Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 1869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan, JJ.
Ghazala Abdullah — Appellant
Vs.
State Of Himachal Pradesh — Respondent
CWPIL No. 8 of 2015
Decided on : 23-06-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Aman Sood, Advocate as Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent:Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Anup Rattan and Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and J.K. Verma and Vikram Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generals
Strict actions to be taken against violations of court directions and environmental protection laws.
Headnote:
Court's Direction - Environmental Protection - The court directed the authorities to take strict actions against violations of its directions and other applicable laws, and stayed all sanctions granted prior to a certain date.
Fact of the Case:
The court expressed dissatisfaction with compliance/status reports and received complaints indicating non-compliance with court directions regarding environmental protection.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the concerned authorities to appear before it and explain the position, stayed all sanctions granted prior to a certain date, and commanded all respondents to take actions strictly as per the mandate of law.
Issues: Non-compliance with court directions, violations of environmental protection laws, and lack of actions under penal laws against violators.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the non-compliance with its directions, violations of environmental protection laws, and the lack of actions under penal laws against violators.
Final Decision: The court directed the concerned authorities to appear before it, stayed all sanctions granted prior to a certain date, and commanded all respondents to take actions strictly as per the mandate of law.
JUDGMENT :
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (Oral)
Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Additional Advocate General, stated at the Bar that the name of respondent No. 8 has wrongly been reflected in the array of respondents as it should be 'Municipal Council, Dharamshala through its Executive Officer, Dharamshala, District Kangra'. His statement is taken on record. Accordingly, name of respondent No. 8 be read as 'Municipal Council, Dharamshala through its Executive Officer, Dharamshala, District Dharamshala'. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the cause title.
2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6 have filed the fresh compliance/status reports. We have gone through the same and are of the view that the same are not in tune with the directions made by this Court. Thus, we record our dissatisfaction.
3. The Registry has also received complaints along with CD, perusal of which do disclose that the authorities are not taking actions against the persons who are violating the directions issued by this Court, as warranted under law and who are also involved in the commission of offences punishable under penal laws and other laws applicable. It is also mentioned in one of the complaints that granting of permission to the land owners to cut the trees from the land owned by them has been stayed by this Court vide order, dated 05.06.2015, but the trees are being cut under the pretext that they have already obtained the permission from the authorities to cut the trees, and when the matter was reported to the authorities, they did not bother to take any action by saying that these persons were within their rights to cut the trees.
4. It is astonishing how the authorities can make such a statement. Respondents No. 4 to 6, 8 and the SHO concerned are directed to appear before this Court on the next date and to explain the position. In the meantime, all the sanctions granted earlier, i.e. prior to 05.06.2015, which are yet to be executed, are stayed.
5. We wonder why the authorities have not drawn any action under the penal laws against the persons who have violated the directions issued by this Court read with other provisions of law applicable. All the respondents are commanded to draw actions strictly as per the mandate of law.
6. Registry is directed to furnish copy of all the communications along with CD to the learned Amicus Curiae and learned Advocate General during the course of the day enabling them to file response/status report.
7. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are also directed to file latest status report relating to Jakhoo forest before the next date.
8. List on 6th July, 2015.
