Court receiver
Out of the amount appellant paid only Rs 18000 to the respondent
On 9181 the respondent filed a complaint against the appellant before the Bar Council of India
On receiving a notice the appellant submitted reply
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council rejected certain receipts produced to evidence payment to the respondent and also the plea of the appellant that the account books were lost
The Committee suspended the appellant for a period of two years and further directed to pay a sum of Rs 500 to the respondent
Before this Court the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India was challenged contending that the Committee did not properly appreciate the evidence and that it was incorrect to hold that the 1007 receipt dated 8877 was a suspicious document merely because the account books were not produced
Dismissing the appeal this Court HELD  101
Advocacy is not a craft but a calling  a profession wherein devotion to duty constitutes the hall mark
Sincerity of performance and the earnestness of endeavor are the two wings that will bare aloft the advocate to the tower of success
Given these virtues other qualifications will follow of their own account
This is the reason why legal profession is regarded to be a noble one
But it cannot be allowed to become a sorriest of trades
Therefore
an exacting standard is what is expected of an advocate
1010 C D 1011 C 102
The members of the noble profession must set an example of conduct worthy of emulation
If any of them falls from the high expectations the punishment has to be commensurate with the degree and gravity of the misconduct
1012 E Sharasawood on legal profession Harry R Blythe cited if  referred to
M Veerabhadra Rao vs Tek Chand 1984 Supp
SCC 571 referred to1011 C 201
The appellant had withdrawn the money from the Court Receiver
None of the correspondence addressed to the respondent mentioned about the receipt dated 8th of August 1977
The plea taken by the appellant based on the receipt is clearly false
The statement of the appellant that the account books had been lost in transit cannot be believed
Under these circumstances this is a clear case wherein the misappropriation by the appellant has been fully established
1012 F 202
The appellant has been withdrawing the money over 14 years and lit has illegally retained the amount
Out of a sum of Rs 50379 which was admittedly withdrawn from the court receiver only Rs 18000 was paid on different occasions
Still a sum of Rs 22379 is due
1012 H 1013 A 203
In view of the established finding of misappropriation the proper punishment will be the name of the Advocate must be struck off the rolls
1013 B 1008 204
When Section 38 of the Advocates Act says deems fit it must be construed as to meet the ends of justice
The respondent should not be driven to a civil court for recovery of this amount even when the appellant has been found guilty
Therefore it is directed that there shall be a decree in favour of the respondent complainant for a sum of Rs 22379 together with interest at 9 per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of payment 11013 F G