Back
2005 Supreme(SC) 1886
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. Sabharwal, Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad -Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors - Respondents
I.A.No.1170 in I.A.Nos.948-948A in Writ Petition(Civil) No.202 of 1995
Decided On : 18-02-2005
For the Petitioners:Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) (N.P.), Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Mr. Sidhartha Chaudhary, Adv. (A.C.), Ms. Shilpa Chohan, Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik, Advocates, Mr. Satya Mitra Garg, Advocate, In person, Mr. B.S. Banthia, Ms. Malini Podwal, M/s. Temple Law Group, Ms. Baby Krishnan, Mr. L.R. Singh, Advocates, Mr. Colin Gonsavles, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aparna Bhat, Mr. Bharat Sangal, Mr. P. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Jai Singh, Mr. P.K. Manohar, Advocates, Mr. S.V. Deshpande, Ms. Anuradha Rustoagi, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocates, Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Shiraz C. Patodia, Ms. Anusuya Sadhu, Advocates, Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Mr. Y. Arunagiri, Mr. P. Ramesh, Advocates, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocate, Mr. Colin Gonsavles, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aparna Bhat, Mr. P. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Jai Singh, Advocates, Mr. Avijit Bhattacharjee, Mr. Atanu Saikia, Advocates, Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. M. Sarada, Advocates, Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Mrs. Sunita B. Rao, Mr. Nitin Popli, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. D.K. Garg, Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Mr. P.K. Manohar, Mr. S. Wasin A. Qadri, Mr. D.S. Mehra, Mr. Mohd. Saud, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Mr. M.K. Giri, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates
For the State of U.P. :Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Mr. Pramod Dayal, Mr. Mohd. Saud, Advocate
For the State of Tripura :Mr. Gopal Singh, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocates
For the State of Punjab :Mr. R.K. Rathore, Addl. Adv. Gen., Punjab, Mr. S. Krishnaraj, Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, Advocates
For the State of A.P. :Mr. Manoj Saxena, Mr. Mohan Prasad Meharia, Mr. S.K. Mitra, Mr. Debojit Borkakati, Advocates
For the State of Goa :Ms. A. Subhashini, Advocate
For the State of M.P. :Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, Mr. Rohit K. Singh, Mr. Amit Mishra, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to issue specific orders to gather information, ensure compliance with environmental protection measures, and provide opportunities for responses from concerned parties.
Headnote:
Court Orders - Environmental Protection - The court issued various orders related to environmental protection, including filing additional affidavits, issuing notices to concerned parties, and providing time for responses.
Fact of the Case:
The court issued a series of orders related to environmental protection, including filing additional affidavits, issuing notices, and providing time for responses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found it necessary to issue specific orders to ensure compliance with environmental protection measures and to gather necessary information for consideration.
Issues: The issues involved included the need for additional information, responses from concerned parties, and compliance with environmental protection measures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need to gather relevant information, ensure compliance with environmental protection measures, and provide opportunities for responses from concerned parties.
Final Decision: The final decision involved issuing specific orders for filing affidavits, issuing notices, and providing time for responses to ensure compliance with environmental protection measures.
ORDER :
I.A.No.1170 in I.A.Nos.948-948A
1. Applicant may file additional affidavit within four weeks setting out the distance between the places where he wants his unit to be shifted and the forest.
I.A.No.1173 in I.A.Nos.77-78, 83 and 92
2. Issue notice to Nelliyampathy Planters Association, Kerala and State of Kerala.
I.A.No.1174 in I.A.No.804
3. Response to the report of the CEC be filed by State of Madhya Pradesh through its Chief Secretary.
Contempt Petition(C)No.280 of 2003 in WP(C)No.202/1995
4. Copies of petition be supplied to learned amicus curiae who may look into it and assist the Court in the matter.
Contempt Petition(C)No.428 of 2003 in WP(C)No.202/1995
5. Copy of the petition be supplied to amicus curiae who may look into it and if necessary, file response.
I.A.No.1037 in I.A.Nos.1008-1009
6. Seen the adjournment letter. Adjourned.
I.A.No.824 and 1126
7. Further time is sought on behalf of MOEF to file affidavit in terms of the order dated 11th February 2005. Let the same be filed within one week.
I.A.No.1252
8. MOEF and CEC may respond to the application within four weeks.
I.A.No.918
9. As prayed, the applicant is granted six weeks' time to file additional affidavit.
I.A.No.1134
10. The Administration of Andaman & Nicobar may file response within six weeks.
I.A.No.1171
11. An order similar to the one passed on 07th May 2003 on application of Andaman & Nicobar Island is sought in respect of the working plan of Middle Andaman Forest Division. Let the working plan be placed with MOEF for consideration within six weeks and in case it is cleared, the same shall be placed before CEC for consideration within six weeks thereafter.
12. Adjourned.
I.A.No.1255
13. CEC may file response to it within four weeks.
I.A.No.841, 829, 830-832, 899, 927-928, 961, 1024, 1134 and 1264.
14. List with I.A.No.824 and 1126 after the filing of the affidavit by MOEF.
I.A.No.1127
15. Adjourned.
I.A. No. 745 and 926
16. After August 2004, no progress/status report has been filed. Let it be filed within two weeks. List this matter after three weeks.
I.A. No. 827 with I.A. Nos. 1122 and 1216
17. Mr. Lalit states that report of CAG has now been received. Let the same be filed along with follow-up action within eight weeks.
18. On the report of SIT dated 26th October 2004, notice (in I.A.No.1122) shall issue to State of Arunachal Pradesh. The State Government is directed to file latest status report.
