Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 2307
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal, Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
I. A. No. 566 in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995
District Forest Officer, Tamil Nadu - Petitioner
Versus
Gowri Shankar & Anr. - Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 193/2001 in W.P. (C) No. 202/95 with W.P.(C) No. 171/1996
Decided On : 18-02-2002
Advocate Appeared:
For the Amicus Curiae : Mr. Harish N Salve, SG (AC) Mr. U U Lalit, Adv. (AC) Mr. Siddharth Chaudhary, Adv.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahendra Vyas, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Advs.
For the Ministry of Environment & Forests/UOI : Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv. Ms. Varuna B Gugnani, Adv. Mr. C.V. Subba Rao, Adv. Ms. Renu George, Adv. Mr. R.N. Poddar, Adv. Ms. Alka Agarwal, Adv. Mr. S. Wasim A Qadri, Adv. Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. Mr. B.V. Balram Das, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 295 & IA 670 : Mr. Mahendra Vyas, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 664 : Ms. Rani Chhabra, Adv.
For the Applicants in : IA 677 & Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv.
For the Applicants in : IA 236 Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 424, 695 and 706 : Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kapoor and Mr. Narendra Verma, Advs.
For the Applicants in IA 729 : Mr. Prakash Shrivastava, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 669 & IA 659 : Mr. U.U. Lalit, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 680 : Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG Mr. S Wasim A Qadri, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv.
For the Applicants in CP 193/01 Mr. V. Balaji, Adv. Mr. P.N. Ramalingam, Adv. M/s. Arputham, Aruna & Co., Advs. (NP)
For the Applicants in IAs 395, 496 and 497 : (State of Meghalaya) Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Adv. (NP)
For the Applicants in IA 652-653 : Mr. U.U. Lalit, Adv.
For the Applicant in IA 636 Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. (State of Tripura) Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 703 : Mr. U.U. Lalit, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 502 : Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Adv. Ms. Aparna Bhat and Ms. Sweta Kakkad, Advs.
For the Applicants in IA 707 : Mr. Altaf Ahmad, ASG Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 711 : Mr. Parthapratim Chaudhuri, Adv. Mr. K.S. Rana, Adv.
For the Applicants in IAs 634-635,697-698 : Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG Ms. Monica, Adv. Mr. R.K.M. Singh, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sangal, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 700 and 701 Mr. S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.V. Deshpande, Adv. Mr. S.S. Shinde, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 687,688,712 Mr. A.B. Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Mr. K.S. Bhati, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 705 : Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv. Ms. Priya Hegde, Adv.
For the M.P. Export Corpn. Ltd. Applicants in IA 589 : Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, ASG
For the M/s. Jain Hansaria & Co., Advs. : Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain and Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Advs. for
For the Applicants in IA 647, 648,651 : Mr. M.L. Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Prakash Sahay, Adv. Mr. P.R. Ramasesh, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 723-724 : Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Jain, Adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv.
For the Applicants in IAs 578 and 579 Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. T.N. Singh, Adv. Mr. V.K. Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Ms. Asha G. Nair, Adv., Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, Adv. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Mr. Joseph Pookkatt, Mr. Prasenjit Keswani and Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advs. Mr. Gourab K Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv., Mr. Altaf Ahmad, ASG Administration Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv., Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Adv. Mr. K Subba Rao, Adv., Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Adv. Genl. Mr. Prakash Shrivastava, Adv.
For the Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. in IA 670 : Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shiva Subramanian, Mr. S Sukumaran, Mr. Ramesh Babu M R, Mr. M Raghu and Ms. Divya Nair, Advs. District Council Mr. P.K. Goswami, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajiv Mehta, Adv. Mr. H.S. Parihar, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep S Parihar, Adv.
For the State of Goa : Ms. A Subhashini, Adv.
For the State of Karnataka : Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra and Ms. Priya Hegde, Advs.
For the State of M.P. : Mr. Vivek Tankha, Adv. General, M.P. Mr. S K Agnihotri, Mr. Sakesh Kumar and Mr. Anil K Pandey, Advs.
For the State of Manipur : Mr. K.H. Nobin Singh, Adv. Mr. S Biswajit Meitei, Adv.
For the State of Maharashtra : Mr. S.K. Dholakia, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.S. Shinde and Mr. S.V. Deshpande, Advs.
For the State of Orissa : Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Adv.
For the State of Punjab : Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv.
For the State of Uttaranchal : Mr. L.P. Naithani, Adv. Genl. Mr. Ajay K Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Chandra, Adv.
For the State of U.P. : Mr. Ajay K Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Alka Agrawal, Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Mr. C Siddharth, Mr. Arohi Bhalla, Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Y.P. Singh, Advs.
For the State of Sikkim : Mr. A Mariarputham, Adv.
For the M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co., Advs. : Ms. Aruna Mathur and Mr. Anurag D Mathur, Advs.
For the State of West Bengal : Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Atanu Saikia, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
Timely and effective action by authorities is essential in addressing environmental issues and illegal activities.
Headnote:
Forest Officer - Illegal Mining - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3(3) - The court directed the Chief Secretary of Bihar to personally oversee the investigation of the killing of a forest officer and imposed costs on the Ministry of Environment & Forests for delay in framing a scheme under the Environment (Protection) Act. The court also directed the filing of status reports and affidavits by various authorities within specified time frames.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed various issues related to environmental protection, illegal mining, forest cover, and encroachment on forest land. It directed authorities to take specific actions within defined timelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were delays and non-compliance by the concerned authorities in addressing environmental issues and illegal activities such as mining and encroachment on forest land.
Issues: Delays in investigation, non-compliance with court orders, illegal mining, forest cover, and encroachment on forest land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely and effective action by the authorities to address environmental concerns and illegal activities, and imposed specific deadlines for compliance.
Final Decision: The court directed the concerned authorities to take necessary actions within specified time frames and imposed costs for delays and non-compliance.
JUDGMENT :
B.N. Kirpal, J.
Report dated 16.2.2002 reg. Senior forest officer killed in Bihar
1. The learned Amicus Curiae has brought to our notice a report to the effect that Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Divisional Forest Officer of Rohtas had been abducted and shot. As per the report, the suspicion is sought to be cast on Maoist Communist Centre. The report indicates that Shri Singh was taking action against the illegal mining of stones and boulders. If this is so, we are not sure whether the perpetrators of the dastardly crime are only Maoist Communist Centre or someone else and, perhaps, those who may be indulging in the illegal activities which Shri Singh was trying to stop.
2. We direct the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar to personally see to the investigation of the case and file his own affidavit within eight weeks. Copy of this order be sent by the Registry to the Chief Secretary forthwith for compliance. We direct the Director General of Police to give full assistance and cooperation in the conduct of the inquiry.
I.A. No. 566
3. On 23rd November, 2001, orders were passed requiring the Ministry of Environment & Forest to frame a scheme and place it before the Court within eight weeks. Nearly 11 weeks have elapsed and the scheme has not seen the light of the day, nor the Ministry of Environment & Forests has had the courtesy of filing any affidavit explaining the delay or asking for more time. The learned Additional Solicitor General states that the scheme will be prepared within two weeks and placed before the Court. Needful be done within three weeks, but we impose Rs. 5,000/- as costs. Costs be deposited in the Registry.
4. List after three weeks.
I.A. No. 295
5. The learned Amicus Curiae has drawn our attention to orders dated 10th December, 1998 and 13th April, 2000 of this Court with regard to constitution of authorities in each State under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act and also an authority at the national level.
6. On 13th April, 2000, the Additional Solicitor General had sought time to seek instructions and inform the Court with respect to the setting up of the said authorities. Many weeks and months and years have passed, but there is no information yet available in this regard. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General states that the Government will file a status report in this connection within eight weeks.
7. List after eight weeks.
I.A. No. 664
8. As expected, no reply has so far been filed either by the State of Uttar Pradesh or by the Union Government. Last opportunity is granted to file the affidavits within eight weeks. List thereafter.
I.A. No. 677
9. Counter affidavit on behalf of the Arunachal Pradesh has been filed. Applicant wishes to file a rejoinder. Rejoinder be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
I.A. No. 424
10. The learned Amicus Curiae has suggested that in order to encourage the States to increase the forest cover and to prevent the cutting of the natural timber even if the deficient States are unwilling or unable to contribute for the preservation of the hot spots or the forests like in the States of Arunachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, the Central Government can and should impose a cess of not less than 5 per cent on the wood and wood products as well as wood pulp which is imported from abroad and the sum so realised can be distributed amongst the forest rich States and also be used as an incentive to other States to increase their forest cover and thereby getting a share from out of the cess. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General states that steps will be taken to consider this suggestion.
11. The Court feels that there is considerable merit in the suggestion of Mr. Harish N Salve, learned Amicus Curiae and as a result thereof without burdening the deficient States, which are already in dire financial straits, money would be available for improving the forest wealth of the country. Mr. Rohtagi states that an affidavit containing the decision of th
