Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
M/s. Golden Granites - Appellant
Versus
K. V. Shanmugam and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeals Nos. 645 to 647 of 1997
Decided On : 16 October 1997
The requirement of prior approval by the Central Government as prescribed by S. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is mandatory as well as a pre-condition for the grant of lease of the forest lands for non-forest purpose.
Fact of the Case:
The Government of Tamil Nadu granted a lease to M/s. Golden Granites for quarrying granite in a reserved forest without obtaining prior approval from the Central Government. The writ petitioners, who were a rival applicant for the lease and a public interest litigant, challenged the grant of lease on the ground that it was in violation of S. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the requirement of prior approval by the Central Government under S. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is mandatory and that the grant of lease without such approval was illegal. The Court also held that the writ petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the grant of lease.
Issues: 1. Whether the requirement of prior approval by the Central Government as prescribed by S. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is mandatory as well as a pre-condition for the grant of lease of the forest lands for non-forest purpose? 2. Whether the writ petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the grant of lease?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the requirement of prior approval by the Central Government under S. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is mandatory and that the grant of lease without such approval was illegal. The Court also held that the writ petitioners had the locus standi to challenge the grant of lease. The Court relied on the following principles: * The object of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is to prevent deforestation and to check the environmental deterioration. * The Act makes the prior approval of the Central Government necessary for dereservation of reserved forests and for non-trust purposes. * The Act applies to renewal of mining lease as well and even if there was provision for renewal in lease agreement on exercise of lessees option requirements of the Act had to be satisfied before grant of renewal. * A mere reading of S. 2 of the Act clearly shows that prior approval of the Central Government is mandatory as well as a pre-condition of the grant of lease of forest lands for non-forest purposes.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals filed by M/s. Golden Granites and upheld the order of the learned single Judge quashing the Government Order granting the lease.
AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.
A common order was passed by Sathasivam, J. in Writ Petitions Nos. 8505 and 8845 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 18513 of 1996 on 30-4-1997 filed by one K. V. Shanmugam, Ponnuswamy and K. V. Shanmugam respectively.
2. Writ Petition No. 8505 of 1995 was filed for a certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the State of Tamil Nadu in G. O. Ms. No. 119 (Industries (B2) Department), dated 5-5-1995, quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 therein to pass orders, granting lease or renewal in favour of the writ petitioner, Mr. K. V. Shanmugam in respect of 18.60 acres in bit No. 5 of Badanavadi Reserved Forest, Ponnagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District by disposing of the petitioner's application, dated 9-5-1994.
3. Writ Petition No. 8845 of 1995 was filed by oe Mr. Ponnusamy, a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. He filed the writ petition for a certiorari relating to the proceeding of the State of Tamil Nadu in G. O. Ms. No. 119 (Industries B2 Department), dated 5-5-1995 and to quash the same.
4. Writ Petition No. 18513 of 1996 was filed by the very same K. V. Shanmugam for a declaration, declaring that the lease Agreement, dated 19-5-1995 executed by the District Collector, Dharmapuri District in favour of M/s. Golden Granites, Kaveripattinam, Dharmapuri District in respect of quarry measuring 6.6 acres in bit V of Badanavadi Revenue Forest, Sunjalnathan village, Pannagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District, registered as document No. 662 of 1995 in the Sub-Registrar's Office, Ponnagaram is null and void.
5. The respondents in the said writ petitions filed separate counter-affidavits. The contesting respondent, M/s. Golden Granites has also filed a counter affidavit, explaining that the Government Order issued in favour of M/s. Golden Granites, Dharmapuri District clearly states that the grant of lease is subject to obtaining concurrence from the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and that the Government Order clearly specifies that actual quarrying operations, i.e. the activity of non-forest purpose, by the said firm in the subject forest lands shall be permitted only after obtaining the mandatory approval of the Government of India under the Forest Conservation Act 1 of 1980 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). It is further stated that the impugned Government Order is only a grant of quarrying a minor mineral under R. 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and that it cannot be misconstrued in any way that the impugned grant of quarrying permission amounts to grant of permission to clear the forest growth in the subject quarry lands in the reserve forests in violation of the objectives of the Act. The State of Tamil Nadu, the first respondent in Writ Appeals Nos. 646 and 647 of 1997 filed a separate counter affidavit, denying the various allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petitions. It is also contended that Writ Petition No. 8845 of 1995 has been filed by the said Mr. Ponnusamy in bad faith and there is no public interest involved and that the same was filed only to oblige the private interest of K. V. Shanmugam, who has filed writ petitions on identical grounds. The Union of India has also filed a counter affidavit, contending that as per S. 2 of the Act, prior concurrence of the Central Government has got to be obtained.
6. The main contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions is that since the claim is made for quarrying granite in the reserved forest lands of the Government of Tamil Nadu, prior approval of the Central Government under S. 2 of the Act is mandatory and hence, the impugned order, granting lease in favour of M/s. Golden Granites cannot be sustained. It is further submitted that it is not open to the State Government to grant lease even with a special condition that the commencement of quarrying operation should be done only after obtaining concurrence of t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
