Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2004 Supreme(SC) 1800

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. SABHARWAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondent
I.A. No. 989 in I.A. No. 857-858 With I.A. No. 997, 998 in W.P.(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 1128 in I.A. 857-858 in W.P.(C) 202/1995, I.A. Nos. 857- 858) With I.A. No. 1166 in I.A. 896-898 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 1000 in W.P.(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 982-984 in W.P.(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 1123-1124 in I.A. 1000 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 1026-1028 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 1034 in I.A. No. 995 & 999 With 1020 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 1048 in I.A. No. 60 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 920 in I.A. No.703 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No.988 in I.A. No. 920 in I.A. No.703 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 1129 in I.A. No.920 in I.A. No. 703 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 1151 in I.A. No. 920 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 1164 in I.A. No. 566 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 1003 in I.A. No. 965 in WP(C) 202/1995, I.A. No. 361 in I.A. No. 352 in WP(C) 3727/1985, W.P.(Civil) 589/2003, W.P.(Civil) 84/2004, I.A. No. 1 in W.P.(C) 498/2003 I.A. No. 1029 And 1154 in WP(C) 202/1995.
Decided on : 13-08-2004

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.(A.C.) Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv.(A.C.)(N/P) Mr. Sidhartha Chaudhary, Adv.(A.C.)
For the Applicants in IA 989 :- Mr. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
For the Applicants for M/s. Maruti :- Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 1128 :- Mr. Mohan Parasaran, ASG.
For Intervenor in IA 361 :- Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Goodwill Indeevar, Adv., Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Dr. Reba Roy, Advs.,
For the Applicants in IA 982-984 :- Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv., Mr. Atul Chitale, Adv., Mr. Ravikesh Sinha, Adv., Mr. Vikram Nath, Adv., Smt. Suchitra A. Chitale, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 1123-1124 :- Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Paras Kuhad, Adv., Ms. Minakshi Sharma, Adv., Mr. Tarun Johri, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 1026-1028 :- Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 1034 :- Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Ajit Kr. Singh, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 988 :- Ms. Aparna Bhat, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 1129 :- Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 1151 :- Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 1164 :- Mr. B. Datta, ASG Mr. Ajit Puddusery, Adv.
For the Applicants in IA 1003 :- Ms. Sushma Suri, Adv.
For the Applicants in WP 3727/85 :- Mr. M.C. Mehta (in person)
For the Applicants in SLP 18030/03 :- Mr. S. Muarlidhar, Adv.
For the Applicants in WP (c) 589/03 :- Mr. Vishal Malik, Adv., Mr. Mahinder Singh Dahiya, Adv.
For the Applicants in WP (c) 84/2004 :- Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv., Ms. Lalita Kohli, Adv., Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv., Ms. Prachi Bajpai, Adv.
For the M/s. Manoj Swarup & Co. in IA 1 :- Mr. T.V. Ratnam, Adv.
For the Respondents in MoEF:- Mr. Mohan Parasaran, ASG Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv.
For UOI Mr. B. Datta, ASG Mr. Manu Mridul, Mr. K.C. Bhatt, Advs.
For the Respondents in IA 1029 & 1154:- Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG Mr. Vikas Sharma, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Advs.
For the Respondents for Chhattisgarh State:- Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Sr. Adv., Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Advs. Mr. Bharat Sangal, Adv.
For the Respondents in IA 1000:- Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aruna Gupta, Adv., Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv. Mr. T.C. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Adv. Mr. S. Choudhary, Adv.
For R-1 to R-5 in SLP 18030/03 :- Mr. Ashok Kumar Mathur, Adv., Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Adv. M/s. Sinha & Das Mrs. Shiraz Contractor Patodia, Adv.
For Intervenor in SLP (c) 18030/03 :- Mr. Sanjay Karde, Sr. Adv., M/s. Ritwick Dutta, R.C. Kohli, Advs. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv.
For the Respondents for Punjab State:- Mr. R.K. Rathore, Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. A.K. Sinha, Adv.
For the Tripura State :- Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv.
For the State of U.P. :- Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv., Mr. Pramod Dayal, Adv.
For the Uttaranchal State :- Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv.
For the Gujarat State :- Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv., Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv.
For the State of A.P. :- Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv., Mr. B. Vikas, Mr. G. Venugopal, Mr. Manoj Saxena, Mr. Mohan Prasad Meharia, Mr. S.K. Mittra, Advs.
For the State of W.B. in IA 920 :- Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advs.
For the Maharashtra State :- Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, Adv.
For the J&K State :- Mr. Altaf H. Naiyak, AG. Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Adv.
For the Respondent Arunachal Pradesh:- Mr.Anil Shrivastav,Adv.
For the W.B. State :- Mr. Janaranjan Das, Adv. Mr. Swetaketu Mishra, Adv., Ms. Moushumi Gahlot, Adv.
For the Manipur State :- Mr. KH Nobin Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents W.B.P.C Board in IA 361:- Mr. R. Mohan, Sr. Adv., Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv.
For the Rajasthan State :- Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl. Adv. Genl. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv.
For the Sikkim State :- Mr. A. Mariarputham, Adv., Ms. Aruna Mathur, Adv., Mr. Anurag D. Mathur, Adv.
For the Respondents for Ranchi Assocn.:- Mr. Bhawani Shankar V. Gadnis, Adv., Mr. N.M. Popli, Adv., Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Adv.
For the Respondents for Assam State:- Ms. Krisna Sarma, Adv., Mr. Niraj Kumar, Adv. for M/s. Corporate Law Group
For the Respondents for Goa State:- Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv. Mr. P.K. Manohar, Adv.

The court's decision was influenced by the need for legal assistance, examination of relevant documents by the CEC, and acceptance of the CEC's recommendation for wildlife sanctuary conservation funds.

Headnote:
Court Procedure - Legal Assistance - The court appointed an Advocate-on-Record to assist in the case and directed the parties to submit relevant documents for examination by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) within a specified timeframe. The court also accepted the CEC's recommendation for depositing funds for conservation and protection of a wildlife sanctuary.
Fact of the Case:

The court appointed an Advocate-on-Record and directed the submission of relevant documents for examination by the CEC. The court also accepted the CEC's recommendation for depositing funds for wildlife sanctuary conservation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found it necessary to appoint an Advocate-on-Record and directed the submission of documents for examination by the CEC. The court also accepted the CEC's recommendation for depositing funds for wildlife sanctuary conservation.
Issues: Appointment of Advocate-on-Record, Submission of Documents, Wildlife Sanctuary Conservation Funds
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the need for legal assistance, examination of relevant documents by the CEC, and acceptance of the CEC's recommendation for wildlife sanctuary conservation funds.
Final Decision: The court appointed an Advocate-on-Record, directed the submission of documents for examination by the CEC, and accepted the CEC's recommendation for depositing funds for wildlife sanctuary conservation.

ORDER :

Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

We are told that has been designated as a senior advocate the learned senior advocate (A.C.) states that since has become Advocate-on-Record and has been assisting this Court throughout, he may please be appointed as Advocate-on-Record to assist in this Court. Ordered accordingly.

2. I.A. No. 989 Mr. Harish N. Salve, the learned Amicus curiae has invited our attention to a document which in turn refers to Gazette Notification No. 3228-3283/2845-XI dated 17.10.1949. The State Government of Chhattisgarh shall trace those Notifications and other notifications issued by the Forest Department in the month of October 1949 and place the same before the CEC. Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned senior counsel appearing for M/s. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. (Maruti) states that his client has got several notifications of dated October 10, 1949 which have considerable bearing on the question whether the land which is subject-matter of these proceedings is forest or not within the meaning of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Let the said notifications be also placed before CEC. Other parties may file such additional documents before the CEC as they may deem fit. Parties are granted three weeks time to place the documents before CEC who after hearing the parties will examine the matter in detail and file a report with its recommendations within a period of six weeks.

3. The State of Madhya Pradesh is directed to render full assistance to the State Government of Chhattisgarh to place the relevant record/notifications.

4. List after eight weeks.

5. I.A. No. 1166. Having regard to the facts of the present case and also considering the fact that out of total length of transmission line 33.54 Kms. will pass through the Askot Wildlife Sanctuary, the recommendations of CEC that PGCIL will deposit 5 per cent of the total project cost of Rs. 150.53 crores in the compensatory and aforestation fund for undertaking conservation and protection of Askot Wildlife Sanctuary cannot be termed as unreasonable. We accept the recommendation of the CEC in that regard.

6. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for Ministry of Environment and Forests prays for adjournment to look into the aspect of constitution/re-constitution of the National Board of Wildlife.

7. Post this I.A. after four weeks.

8. I.A. 1000 We have perused the detailed report of CEC dated 20.11.2003 regarding mining in Jamua Ramgarh Wild Life Sanctuary, Jaipur in violation of the Forest Conservation Act,1980, The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and orders passed by this Court from time to time. We have also perused the affidavit of Mr. Anurag Bajpai, Assistant Inspector General of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India dated 29.4.2004. To say the least, the affidavit is highly unsatisfactory. Most of the aspects highlighted in the report of CEC which prima-facie show illegal mining in the aforesaid wild life sanctuary have not been adverted to in the affidavit of Mr. Bajpai. We direct that a detailed affidavit shall be filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India within a period of four weeks. If Indian Board of Wild Life has fixed any buffer zone for activity outside sanctuary/forest, that shall also be stated in the affidavit of Ministry of Environment and Forests. The concerned files shall be produced in Court. Before production of the said files in Court, the files shall be shown to Mr. Harish N. Salve, the learned senior counsel (A.C.) for his inspection.

9. List this I.A. after five weeks.

10. Remaining matters on board to be listed after two weeks.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document