SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, CJ., Augustine George Masih, J.
In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad - Petitioner
Vs.
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition(S)(Civil) No(S). 202 Of 1995
Decided On : 29-05-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. construction of a road for illegal mining (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. cbi investigation into various allegations (Para 3) |
| 3. laxity in government response to illegal activity (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. responsibility of officials and potential actions (Para 6 , 16) |
| 5. lack of accountability in government actions. (Para 7) |
| 6. disposal and listing of different applications (Para 8 , 11) |
| 7. mining regulations proximity to wildlife shelters (Para 9) |
| 8. possession of forest land and responsibilities outlined (Para 10 , 12) |
| 9. state meeting for discussing departmental actions (Para 14) |
| 10. court overseeing action against government officials (Para 15 , 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
[ 1 ] I.A. NOS. 269550, 269552 AND 269553 OF 2024 WITH I.A. NO. 100529 of 2025 (CEC REPORT NO. 17 OF 2025) WITH I.A. NO. 137359 of 2025 (CEC REPORT NO. 29 OF 2025)- In Re:Jumma & Ors.
1. This matter pertains to the construction of road by cutting from an area falling within the State of Haryana to the mines in the State of Rajasthan, in order to facilitate illegal mining activities undertaken by the mafia.
2. When the said issue was bought to the notice of this Court, vide order dated 19th March 2025, this Court requested CEC to investigate in the matter. Consequently, the CEC had filed its report on 15th April 2025. Pursuant thereto, the Chief Secretary, State of Haryana has filed an affidavit addressing the aforesaid issue.
3. A perusal of the affidavit dated 15th May 2025 filed by the Chief Secretary would clearly show that the construction of road has been orchestrated in collusion with the Sarpanch of the concerned village, the officials of the Revenue Department and the Police Department. It is only on account of the intervention of the CEC on the basis of the orders passed by this Court, on the applicant bringing it to the notice of this Court, that the things have moved.
4. A perusal of the affidavit would also reveal that the officers of the Revenue Department have acted with utmost laxity. Though notice dated 1st April 2025 was received by the office of the Chief Secretary on 3rd April 2025, informing him about the meeting with CEC scheduled on 9th April 2025 – neither the Collector nor the Chief Secretary nor their representatives were present before the CEC on the said date.
5. To pass the buck, the Chief Secretary in his affidavit states that he had forwarded a copy of the notice to the Additional Chief Secretary of Environment, Forest and Wildlife, Government of Haryana for taking his opinion. However, there is no explanation in the affidavit as why at least the Additional Chief Secretary was not present in the said meeting. The affidavit further reveals that after the CEC noticed that the officers of the Revenue Department were not present, it issued another notice to the said officers calling upon them to remain present in the office of CEC on 11th April 2025 at 15:30 hours.
6. Again, the game of passing the buck does not stop. The Chief Secretary in the affidavit blames it on the staff of his office and states that the notice was never presented before him. Furthermore, the affidavit does not state as to what action the Chief Secretary has taken against such an officer/official.
7. The Chief Secretary, further in the affidavit, comments on the proposal made by the Forest Department authorising DFO, Nuh to initiate the proceedings against the CEO, Zila Parishad, Nuh; DRO, Nuh; ACO, Nuh and Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Basaimeo and further initiate disciplinary action against officials/officers of staff of several other departments like the development and Panchayat, officers of Revenue Department, Environmental Department and that of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board.
8. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary attempts to put the blame on the DFO by stating that the DFO should have been the first person to take action when a wide road had been constructed through a forest area, which had remained closed for last 55 years or so.
9. If that be the approach we may simply remind t
Public officials have a duty to act against illegal activities affecting ecology, and accountability must be enforced to prevent further environmental harm.
Court reinforced the obligation of state authorities to enforce environmental protection laws effectively, noting their constitutional duty to safeguard ecosystems integral to public life.
The main legal point established is the protection of government officials under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and the requirement for the order taking cognizance to reflect the application of judicial mind.
Point of Law : There is a presumption that forest area belongs to the Government until the contrary is proved.
Court rules against illegal mining practices, mandating enforcement of environmental regulations and compliance from state authorities.
ECs for minor mineral mining granted by DEIAA are void ab initio without SEIAA re-appraisal per Supreme Court/NGT directives; illegal mining mandates CPCB-based environmental compensation and strict ....
The court emphasized the 'polluter pays principle,' mandating accountability for encroachers and directing strict enforcement against illegal encroachments on Government and Forest lands.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.