Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2008 DIGILAW 276 (SC)

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

2008-02-14

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

body2008
ORDER : Arijit Pasayat, J. I.A. Nos. 2164, - 2165, 2166, 2167, 2168, 2169, 2170, in I.A. No. 1413, 1414, 1426, 1428, 1440, 1454, 1459, 1460, 1662-1663, 1675, 1778, 2005-2006, 2121-2125, 2127, 2128, 2130-2132, 2133, 2177-2178, 2179 - 2180, 2181-2182, 2183-2184, 2188-2189 in 1413 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995 and I.A No. 2163 in I.A. 1413: 1. List these matters tomorrow i.e. on 15th February, 2008. I.A. Nos. 2116-2117 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 2. These IAs have been filed by M/s. Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd., seeking permission for laying the underground gas pipeline through the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary in Maharashtra for the transportation of Natural Gas/Hydrocarbon. The project was examined by C.E.C. and C.E.C. has imposed the following conditions for clearance : 1. "5% of the estimated project cost of Rs. 520 crores for laying of the pipeline in the Sanctuary area i.e. Rs. 26 crore will be deposited by the applicant company in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund for undertaking conservation and protection works in the National Parks/Sanctuaries in Maharashtra. A small portion of this money may be used by the Maharashtra Forest Department for the establishment of an "Interpretation Centre" with a view to educate and increase the awareness of the local people about the importance of endangered species like Great Indian Bustard and the importance of our natural heritage; 2. the conditions imposed by the Chief Wildlife Warden for laying the pipeline through the sanctuary area will be strictly complied with; and 3. No forest land falling in the sanctuary area will be used." 3. The above conditions are acceptable to the applicant. Subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, the applicant may go-ahead with its project. I.A.s are disposed of accordingly. I.A. Nos. 2126 and 2129 4. These applications relate to grant of mining lease. The applicants herein claims that the original licensee had executed a Will in his/their favour and have been given mining lease by the State of Goa. The C.E.C. has raised objections that mining lease could not be transferred by a Will executed by the original licensee, who is now dead. The Central Government may give its response, as under Rule 50 of the Mining Concession Rules, 1960, consent of the Central Government is required for carrying out the mining activities. The Central Government may file its response before 7th March, 2008. 5. List on 7th March, 2008.