Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2005 DIGILAW 186 (SC)

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

2005-01-28

ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.H.KAPADIA, Y.K.SABHARWAL

body2005
ORDER : I.A.No.1168 in I.A.No.118, 219-220, 240, 472-473 and 762 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 I.A.Nos.118, 219-220 1. Accepting the recommendations of Central Empowered Committee, these applications are dismissed. I.A.No.240 2. Since substantive matter is being examined the application is dismissed as withdrawn. I.A.Nos.472-473 3. Counsel seeks permission to withdraw these applications. The applications are dismissed as withdrawn. I.A.No.762 4. Accepting the recommendations of CEC the application is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to file fresh application in case need be at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum. I.A.No.1169 in I.A.No.949-950 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 I.A.Nos.949-950 5. The applicants seek some time to respond to the report of CEC. Let their response be filed within four weeks. I.A.No.1155 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 6. The application is dismissed. I.A.No.1156 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 7. List this application along with I.A.No.1192 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 in the next sitting. I.A.No.1230 in Writ Petition(Civil) No.202/1995 8. Diversion of the land in question i.e. 29.942 ha. Of forest land for laying of 220KV transmission land from Pykara Ultimate stage Hydro Electric Project Switchyard to Arasur 220 KV Sub Station in Tamil Nadu is permitted in terms of the approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 granted by Government of India as per order dated 7th/11th May, 2004 subject to the applicant strictly adhering to all the condition and ensuring that tree felling is kept at minimum number and the diversion of the forest land is done under over all supervision of Regional Chief Conservator of Forests. 9. The application is allowed. I.A.No.969-970 in I.A.No.729 in I.A.No.424 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 With I.A.No.1126 in I.A.No.703 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 10. Adjourned for two weeks. I.A.No.991, 1004, 1185 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 11. Adjourned for two weeks. I.A. No. 930 in I.A.No.669, 659 and 775 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 12. Mr. A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for Ministry of Environment and Forests to check up whether final notification has been issued by the MOEF, and file the same within two weeks. I.A. No. 967 13. Last opportunity is granted and the State Government is directed to file within one week the report and the affidavit in terms of the order dated 15th October, 2004. I.A.No. 826 in 566, I.A.No.955, 958, 985, 1001-1001A, 1013-1014, 1016- 1018, 1019, 1046-1047, 1135-1136, 1137, 1164, 1180-1181 and 1182-1183, 1196, 1208-1209, 1222-1223, 1224-1225, 1229 and 1233 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 14. Last opportunity is granted and the State Government is directed to file within one week the report and the affidavit in terms of the order dated 15th October, 2004. I.A.No. 826 in 566, I.A.No.955, 958, 985, 1001-1001A, 1013-1014, 1016- 1018, 1019, 1046-1047, 1135-1136, 1137, 1164, 1180-1181 and 1182-1183, 1196, 1208-1209, 1222-1223, 1224-1225, 1229 and 1233 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 14. In respect of Net Present Value, learned amicus curiae may file a note of suggestions within a period of three weeks. Response thereto may be filed by the learned Additional Solicitor General within three weeks thereafter. 15. List these matters on Ist April, 2005. I.A.Nos.1194-1195 16. As an interim measure on undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that the amount determined to be paid as NPV would be paid within the time stipulated by this Court, the applicant, for the present, is exempted from depositing NPV. I.A.No.989 and 1221 in I.A.No.857-858 With 997, 998, 1128 and 1187 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 17. Objections, if any, to the recommendations of CEC may be filed within one week. Replies be filed within one week thereafter. List after two weeks. I.A. No.1240 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 I.A.No...../2005 in I.A.NO.1240 in W.P.(C)No.202/2005 18. Taken on board. CEC may respond to the application within two weeks. List thereafter. I.A. Nos.1243-1244 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 19. The applicant does not even state as to what has been the difficulty in implementing the order passed nearly four years back. In this view the applications are dismissed with liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate application. I.A. No. 1238-1239/2004 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 20. Ministry of Environment and Forests and CEC may file their response to the applications within three weeks. I.A.No.1265 in IA Nos.1256-1259 and IA Nos.1260-1263 in W.P.(C)No.202/1995 I.A.Nos.1260-1263 21. Having heard learned amicus curiae, Mr. Rohtagi and Mr. Dholakia, learned senior counsel, we are of the view that Central Empowered Committee shall hear the applicant and the State Government and submit a report on these applications before 4th February, 2005. The applicant and the representative of the State Government shall appear before CEC on Ist February, 2005 at 3 p.m.. The parties are given liberty to file affidavits and documents before CEC. We direct that a responsible officer from the State Government with complete records and instructions shall appear before CEC. 22. The applicant and the representative of the State Government shall appear before CEC on Ist February, 2005 at 3 p.m.. The parties are given liberty to file affidavits and documents before CEC. We direct that a responsible officer from the State Government with complete records and instructions shall appear before CEC. 22. The State Government would also explain before CEC the basis on which the statements were made about closure in 1999 and the stand now taken which led to the report by CEC leading to closure of these units. 23. List these applications on 4th February, 2005.