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

2018 Supreme(SC) 888

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADAN B. LOKUR, S. ABDUL NAZEER, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD – PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
I.A. Nos. 1424-1425 of 2005 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202 OF 1995
Decided On : 14-09-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
When State authorities are taking action in accordance with law, there is no need to direct CBI investigation.

Headnote:Natural resources – Illegal mining of iron ore in Chhattisgarh – CEC finding Mr. Anil Lunia guilty of illegal mining of 1,22,686.16 CMT of iron ore in forest area – CEC recommending impounding of the extracted iron ore and sale by public auction – Mr. Anil Punia slapped with demand of Rs.6,66,75,633.75/- to be recovered as revenue recovery – Recovery in process – Departmental croceedings completed against Concerned officials and punishments imposed – Not necessary to direct CBI investigation. (Para 7)

       Facts of the case:

       This is an application for protection of forests of the State of Chhattisgarh under the Forest Conservation Act.

       The issue concerns with the illegal mining activities of by one Mr. Anil Lunia.

       Finding of the Court:

       Appropriate actions are being taken in the matter. Therefore there is no need to order CBI investigation.

       Result: Applications disposed of.

JUDGMENT

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

I.A. Nos. 1424-1425 of 2005

1. Mr. Bhupesh Baghel, M.L.A., has filed I.A. Nos. 1424-1425 of 2005 in the above writ petition seeking the following reliefs :

(i) Direct the respondents 1 to3 herein to ensure that no non-forest activities including mining operations are carried out by the respondents 4 to 7 herein in the forests under the garb of lease executed by the State of Chhattisgarh or permission granted by the State of Chhattisgarh in their favour;

(ii) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate criminal prosecution of the respondents 4 to 7 herein as also other officials of the State of Chhattisgarh with whose connivance, the respondents 4 to 7 herein have carried out and/or are carrying on non-forest activities in the forests;

(iii) Direct the C.B.I. to make an enquiry with regard to violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act even after the order dated 12.12.1996 of this Hon'ble court by the State of Chhattisgarh after it came into existence on 01.11.2000 and to fix the responsibility of the officials who are responsible for granting lease or to permit non-forest activities in contravention of the provisions of Forest Conservation Act in forests in the State of Chhattisgarh and to fix responsibility and then to intimate departmental proceeding and/or their criminal prosecution;

(iv) Direct determination and recovery of compensation from respondents 4 to 7 herein for causing environmental losses by carrying on non- forest activities in the forest area for commercial purposes;

(v) Direct the respondents 2 & 3 to take immediate steps for forest protection and rehabilitation of mined area by planting sufficient number of trees and by taking immediate measures for compensatory afforestation of the area; and

(vi) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice."

2. In this case we are concerned with the illegal mining activities of by Mr. Anil Lunia (respondent No.4) in the State of Chhattisgarh. According to the applicant, Anil Lunia, an industrialist, on 31.10.1998 applied for a mining prospecting license in Bhainsakanhar, District Kanker, to mine iron ore at Bhainsa Kankar, District North Bastar Kanker. The Government of Chhattisgarh, Mining Department, accorded prospecting license on an area of admeasuring 18.27 hectares vide Khasra Nos. 123, 125, 127, 129, 130 and 139 vide letter dated 25.1.2002. Written permission was also accorded on 29.5.2002 along with certain conditions for the prospecting. A lease deed was executed on 26.5.2003 by the Collector, North Bastar Kanker in favour of Anil Lunia. In this deed it has been, inter alia, mentioned that the lessee shall not cut any tree without the sanction of authorities and shall not enter reserved forest or use forest roads for transporting purpose without the written sanction of DFO. It was also mentioned that the lessee has to allow inspection by State/Central authorities at any point of time. In the month of June-July 2003, Anil Lunia started mining operations but not as per the approved plan of IBM. He did not adhere to the conditions of lease and started cutting trees without permission. In a complaint made by one NGO, it was stated that thousands of trees have been chopped off by the licensee in violation of the Forest Conservation Act. Conservator of Forest Kanker constituted a 3-member inquiry team which gave its report on the basis of which Sub-Divisional Officer issued a letter dated 18.9.2003, inter alia, mentioned that how the notified protected forest was shown as non-forest revenue land just to facilitate the mining lease without complying with the provisions of Forest Conservation Act. The subsequent proceedings would show how a part of the State machinery was involved in allowing violation of Forest Conservation Act. The applicant has also referred to certain judicial proceedings initiated by Anil Lunia. That is how th



























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
whatsapp-icon Back to top