Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2006 DIGILAW 1102 (SC)

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

2006-09-22

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

body2006
JUDGMENT : I.A. Nos. 1637-1638: 1. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) shall look into the matter and file its report within four weeks. I.A. No. 925 in Cont.Pet.(C) No. 193/2001 with I.As. 1172 & 1127 & I.A. No. 4: 2. The application for exemption from filing O.T. (I.A.No.l 172) is allowed. 3. The CEC in its supplementary report dated 24th December, 2003, with a view to prevent and remove encroachments in the forest area and to preserve and protect it, has given various recommendations. The said report also suggests the acts of omission and commission of the officers of the forest department as well. Be that as it may, we direct the State Government to file its response to the supplementary report as also to the earlier report dated 28th April, 2003 (I.A.No.925). The State Government shall also take into consideration the stand taken by some of the contemnors that felling of trees by them was under the permission granted by the State Government and file its response in this regard as well. The State Government, as sought, is given eight weeks time for the purpose. 4. Those of the contemnors who claim that they are in fact not operating in the area in question and, therefore, not concerned with the alleged encroachments and felling of trees in that area, may, in the meantime, approach the CEC with relevant material. 5. The CEC shall also give detailed suggestions as to the measures to be taken and the agencies to be involved for effective protection of the forest in the area. I.A. No. 1483: 6. The proposal for the construction of Belwandi Kothar Minor Canal in Taluka Shrigonda, District Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, was considered by the CEC, which has given its report dated 4th July, 2006. It was also considered by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife in its meeting on 4th October, 2005. The Standing Committee has recommended the proposal subject to the condition that the suggestion made in the inspection report to be complied with by the State Government/ Project Proponents. In fact, the recommendation of the Standing Committee is substantially taken care of in the 4th recommendation made by the CEC in its report. 7. The condition stipulated by the CEC as also by the Standing Committee are acceptable to the State of Maharashtra. In fact, the recommendation of the Standing Committee is substantially taken care of in the 4th recommendation made by the CEC in its report. 7. The condition stipulated by the CEC as also by the Standing Committee are acceptable to the State of Maharashtra. We, therefore, permit the use of the aforesaid land subject to the State Government complying with the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii). The action taken against the officers shall be placed before this Court. 8. The fourth recommendation concerns the rationalising the boundary of the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary. It reads as under: "(iv) the Government of Maharashtra will consider rationalising the boundary of the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary to exclude the areas which are not important habitat for the Great Indian Bustard and associated species so that no unnecessary hardship is caused to the people. An expert group including representatives of scientific institutions and NGOs shall be constituted for this purpose." The State Government shall constitute the expert group as recommended by the CEC, examine the matter and place the report before this Court within three months. We, however, make it clear that the boundaries of the sanctuary shall not be reduced without specific orders from this Court. The authorities are obliged to comply with the orders already made on 14th February, 2000 and 13th November, 2000. I.A.No.1484: 9. The State of West Bengal is given four weeks time to file the response. 10. Permission to file additional affidavit is granted and the additional affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record. I.A.No.1493: 11. As prayed, the MoEF is granted two weeks time to file its reply. I.A.No.1500: 12. The State of Orissa is granted three weeks further time to file its reply. I.A.No.1529: 13. This application seeking permission for laying of the Optical Fibre Cable (OFC) through the Panna National Park for communication work is allowed subject to the applicant-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited complying with the four conditions stipulated in the report of the CEC, dated 5th April, 2006, including the condition of deposit of minimum amount of Rupees One Crore in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund. The fact that five per cent of the project cost calculated comes to Rs.35 Lakhs is not very material for the present purposes. I.A.Nos.1533-34: 14. The application for exemption from filing official translation (I.A.No.1534) is allowed. 15. The fact that five per cent of the project cost calculated comes to Rs.35 Lakhs is not very material for the present purposes. I.A.Nos.1533-34: 14. The application for exemption from filing official translation (I.A.No.1534) is allowed. 15. The application filed by the Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation (I.A.No.l 533) seeking permission to develop a Water Sports Facil ity in Tighra Dam of Gwalior District located inside the Ghatigaon Wildlife Sanctuary has been considered by the CEC and its recommendations are contained in its report dated 12th July, 2006. The conditions stipulated in the report are acceptable to the Corporation. The application is allowed subject to the Corporation complying with the recommendations contained in the report. Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2002: 16. None is present for the petitioner. 17. The Writ Petition is dismissed. S.L.P.(C) No. 20070 of 1998: 18. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in terms of the report of the CEC dated 2nd September, 2003.