Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1999 DIGILAW 993 (SC)

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India

1999-08-27

B.N.KIRPAL, M.B.SHAH, V.N.KHARE

body1999
ORDER IA No. 421 1. It is stated that the amicus curiae would be moving a substantive application for reconstitution ofHPC. On request made on his behalf, adjourned to 17-4-2000. IA No. 548 2. Response of only nine States/Union Territories has been filed. Replies by the other States/Union Territories be tiled within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on 1-5-2000. 3. In clarification of our order dated 14-2-2000, (2002) ] 0 SCC 634 on representation being made on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, it is clarified that the said interim order will have no application insofar as plucking and collection of tendu leaves is concerned. IA No. 276. 4. It is stated on behalf of the Union of India that the survey report has been received. Copies will be made and given to the amicus curiae as well as to the State of Karnataka who may file their response within two weeks. To come up on 1-5-2000. IAs Nos. 419 and 420 5. From the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, it is evident that only 10 per cent of afforestation which was required to be done by NMDC has been carried out. It is represented that the rest of the afforestation is required to be carried out in an area which is not within the immediate vicinity of the mines. In our opinion, that is no excuse for not carrying out the compensatory afforestation. If, the conditions for grant of the mining lease are not fulfilled, there is no reason as to why NMDC should be permitted to carry on with the mining operations. This aspect should, in fact, have been overseen by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. After grant of such permissions, we expect the said Ministry to monitor and see whether the conditions stipulated by them have been fulfilled or not rather than to leave it to the Court to point out that the conditions contained in letters granting permissions have not been fulfilled. The Ministry of Environment has clearly been remiss in this respect. 6. Now it has come to the notice of this Court that the conditions stipulated in the permission which was granted have not been carried out. NMDC is required to show cause why their mining operations should not be ordered to be suspended forthwith. 7. The Ministry of Environment has clearly been remiss in this respect. 6. Now it has come to the notice of this Court that the conditions stipulated in the permission which was granted have not been carried out. NMDC is required to show cause why their mining operations should not be ordered to be suspended forthwith. 7. Copy of this order be served on the Advocate-on-Record for NMDC. 8. To come up on 17-4-2000 by which time the reply should be tiled by NMDC. IA No. 512 9. Along with the additional affidavit of Shri Narendra Kumar on behalf of M.P. Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., are Annexures A-6 and A-7. Annexure A-6" contains the details of the forest produce which is to be sold by public auction and which requires inter-district transport. The produce referred to therein consists of60,013 cubic metres of timber and 71,220 fuel stacks. In Annexure A-7, are the details of sold material requiring inter-district * transport. 10. It is represented by Shri Mukul Rohatgi, ASG appearing on behalf of the applicant Nigam that the functioning of the said Nigam is to take up the degraded forests, raise plantations and then dispose of the produce as per the working plans. It is in this way that a large quantity of forest produce is lying in the various depots of the Nigam, some of which have been sold and some of which have not been sold. 11. With the concurrence of the amicus curiae as well as the counsel for the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the said Nigam is permitted to sell and/or transport the quantity of various produce specified in Annexure A-6 and also to effect inter-district or out-of-State movement of the timber and fuel stacks referred to in Annexure A-7 of the said additional affidavit. 12. List on 17-4-2000. IA No. 513 13. Additional affidavit has been filed on 29-3-2000 ofMr N.K. Bhagat, Conservator of Forests. In para 4, details have been given of the unsold material lying in the depots of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Para 5 contains the figures and particulars of the sold and fully or partly-paid material which is also lying in the depots of the State. Additional affidavit has been filed on 29-3-2000 ofMr N.K. Bhagat, Conservator of Forests. In para 4, details have been given of the unsold material lying in the depots of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Para 5 contains the figures and particulars of the sold and fully or partly-paid material which is also lying in the depots of the State. With the consent of the amicus curiae as well as counsel for the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the State of Madhya Pradesh is permitted to sell, remove and transport the material referred to in paras 4 and 5 of the said additional affidavit. Similar permission is also granted for the removal and transportation of the fuel wood stated to be lying in the depots of the State. 14. List on 17-4-2000. IANo.514 15. List on 17-4-2000. IA No. 516 16. Let the Union ofIndia file a reply. 17. List on 24-4-2000. 18. In the order dated 13-1-2000, permission had been granted for the rubber wood to be imported on being certified by the Collector. It is obvious that the term "Collector" mentioned in the said order does not mean that the Collector himself is to certify: it means that a person duly authorised by the Collector would be entitled to certify and the applications in this regard will always have to be made before the Collector. It goes without saying that the ultimate responsibility will be of the Collector himself. IAs Nos. 520 and 521 19. Reply by the Ministry of Environment and Forests be filed. 20. To come up on 24-4-2000. IA No. 539 21. List on 24-4-2000. IA No. 500 22. List along with IA No. 513 on 17-4-2000. IAs Nos. 530 and 531 23. List on 17-4-2000. IAs Nos. 535-36 24. List on 24-4-2000. IA No. 217 25. The State of Assam should file a reply within two weeks. 26. To come up on 24-4-2000. IA No. 428 27. To come up on 24-4-2000. IA No. 471 28. Issue notice to the Union ofIndia and the State ofU.P. returnable on 17-4-2000. IA No. 549 29. Issue notice to the amicus curiae, the Union ofIndia and the State of Madhya Pradesh returnable on 24-4-2000. IAs Nos. 546-47 30. 26. To come up on 24-4-2000. IA No. 428 27. To come up on 24-4-2000. IA No. 471 28. Issue notice to the Union ofIndia and the State ofU.P. returnable on 17-4-2000. IA No. 549 29. Issue notice to the amicus curiae, the Union ofIndia and the State of Madhya Pradesh returnable on 24-4-2000. IAs Nos. 546-47 30. Counsel for the applicant states that the prayers made in these applications stand allowed in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court and, therefore, he wishes to withdraw these applications. IAs are dismissed as withdrawn. IA No. 557 31. IA is dismissed. IAs Nos. 558 and 559 32. Issue notice for 10-4-2000. 33. In IA No. 424, CBI should file its response to the affidavit ofShri Santosh Bharati dated 11-3-2000 which are objections to the report ofCBI. To come up on 24-4-2000. 34. IAs relating to V.P. and North-Eastern areas (numbers to be given by the learned amicus curiae) be listed on 10-4-2000.