Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2007 DIGILAW 713 (SC)

M. C. Mehta v. Union of India

2007-04-27

ARIJIT PASAYAT, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, S.H.KAPADIA

body2007
JUDGMENT I.A. No. 259 in I.A. Nos. 182-183 in W.P. (C) No. 13029/1985: 1. This matter relates to Western Peripheral Expressway. The applicant submits that the contract was given to the applicant and it appears that there are various disputes between the applicant-M/s. Mudhucon Projects Ltd. on the one hand and respondents M/s. Apollo and M/s.D.S. Construction on the other hand and' the matter is pending consideration in C.W.P.No.7162/06 on the file of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and because of this litigation the project was also held up and not progressing well. We are told that the Monitoring Committee has also supervised the work. We request the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to dispose of the writ petition pending before it so that the work may be progressed at the earliest. The applicant would be at liberty to produce the copy of this order before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. 2. I.A.Nos.259 & 261 are disposed of accordingly. I.A.No.229, 227, 230 and 253-254 in W.P. (C)No. 13029/1985: 3. These matters relate to hoardings in the city. The Delhi Government has come up with a comprehensive policy after taking experts opinion from the School of Planning & Architecture. M.C.D. and N.D.M.C. have prepared similar policies as to how the future plans should be regarding the hoardings in the city. The above authorities will submit their projects within four weeks to the Bhure Lai Committee and the Committee will examine the same and file its opinion within four weeks and thereafter a final decision will be taken in the matter. 4. List these applications in the 3rd week of August, 2007. I.A.Nos.1413, 1414, 1426, 1428, 1440, 1441, 1454, 1459, 1460, 1662-1663 & 1675, 1717-18 in 1413 in W.P.(C)NO.202/ 1995: 5. The above I.A.s cover several aspects,one such aspect being the constitution and composition of the Forest Advisory Committee (F.A.C.) under Rule 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 ("2003 Rules"). In this regard the facts are as under: When the above I.A.s came for hearing on 15.9.2006 one of the items which this Court had to consider was concerning constitution of F.A.C. under the said 2003 Rules. On that date, this Court found that F.A.C. constituted in terms of the Amended Rules which were stayed by this Court in 2004. In this regard the facts are as under: When the above I.A.s came for hearing on 15.9.2006 one of the items which this Court had to consider was concerning constitution of F.A.C. under the said 2003 Rules. On that date, this Court found that F.A.C. constituted in terms of the Amended Rules which were stayed by this Court in 2004. Therefore, it was directed to file affidavit explaining the circumstances under which F.A.C. was not constituted under 2003 Rules. Therefore, the matter had to be adjourned. On that date, however, this Court was told that there were several matters concerning Temporary Working Permit (TWP) which were required to be examined by duly constituted committee under the said 2003 Rules. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned by two weeks to enable the MoEF to file its affidavit. On that date, this Court directed three experts in forestry and allied disciplines to be appointed in consultation with the learned amicus curaie and the Chairperson of C.E.C. 6. On 14.12.2006 an affidavit was filed by Assistant Inspector General of Forests, MoEF stating that on 12.12.2006 F.A.C. has been reconstituted. In that affidavit it was stated that the names suggested by the Chairperson of C.E.C. did not qualify for appointments as experts and, therefore, they were not eligible to be members of F.A.C. This has given rise to the question regarding the eligibility of the members appointed by MoEF in the F.A.C. as well as the objection to the inclusion of the names suggested by C.E.C. in the F.A.C. We have made certain suggestions for incorporation of some names out of the names suggested by C.E.C. However, learned A.S.G. submitted that members once appointed cannot be removed except under the procedure prescribed by law. Today, it is not possible to decide this larger question. This question is to be decided at a later date as indicated here in below. It will require detailed arguments in the light of the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 with the Rules framed thereunder. Unfortunately, in the process large number of Projects (200) have accumulated for clearance. Broadly, we find that post 15.9.2006 F.A.C. has given clearance to certain Projects, there are cases which have not been vetted at all till today (fresh cases). Unfortunately, in the process large number of Projects (200) have accumulated for clearance. Broadly, we find that post 15.9.2006 F.A.C. has given clearance to certain Projects, there are cases which have not been vetted at all till today (fresh cases). Lastly, there are cases where post 15.9.2006 the Projects have been cleared by the F.A.C. and the response has also been filed by C.E.C. but they are pending approval by this Court. List of such cases be filed in the Registry before the next date of hearing. 7. In the circumstances, we hereby give the following directions, pending our decision on the larger question indicated here in above: (a) The F.A.C. as it stands today will give priority to Projects which need immediate clearances. In this regard, it may be stated that fresh cases may be cleared Project-wise by the F.A.C. and thereafter such clearances shall be placed before this Court for approval. We make it clear that pending the decision of the larger question, all clearances by the F.A.C. of fresh cases shall be subject to approval by this Court. Before giving approval, we would like to have responses from C.E.C. in respect of each clearance. In order to avoid delay, we direct the concerned Ministry to give a copy of the clearance to C.E.C. so that C.E.C. would give its response expeditiously. We will examine each clearance and decide whether to grant or not to grant the approval thereto. Once the approval is granted by this Court, the matter may be placed before the Central Government for disposal in accordance with law. (b) Post 15.9.2006, the former F.A.C. has given clearances to Projects and, therefore, in such cases it would not be necessary to place those clearances before the existing F.A.C. once again. In such cases, C.E.C. is required to file its response at the earliest. Such cases may be placed before this Court along with the response from C.E.C. so that the approval of this Court could be obtained expeditiously. (c) There are certain Projects on lands in parks and sanctuaries where this Court has passed orders relaxing certain conditions. In such cases, F.A.C. and Central Government may pass appropriate orders without reference to C.E.C. of to this Court. (d) In respect of certain Projects, F.A.C. has given their clearance after 15.9.2006, C.E.C. has also given its response. (c) There are certain Projects on lands in parks and sanctuaries where this Court has passed orders relaxing certain conditions. In such cases, F.A.C. and Central Government may pass appropriate orders without reference to C.E.C. of to this Court. (d) In respect of certain Projects, F.A.C. has given their clearance after 15.9.2006, C.E.C. has also given its response. Such matters may be posted in the second week of July, 2007 for approval of this Court. (e) Pending the decision of this Court on the above mentioned larger issue regarding constitution of F.A.C., our order dated 30.11.2006 stands extended till the decision, as we have decided to examine each clearance by F.A.C. and the response of C.E.C. In that regard, our order dated 15.12.2006 staying reconstitution of F.A.C. (vide order dated 12.12.2006 annexed to the affidavit dated 14.12.2006 filed by MoEF) shall stand modified to the extent indicated here in above. I.A.Nos.826 in 566 with 955 in 566, 958, 985, 1001-1001A, 1013-014, 1016-1018, 1019, 1046, 1047, 1135-1136, 1137-1164. 1180-1181, 1182-1183, 1196, 1208-1209, 1222-1223, 1224-1225, 1229, 1233 in 1135-1136, 1248-1249, 1253, 1301-1302, 1303-1304, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1318, 1319 in 1137, 1325, 1364, 1365-1366, 1371, 1384, 1385-1386, 1387, 1434, 1435-1437, 1438, 1441 WITH 1635, 1475-1476, 1513, 1573, 1639 in 1135-1136, 1664, 1665, 1671, 1676, 1677-1678, 1679-1680, 1707, 1785-1786 in l.A.No. 1441, 1779 in 1164 in 566, 1721 in 1597 in 566 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 (NPV Matters): l.A.No.826 in 566: 8. Pursuant to report submitted by Prof. Kanchan Chopra Committee, the C.E.C. has filed a supplementary report. 9. Issue notice to MoEF. MoEF shall file its response within four weeks to the same. The matter may be placed for argument in the 3rd week of July, 2007. The parties, who wish to file any objections to the supplementary report, may also file their response within three weeks. 10. We are told by learned Amicus Curaie that there is another report of the C.E.C. in I.A.955 and connected I.A.s. 11. As regards this report also issue notice to MoEF and the MoEF shall file its response within four weeks. The respective parties may also file their responses within three weeks. 12. List in the 3rd week of July, 2007. All the matters covered by the C.E.C. report up to 20th November, 13. Issue notice to MoEF. The MoEF and the concerned parties may file their response within four weeks. 14. The respective parties may also file their responses within three weeks. 12. List in the 3rd week of July, 2007. All the matters covered by the C.E.C. report up to 20th November, 13. Issue notice to MoEF. The MoEF and the concerned parties may file their response within four weeks. 14. List in the 3rd week of July, 2007. Matters relating to EPCA (3031,3032 & 3033): 15. Issue notice to MoEF. MoEF to file its response within four weeks. l.A.No. 1137: 16. The State of Kerala may file its response to the report of C.E.C. within three weeks. l.A.No. 1164: 17. No further orders are necessary for the present. I.A.Nos. 1180-81 & 1435-37: 18. The C.E.C. has given its report. The parties may file their response, if any, within four weeks. l.A.No. 1441: 19. No further orders are necessary for the present. l.A.No. 1438: 20. Issue notice to MoEF. The MoEF shall file its response within four weeks. I.A.Nos.1475-76 & 1513: 21. C.E.C.'s report has been filed. The parties may file their response within four weeks. l.A.No. 1573: 22. Issue notice. MoEF shall file its response within four weeks. l.A.No. 1639 in 1135-36: 23. Issue notice. MoEF and the parties may file their response within four weeks. I.A.Nos. 1664, 1665, 1671 in 1639 in 1135-36, 1676: 24. Issue notice. MoEF and the parties may file their response within four weeks. I.A.Nos. 1677-78, 1679-80, 1707, 1721 in 1597, 1779 in 1664, 1785-86: 25. Issue notice to C.E.C. C.E.C. shall file its response within four weeks. As regards coal fields: 26. We are told that the mining companies have paid 50% of the NPV and in cases where 50% of the NPV has already been paid, appropriate authorities may give necessary permission/approval for carrying on the mining activities in the various coal fields in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 15th December, 2006 and 23rd February, 2007. I.A. Nos. 1707, 1791, 1798, 1789, 1788, 1787, 1791-92: 27. Issue notice to C.E.C. C.E.C. may file its response within four weeks.