Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2008 DIGILAW 293 (SC)

T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India

2008-02-15

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

body2008
ORDER : S.H. Kapadia, CJI., The following 11 projects are considered and cleared by CEC :- 1) Diversion of 216.25 ha. of forest land for coal mining by M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd., Chandrapur area, Hindustan Lalpath Colliery in Chandrapur District, Maharashtra. (2) Diversion of additional 0.354 ha. of forest land in addition to already diverted 145.6207 ha. for Parbati Stage-II Hydro Electric Project by M/s. National Hydro-electric Power Corporation Ltd. in District Kullu of Himachal Pradesh. (3) Diversion of 181.97 ha. of forest land in Maujpur RF block of Alwar Forest Division, Rajasthan, for relocation of villages from Natinal Park Sariska. (4) Diversion of 116.56 ha. of forest land in different RFS of Adilabad and Nirmal divisions for up-gradation of existing road from 2 lanes to 4/6 lanes from Mah/AP border to Islamnagar to Kadtal (km 175 to km 308) in Nagpur to Hyderabad section of NH-7 in Adilabad District of Andhra Pradesh in favour of National Highway Authority of India. (5) Diversion of 96.34 ha. of forest land in Kurumbapatty Reserve Forest of Salem Forest Division for mining of Magnesite and Dunite in favour of Tamil Nadu Magnesite Limited (TANMAG) Salem District of Tamil Nadu. (6) Diversion of 42.20 ha. of forest land for construction of Uttarakhand Open University at Haldwani in Nainital District of Uttarakhand. (7) Diversion of 43.08 ha. of forest land for construction of road between Ghastoli and Rattakona in Chamoli District of Uttarakhand. (8) Diversion of 65.00 ha. of forest land for construction of Haripura Minor Irrigation Tank Project in Jalgaon District of Maharashtra. (9) Diversion of 111.980 ha. of forest land for construction of 765 KV Seoni-Bina single circuit Transmission Line in favour of National Power Grid Corporation Limited in Madhya Pradesh. (10) Diversion of 214.112 ha. of forest land for regularisation of pre-1980 encroachments in Reserved Forest of Dhenkanal District, Orissa. (11) Diversion of 498.896 ha. of Forest Land for the construction of Modikuntavagu Medium Irrigation Project in Khamman District of Andhra Pradesh. 2. MOEF may further consider the report of the CEC and examine if any further conditions are to be stipulated or the projects can be unconditionally cleared and thereafter pass appropriate orders regarding clearance of these projects. 3. Subject to further clearance by MOEF, the above mentioned 11 projects are cleared and the I.A. is disposed of accordingly. 4. List the I.As. on 7.3.2008. 3. Subject to further clearance by MOEF, the above mentioned 11 projects are cleared and the I.A. is disposed of accordingly. 4. List the I.As. on 7.3.2008. The matters categorized as First category of matters are those where the response of the MOEF will be filed within two weeks and MOEF will file additional response in seven cases in the first category of matters and also in regard to POSCO as well as two cases relating to Goa Mines. Concerned I.A. Nos. may be supplied by learned A.C. 5. List the I.As. on 28.3.2008, so far as they relate to the matters categorized as Second category of matters where the response of the MOEF will be filed within four weeks. I.A. Nos. may be supplied by learned A.C. 6. List the I.As. on 11.4.2008, where the matters are categorized as Third category where the response of the MOEF will be filed within six weeks. I.A. Nos. may be supplied by learned A.C. 7. Issue notice. CEC may file its report within a period of three weeks. 8. Copy of the report may be supplied to CEC. CEC may file its response regarding the prayer made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks. 9. Taken on board. 10. Issue notice. 11. CEC to file its response within a period of four weeks after examining the matter. 12. The applicants herein had been granted mining lease in 1997. They claim that the mining area is outside the boundary of Choursil Reserve Forest. This area is near the forest boundary pillar Nos. 123 to 133 showing the boundary lines of the Choursil Reserve Forest near this area as per notification 29.12.1970. Learned counsel representing the State of U.P. submits that the mining area is within the forest area. 13. Learned Amicus curiae stated that there are serious disputes and these pillars distinguish the boundary area and it is also found that either they are removed or tampered. 14. We would like to have are-examination by the CEC so that the boundary of Reserve Forest area near this mining area be distinctly marked. The forest officers should also co-operate with the CEC to find out the real boundary of the Choursil Reserve Forest at this area. CEC may file its response within a period of six weeks. 15. The matters relate to the mining in Haryana. The forest officers should also co-operate with the CEC to find out the real boundary of the Choursil Reserve Forest at this area. CEC may file its response within a period of six weeks. 15. The matters relate to the mining in Haryana. We sought a report from MOEF regarding the impact of the mining activities amongst other on the water resources in the area. It is pointed out by learned Amicus curiae that where mining permission has been granted to some of the applicants, the area is declared as dark area and whether there is acute scarcity of ground water or not, has not been examined. MOEF had filed an affidavit but necessary information is not there in the affidavit in line with earlier directions. 16. MOEF is directed to further clarify and file a fresh affidavit regarding the water shortage that may happen in case the mining activities are carried out and whether water level is going down and water resource management plan, water resource status and natural resource of these areas are to be ascertained. MOEF may also examine how many mining licences can be granted in this area keeping in mind the above factors regarding scarcity of ground water in this area and other connected issues printed out above and in the earlier orders. MOEF may file its affidavit within a period of six weeks. 17. List on 28.3.2008 with Original Suit, SLP filed against the Judgment of the High Court of A.P., Writ Petition and other connected matters In the meanwhile, CWC may also file its report regarding flooding. 18. CEC may file its report within a period two weeks. List after three weeks.