Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 1632
Supreme Court of India
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
Versus
Union of India & Others
IAs. Nos. 1413-14, 1426, 1428, 1440, 1454, 1459-60, 1662-63, 1675, 1778, 1796, 2005-2006 in IA. No. 1413 in W.P. (C).No. 202 of 1995 with I.A. No. 1024 in I.A. No. 502 in W.P. (C).No. 202 of 1995, I.A. No. 1179 in IAs. Nos. 675-76 & 957 in W.P.(C).No. 202 of 1995, I.A. No. 2016, 2105-109, 2116-17 in W.P.(C).No. 202 of 1995, I.A. No. 1344 in I.A. No. 1270 in W.P. (C).No. 202 of 1995, WPs.(C).Nos. 36 of 2003 & 356 of 2007, IAs. Nos. 2121-32 in I.A. No. 1413 in W.P.(C).No. 202 of 1995 & W.P. (C).No. 85 of 2007
Decided On : 14-12-2007
The court established a comprehensive framework for a monitoring committee to oversee nationwide compliance with environmental orders and authorized it to verify whether temporary working permissions adhere to specific judicial conditions.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Law - Monitoring of judicial orders - Constitution, powers, and functions of a monitoring committee - The committee is constituted to monitor and ensure compliance with court orders concerning forests, wildlife, and related issues - Powers include monitoring implementation, examining interlocutory applications, handling grievances, calling for documents, conducting site inspections, and recommending measures to central and state governments - Jurisdiction extends across the entire country.
(B) Temporary Working Permissions - Compliance with court directions - Disputes regarding the validity of permissions granted contrary to court orders - Permission holders directed to satisfy the monitoring committee regarding fulfillment of conditions laid down in previous judicial directions - Monitoring committee empowered to permit work upon satisfaction.
Facts of the case:
This matter involves the need to reconstitute a supervisory body to ensure compliance with court orders related to forest and wildlife issues and a dispute regarding the grant of temporary working permissions in a specific region, which were allegedly granted in violation of previous court directives.
Findings of Court:
The court approved the terms of reference for the monitoring committee, establishing its functions as a supervisory body to assist the court. Regarding working permissions, the holders must demonstrate compliance with existing orders before the said committee.
Issues: The primary issues were the determination of the powers and functions of the monitoring committee and the mechanism to resolve disputes concerning the granting of temporary working permissions.
Ratio Decidendi: A specialized monitoring body is essential for effective oversight of judicial orders in environmental matters, and such a body can be empowered to verify the legality of specific permissions to ensure adherence to judicial mandates.
Result: Monitoring committee reconstituted with specified powers; permission holders directed to approach the committee for verification.
I.A. No. 2016
Heard learned Solicitor General and learned Amicus Curiae. They have been contemplating all formalities and terms and conditions. After discussing the learned Solicitor General and learned Amicus Curiae, for the time being we agree with the following terms and reference of CEC:
In supersession of all the previous orders regarding constitution and functioning of the Central Empowered Committee (hereinafter called “the Empowered Committee”) is constituted for the purpose of monitoring and ensuring compliance with the orders of this Court covering the subject-matter of forest and wildlife and related issues arising out of the said orders.
The Committee shall exercise the following powers and perform the following functions:
(i) to monitor the implementation of this Court’s orders and place reports of non-compliance before the Court and the Central Government for appropriate action;
(ii) to examine pending interlocutory applications in the said writ petitions (as may be referred to it by the Court) as well as the reports and affidavits filed by the States in response to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court and place its recommendations before the Court for orders;
(iii) to deal with any applications made to it by any aggrieved person and wherever necessary; to make a report to this Court in that behalf;
(iv) for the purposes of effective discharge of powers conferred upon the Committee under this order, the Committee can:
(a) call for any documents from any persons or the Government of the Union or the State or any other official;
(b) undertake site inspection of forest area involved;
(c) seek assistance or presence of any person(s) or official(s) required by it in relation to its work;
(d) co-opt one or more persons as its members or as special invitees for dealing with specific issues;
(e) co-opt, wherever feasible, the Chief Secretary or his representative and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State as special invitees while dealing with issues pertaining to a particular State;
(f) to suggest measures generally to the State, as well as Central Government, for the more effective implementation of the Act and other orders of this Court;
(v) to examine and advise/recommend on any issue referred to the Committee.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests shall provide suitable and adequate office accommodation for the Committee and shall bear all the expenses of the working of CEC.
The jurisdiction of the Committee shall extend to the whole of India.
IAs. Nos. 1413-14, 1426, 1428, 1440, 1454, 1459-60, 1662-63, 1975, 1778, 1796, 2005-2006 in 1413 and 2121-13 in I.A. No. 1413
Heard learned AC and learned Solicitor General. This is regarding 18 temporary working permissions (TEPs) granted to various parties in Goa. The Ac points out that these TWPs have been granted contrary to the order passed by this Court on 30-11-2006
( T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , (2011) 15 SCC 778). The learned Solicitor General, however, points out that TWPs have been granted in accordance with the directions of this Court order on 4-8-2006 ( T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , (2010) 13 SCC 740) by which various conditions have been laid down for grant of TWPs.
It appears that there is some dispute. Let the holders of TWPs approach CEC and satisfy that TWPs have been granted in accordance with the orders passed by this Court dated 4-8-2006 (supra) and 30-11-2006 (supra), by fulfilling all the conditions laid down by this Court. This Court had stayed TWPs by order dated 7-12-2007 ( T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India , (2013) 8 SCC 203). The holder of TWPs would be at liberty to approach CEC by 17-12-2007. If CEC is satisfied that the TWPs are in accordance with the conditions laid down by this Court by order dated 4-8-2006 (supra), CEC would be at liberty to permit the holder of TWPs to carry on work in the instant case, and will submit a report on 4-1-2008 in this Court.
I.A. No
