1. Matter concerns environmental issues related to wood-based industries and forest land diversion. (Para 1 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2005 Supreme(SC) 1699
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI., Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. Nos.1448-1449 in W.P. (C) No.202 of 1995
Decided On : 09-12-2005
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.(A.C.)(N.P.) Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Sidhartha Choudhary, Adv.(A.C.), Mr. Vipin N. Benjamin, Adv. Ms. Aparna Bhat, Adv., Mr. D.K. Garg, Adv., Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Admn. Ms. Shilpi Jha, Adv. Ms. Shiraz C. Patodia, Adv., Mr. A.S. Pundir, Adv., Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv., Ms. Rani Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Gauri Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Sudha Pal, Adv., Mr. R.D. Rathore, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv., Mr. Manoj Saxena, Adv. Mr. Amit Meharia, Adv. Mr. M.P. Meharia, Adv., Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv., Mr. Ajay Siwach, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv., MR. T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Adv., Mr. KH. Nobin Singh, Adv., Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr. R.K. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Adv., Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv.(N.P.), Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv., Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv., Mr. R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. J.K. Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Adv. Ms. Sunita B. Rao, Adv., Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv. Ms. Pragya Singh Baghel, Adv. Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Adv., Mr. M.P. Vinod, Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Adv. Mr. Sajith P., Adv., Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. R.C. Kohli, Adv., Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv., Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. Ambuj Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co., Advs. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Ms. Anu Mohla, Adv. Mr. J.K. Das, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv.
For the Petitioners: Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv.(A.C.)(N.P.) Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr. Adv.(A.C.) Mr. Sidhartha Choudhary, Adv.(A.C.), Mr. Vipin N. Benjamin, Adv. Ms. Aparna Bhat, Adv., Mr. D.K. Garg, Adv., Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv. Admn. Ms. Shilpi Jha, Adv. Ms. Shiraz C. Patodia, Adv., Mr. A.S. Pundir, Adv., Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Adv., Ms. Rani Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Gauri Chhabra, Adv. Ms. Sudha Pal, Adv., Mr. R.D. Rathore, Adv. Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Adv., Mr. Manoj Saxena, Adv. Mr. Amit Meharia, Adv. Mr. M.P. Meharia, Adv., Ms. A. Subhashini, Adv., Mr. Ajay Siwach, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. T.V. George, Adv., MR. T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, Adv., Mr. KH. Nobin Singh, Adv., Mr. Kuldip Singh, Adv. Mr. R.K. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Arun K. Sinha, Adv., Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Adv.(N.P.), Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv., Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv., Mr. R.G. Padia, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.W.A. Qadri, Adv. Mr. J.K. Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Adv. Ms. Sunita B. Rao, Adv., Ms. Nandini Gore, Adv. Ms. Pragya Singh Baghel, Adv. Ms. Manik Karanjawala, Adv., Mr. M.P. Vinod, Adv. Mr. Ajay K. Jain, Adv. Mr. Sajith P., Adv., Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv. Mr. R.C. Kohli, Adv., Mr. M.L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, Adv., Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Mr. Ambuj Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. for M/s. Lawyer's Knit & Co., Advs. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Adv. Mr. D.S. Mahra, Adv. Ms. Anu Mohla, Adv. Mr. J.K. Das, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M.R., Adv.
Prayers for relief based on vague averments by associations rather than aggrieved individuals are not maintainable. Additionally, while non-parties lack standing in contempt petitions, the court may substitute a specialized committee to investigate serious allegations of non-compliance with court orders.
Headnote:(A) Procedural Law - Interlocutory Applications - Rejection of prayers based on vague averments - Request for quashing of licenses for wood-based industries dismissed as averments were made by associations rather than individual affected industries. (Para 1)
(B) Contempt Jurisdiction - Locus Standi - Petition filed by a non-party - Court not inclined to entertain a contempt petition filed by a person who is not a party to the proceedings and has not provided sufficient antecedents - Power of the court to substitute a committee as the petitioner to assist the court upon finding serious averments regarding the increase in private units despite a ban. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
Applications were filed seeking the rejection of a report and the quashing of an order granting licenses to six new wood-based industries. Simultaneously, a contempt petition was filed by an environmentalist, who was not a party to the main proceedings, alleging that the number of private units in the country had increased significantly despite a court-imposed ban. Other applications related to the diversion of forest land for mining leases were also pending.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prayers for quashing licenses were based on vague averments made by associations rather than individual industries. In the contempt petition, it was found that the applicant lacked the standing to maintain the petition as a non-party, although the allegations regarding the proliferation of private units were serious.
Issues: Whether relief could be granted based on vague averments made by associations rather than aggrieved individuals; whether a non-party could maintain a contempt petition in the same proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Prayers for relief cannot be granted when based on vague averments submitted by associations rather than the individual entities directly affected. A non-party lacks the standing to maintain a contempt petition, but the court may substitute an authorized committee to assist the court in investigating serious allegations of non-compliance.
Result: I.A. Nos. 1448-1449 dismissed; contempt petition treated as an interlocutory application with the committee substituted as the petitioner; other applications adjourned or allowed in terms of signed orders.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Vague averments by association not by individual industries; environmentalist's petition lacking details. (Para 1 , 5 )
3. Vague averments insufficient for rejection of report and quashing sanction. Petitioner's lack of details noted. (Para 1 , 5 , 10 )
4. Contempt petition by non-party lacking personal details not entertained; CEC substituted as petitioner. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Dismissed I.As for rejection of report and quashing sanction; contempt petition treated as I.A.; notices issued. (Para 2 , 7 , 8 )
6. Can a contempt petition be entertained without the petitioner providing sufficient antecedents?
No, the court declined to entertain the petition as the applicant, not a party, gave no details beyond claiming to be an environmentalist. (Para 5 )
7. What is the proper treatment of a contempt petition with serious averments but insufficient petitioner details?
The court may substitute an appropriate body like CEC as petitioner and treat the contempt petition as an interlocutory application. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. Can a vague prayer for rejection of a report and quashing of sanction orders be granted?
No, vague averments by association and not by individual industries make it impossible to grant such prayer. (Para 1 )
ORDER :
S.H. Kapadia, J.
I.A. Nos. 1448-1449 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995:
1. On the basis of vague nature of averments and that too by association and not by individual industries, it is not possible to grant the prayer which is for rejection of report submitted by CEC and for quashing the order dated 21st June, 2005 granting sanction for licenses being issued to six new wood based industries.
2. I.A. Nos. 1448-1449 are accordingly, dismissed.
I.A. No. 1240 with I.A. Nos 1266, 1299, 1341 and 1382 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995:
3. On request of Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, adjourned for six weeks.
4. Additional affidavit may be filed in the meanwhile.
Contempt Petition (C) No. 247/2005 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995:
5. This petition has been filed by Mr. Naidu Prakash, resident of Secunderabad, claiming to be an active environmentalist belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh. He also claims to be Director, A.P. Forest Development Corporation. The applicant is not a party in these proceedings. Except stating that he is an environmentalist, no details as to his antecedents have been given in the application. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition filed by him. At the same time, however, serious averments have been made in the prayer that only 100 private units were there in the country at the time when ban was imposed by this Court and now the number has gone to 1700. Some annexures have been filed with the application.
6. In this view, we would substitute CEC as the petitioner to assist this Court. Mr. Naidu Prakash may supply such information, as he may have, to the Secretary of CEC.
7. We would treat this contempt Petition as I.A. in the application.
8. Notice for the present be issued to the State of A.P., State of Haryana and State of Uttaranchal.
I.A. No. 1177 in I.A. Nos. 742-743 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995:
9. None is present for the State of Rajasthan. However, in the affidavit dated 29th November, 2005 filed on behalf of the State Government, it has inter alia been stated that a revised proposal for 30.70 hectares pf forest land was sent for diversion to MoEF only with regard to 19 mining leases existing on the date. The total area for which first stage clearance was granted was 54 hectares.
10. While adjourning the matter because of the absence of counsel for the State, we have asked Mr. A.D.N. Rao to take instructions from MoEF on the plea of alleged revised proposal having been sent by the State Government to the MoEF and stage thereof.
11. The affidavit also refers to the order dated 2.6.2005 having been passed by the State Government. Copy of that order shall be placed on record by the State Government after supplying it to the counsel for the applicant.
12. List the matter in the month of January, 2006.
I.A. Nos. 1234, 1372 & 1391 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995:
13. List in the month of January, 2006.
14. In the meanwhile, State of U.P. may file its response.
I.A. Nos. 1235-1237 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995:
15. List in the month of January, 2006.
SLP (C) No. 18973/2005 16. As prayed, two weeks time is granted to file statement of objections.
SLP (C) No. 15562, 15578, 16106, 26033, 25791 & 26032 of 2004:
17. Leave granted.
18. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
