Kamal Ghorui
NEW DELHI : SC asked the environment ministry and other stakeholders on Thursday to suggest names of domain experts for the committee to be tasked with defining the Aravali hills and ranges, and observed that only lawful mining would be allowed in the region.The top court, on Dec 29, had taken note of the outcry over the new definition of Aravalis and kept in abeyance its Nov 20 order accepting a uniform definition of the hills and ranges. It had also put all mining on hold.On Thursday, a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi extended its earlier stay order on mining for the time being.Aravali case: We will allow lawful mining only, says SCDuring the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for a litigant, said the company had a mining license and had won the right to mine after a protracted battle. Now, because of the court order, mining had been stalled.“We will allow lawful mining only… let the experts tell us (the definition). We will cross all bridges and reach the right destination,” the CJI said.The bench asked lawyer Jay Cheema to assist it. Senior advocate K Parmeswar is already assisting the bench as amicus curiae.“We request the (environment) ministry to suggest a panel of domain experts along with their profiles. Senior counsel are also requested to give profiles of some eminent domain experts for the purpose of constituting the committee, as was observed by this court,” the bench said.The bench said it was conscious of the fact that all activities, especially mining by licenced firms, have come to a halt. “However, status quo will have to be maintained for the time being till some preliminary issues are answered in a phased manner. Post this matter for the constitution of the committee,” the CJI said.The bench asked stakeholders to submit written notes by March 10 after the amicus curiae submitted his suggestions on the aspect of definitions of the Aravali hills and ranges.The bench said it will set up the panel of experts and frame issues to be decided on the next date of hearing.Earlier, the bench said it seemed prima facie that the earlier report of a committee and the verdict had “omitted to expressly clarify certain critical issues” and there was a “dire need to further probe” to prevent any regulatory gaps that might undermine the ecological integrity of the Aravali region.“There has been a significant outcry among environmentalists, who have expressed concern about the potential for misinterpretation and improper implementation of the… definition and this court’s directions,” the bench had said.
