Back
1998 Supreme(SC) 112
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD
Vs.
Union of India
Decided January 23, 1998
The State has a responsibility to prevent illegal mining activities and to take appropriate action against those involved.
Headnote:
None
Fact of the Case:
The case involved illegal mining activities in Uttar Pradesh, specifically in Mirzapur. The District Magistrate reported large-scale illegal mining, and the court ordered the seized materials to remain in custody. The State of Uttar Pradesh submitted an affidavit detailing actions taken against illegal mining, including arrests and surrenders of individuals involved. Mr. Manvendra Bahadur Singh, one of the accused, appeared in court and filed an affidavit. A complaint by Vijay Singh alleged illicit mining activities involving Mr. Singh, but his name was omitted from the FIR. The court also noted an enquiry report on illegal mining activities in Varanasi Division.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that illegal mining activities had taken place on a large scale and that the State of Uttar Pradesh had taken some action against the accused individuals. However, the court expressed concern about the omission of Mr. Singh's name from the FIR and directed the SHO to file an affidavit explaining the omission. The court also directed the State to file an affidavit disclosing when and where search was made for apprehending Mr. Singh. Additionally, the court sought an up-to-date position regarding outstanding mining leases or quarry licenses issued by the State.
Issues: 1. Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh had taken adequate action to curb illegal mining activities. 2. Whether the omission of Mr. Singh's name from the FIR was deliberate and required further investigation. 3. Whether the State had complied with the court's previous orders regarding illegal mining.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State of Uttar Pradesh had a responsibility to prevent illegal mining activities and to take appropriate action against those involved. The court found that the omission of Mr. Singh's name from the FIR was suspicious and required further explanation. The court also emphasized the need for the State to comply with its previous orders regarding illegal mining.
Final Decision: The court directed the SHO to file an affidavit explaining the omission of Mr. Singh's name from the FIR. The court also directed the State to file an affidavit disclosing when and where search was made for apprehending Mr. Singh. Additionally, the court sought an up-to-date position regarding outstanding mining leases or quarry licenses issued by the State.
( 1 ) THE District Magistrate, Mirzapur has submitted a report regarding the seizure of illegally mined minerals, vehicles etc. A perusal of the report shows that large-scale illegal mining activities has taken place. The seized materials shall remain in the custody of the District Magistrate till further orders.
( 2 ) IN the affidavit filed on 22/1/1998 by the secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh, Department of Industrial Development, action taken between 14/1/1998 and 21/1/1998 has been indicated. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit it has been stated that in case Crime No. 6 of 1998, out of II persons, against whom the case had been registered, four were arrested and 6 had surrendered in the court. That so far as Mr. Manvendra Bahadur Singh is concerned, it is stated that the police teams were sent to apprehend him in Lucknow, Mirzapur, Allahabad and number of other places but he was not found. It is further stated in the affidavit that Mr. Manvendra Bahadur Singh filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 132 of 1998 in the High court of Allahabad on 19-1-1998 and an order came to be made thereon by the High court on 20/1/1998.
( 3 ) MR. Manvendra Bahadur Singh has voluntarily appeared in this court today and has filed an affidavit. Mr. G. L. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appears for him. We have perused the copy of the writ petition filed in the High court which was made available to us by Mr. Sanghi and find that there is conspicuous silence in the writ petition about the proceedings pending in this court as well as various orders made by this court from time to time. From a perusal of the order made in the writ petition by the High court on 20/1/1998, it appears that Additional government Advocate was present in the court on behalf of the State. Presumably, the pendency of the proceedings in this court and various orders made from time to time were not within his knowledge and were, therefore, not brought to the notice of the High court. Learned counsel for the State submits that the State government will immediately bring facts regarding the pendency of the proceedings in this court and various orders made by this court to the notice of the High court at Allahabad.
( 4 ) LEARNED amicus curiae has drawn our attention to the complaint filed by one Vijay Singh, son of Jagdish Singh regarding illicit mining activities being carried out in Banjari Kalan. A perusal of that complaint shows that besides other persons named therein, the name of Manvendra Bahadur Singh has been specifically mentioned. This complaint is dated 20/12/1997. According to Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, FIR No. 5 of 1998 was registered on the basis of that complaint but we are surprised to find that the name of Manvendra Bahadur Singh does not figure in that FIR. The submission of Mr. Salve that his name appears to have beendeliberately left out cannot be said to be far-fetched. The SHO concerned from Mirzapur, who registered the FIR on the basis of that complaint, shall file an affidavit in this court and explain the omission. The needful shall be a done by him within two weeks. Learned State counsel shall communicate this order to the SHO concerned. The State of Uttar Pradesh is also directed to file an affidavit of a competent police officer to disclose when and where search was made for apprehending Manvendra Bahadur Singh in connection with Crime Case No. 6 of 1998. The affidavit shall be filed in two weeks.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh submits that enquiry report of the Commissioner, Varanasi Division has been received with regard to illegal mining activities. He shall file a copy of that report together with its translation within two weeks. This court shall also be informed by the next date as to what further action, if any, has been taken against Mr. Das, the Mining Officer. The State of Uttar Pradesh shall further state on an affidavit of a competent officer not below the rank of secretary to the
