SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 619

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia, CJI., Aftab Alam & K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, JJ.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
I.A. Nos. 1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380, 2568 and 2937 In Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 With Transfer Petition (C) No. 277 of 2010
Decided On : 06 July, 2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, AG, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, ASG, Mr. Harish N. Salve, Mr. U.U. Lalit, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. F.S. Nariman, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Krishnan Venugopalan, Mr. Sidhartha Chowdhury, Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Mr. P.K. Manohar, Mr. Somiran Sharma, Mr. Nishanth Patil, Mr. Haris Beeran, Mr. Devdatt Kamat, Mr. S.N. Terdal, Mr. Subhash Sharma, Mr. Sanjeev K. Kapoor, Mr. Rajat Jariwal, Mr. Kumar Mihir (for M/s. Khaitan & Co.), Mr. Anuj Bhandari, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Mr. S. Bhowmick, Mr. S.C. Ghosh, Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, Mr. Manish Kumar Bishnoi, Mr. P. Nongbri, Advocates, with them for the appearing parties.

IMPORTANT POINT
Decision making process should be fair and fully informed and free from bias or restraint

Headnote:(a) Doctrine – Margin of appreciation – Care of the environment – On-going process – Need for diversion would depend on facts of the case – No across-the-board principle can be formulated. (Para 19)

       JT 2000 (Suppl.2) SC 6 : 2000 (10) SCC 664 – Relied upon

       (b) Environment Protection Act, 1980 – Section 2 – Dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest uses – Prior approval – Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981 – Rule 4 – Requirement of submitting proposal for forest diversion is exclusively the obligation of the State Government (Para 25)

       (c) United Khasi - Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and Control of Forests) Act, 1958 – Sections 2(f), 5 and 7 – Forest – Area having 25 or more trees of more than 1.37 metre in girth at the breast level per acre constitutes ‘forest’ – After a survey the mining area in question reported as non-forest – Thereafter State government and KHADC issuing certificates – Decision to grant ex post facto clearances on such basis not vitiated on account of non-application of mind or on account of suppression of material facts. (Para 25, 26)

       (d) National Forest Policy, 1988 – Para 4 – EIA Notification – Forest and environmental clearance – Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – MoEF granting post-facto clearance after necessary inquiries and requisitions – Court imposing conditions agreed by parties – No infirmity in post-facto clearance. (Para 27)

       (e) Administration of Justice – Judicial review – Doctrine of ‘margin of appreciation’ – Decision making process should be fair and fully informed and free from bias or restraint – Then only doctrine of ’margin of appreciation’ in favour of the decision-maker would come into play. (Para 30)

       2011 (1) All ER 476 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       This case is about limestone mining in Khasi Hills of Meghalaya and its environmental impact.

       Finding of the Court:

       Post-facto sanction is valid.

JUDGMENT

S.H. KAPADIA, CJI.

Facts

1. Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd. (`LSCL' for short) is a company incorporated under the laws of Bangladesh. It has set up a cross-border cement manufacturing project at Chhatak in Bangladesh, which inter-alia has a captive limestone mine of 100Ha located at Phlangkaruh, Nongtrai, East Khasi Hills District in the State of Meghalaya. The mine is leased out in favour of Lafarge Umium Mining Pvt. Ltd. (`LUMPL' for short), which is an incorporated company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and which is a wholly owned subsidiary of LSCL. The entire produce of the said mine is used for production of cement at the manufacturing plant at Chhatak, Bangladesh under the agreement/arrangement between Government of India and Government of Bangladesh. There is no other source of limestone for LSCL except for the captive limestone mine situated at Nongtrai, East Khasi Hills District in the State of Meghalaya. The limestone as mined by LUMPL is conveyed from the mine situated at Nongtrai after crushing in a crusher plant. The limestone mined is conveyed by a conveyor belt to LSCL plant in Bangladesh.

2. The National Forest Policy, 1988 stood enunciated pursuant to Resolution No. 13/52-F, dated 12th May 1952 of GOI to be followed in the management of State Forests in India. The said Policy stood enunciated because over the years forests in India had suffered serious depletion due to relentless pressures arising from ever increasing demand for fuel wood, fodder and timber; inadequacy of protection measures; diversion of forest lands to non-forest uses without ensuring compensatory afforestation and essential environmental safeguards; and the tendency to look upon forests as revenue earning resource. Thus, there was a need to review the situation and to evolve, for the future, a strategy of forest conservation including preservation, maintenance, sustainable utilisation, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment. It is this need which led to the enunciation of National Forest Policy dated 7th December, 1988. The principal aim of the Policy was to ensure environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance. The derivation of direct economic benefit was to be subordinate to the principal aim of the Policy (See para 2.2). Under essentials of forest management it is stipulated that existing forests and forest lands should be fully protected and their productivity improved. It is further stipulated that forest cover should be increased rapidly on hill slopes, in catchment areas and ocean shores. It is further stipulated that diversion of good and productive agricultural lands to forestry should be discouraged in view of the need for increased food production (See para 3.2). Under the Policy a strategy was prescribed vide para 4. The goal is to have a minimum of one-third of the total land area under forest or tree cover. In the hills and in mountains the aim is to maintain two-third of the area under forest or tree cover in order to prevent erosion and land degradation and to ensure the stability of the fragile eco-system. Under para 4.2.3, village and community lands, which is the common feature in north-east regions, not required for other productive uses, should be taken up for development of tree crop and fodder resources and the revenue generated through such programmes should belong to the panchayats where lands are vested in them and in other cases such revenues should be shared with local communities to provide an incentive to them and accordingly land laws should be so modified wherever necessary so as to facilitate and motivate individuals and institutions to undertake tree farming. Vide para 4.3.1, the Policy lays down that schemes and projects which interfere with forests that cover steep slopes, catchment of rivers, lakes and reservoirs, geologically unstable terrain and such other ecologically sensitive areas should be severely restricted. Tropical rain/moist forests, particularly in ar












































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top