T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India — 2012 DIGILAW 290 (SC)

ORDER : 301. I.A. Nos. 2421-2422 in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995: 1. List on 19.3.2012. 302. l.A. Nos. 3344-3345 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 2. List on 26.3.2012. 303. I.A. Nos. 3142-3203 and 3213-14, 3217-3238,3242-3267 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 3. List after two weeks. 304. I.A. Nos. 3346 in I.A. No. 2335 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 4. The application is disposed of in view of the report of the CEC dated 9th March, 2012 subject to the conditions mentioned in paragraph 3 of the report which are incorporated hereunder: "(a) approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for use of the forest land will be obtained; (b) payment of NPV at the applicable rates will be made; and (c) strict compliance of the conditions stipulated by the National Board of Wildlife will be strictly complied with." 5. The applicant has to get further permission under the Forest Conservation Act. 305. I.A. No. 3109 (@ Con.P.(C) No. 241/2011 in I.A. No. 1631 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 6. This application is preferred seeking a direction to Respondent No.6 to revoke the order dated 4.5.2011 directing to keep the licence in abeyance and also for further consequential relief. CEC has filed its report on 9/3/2012 which reads as follows: "4. It is submitted that the Applicant saw cum veneer mill is one of the wood based units in respect of which NOC has been issued by the Forest Department. It is located in a Government approved Industrial Estates within a distance of 10 kms. from the nearby forest and wherein the establishment of wood based industries is presently not permissible. The applicant unit was not granted the saw mill licence after complying with this Hon'ble Court's orders dated 30.10.2002 and 23rd April, 2010. The SLC in its meeting held on 9th November, 2010 has taken a stand that grant of permission to establish saw mill within the Government approved industrial estates irrespective of the distance from the boundary of the nearby forest and without obtaining concurrence from the CEC was not in accordance with the law. 5. The SLC in its meeting held on 9th November, 2010 has taken a stand that grant of permission to establish saw mill within the Government approved industrial estates irrespective of the distance from the boundary of the nearby forest and without obtaining concurrence from the CEC was not in accordance with the law. 5. In the above background it is submitted that this Hon'ble court may consider directing the State of Karnataka to consider grant of licence/renewal in favour of the Applicant after (a) the seniority List of all the similarly placed units is finalised (b) a decision regarding the distance from the boundary of the forest wherein wood based industries are to be allowed to establish/continue is taken by the State of Karnataka and (c) subject to timber availability after meeting the requirement of the existing licensed wood-based industries in the State." 7. In the light of the report of the CEC dated 9.3.2012 we are inclined to dispose of the application directing the 6th respondent to consider the prayer of the applicant and it is also open to the applicant to file objections, if any, to the report before the 6th respondent and the same has also to be taken note of and pass appropriate order within three months in accordance with law. 8. The 6th respondent also take note of the order passed by this Court dated 23rd April 2010 which is produced as annexure P.1 along with this application. 9. The I.A. is accordingly disposed of. 306. I.A. Nos. 3118-312QWn W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 10. Four weeks' time is granted to the State of Gujarat to file its reply. 307. I.A. Nos. 2870-2871 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 11. Liberty is granted to the applicant to file its reply affidavit within two weeks. 308. I.A. Nos. 3311-3313 in W.C.(C) No. 202/1995: 12. List on 19.3.2012. 13. In the meantime counter affidavit be filed. 309. I.A. Nos. 3133&3134 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 14. List after two weeks. 310. I.A. Nos. 3047-3048 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 15. List after two weeks. 311. I.A. Nos. 3302-3304 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 16. List after three weeks to enable the learned counsel for the State to examine whether any State Level Committee has been constituted under the local Act. 312. I.A. Nos. 2465-2466, 2467-2468 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 17. List after three weeks. 313. SLP(C) No. 33261/2011: 18. List after two weeks. 311. I.A. Nos. 3302-3304 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 16. List after three weeks to enable the learned counsel for the State to examine whether any State Level Committee has been constituted under the local Act. 312. I.A. Nos. 2465-2466, 2467-2468 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 17. List after three weeks. 313. SLP(C) No. 33261/2011: 18. Applicant to serve a copy of the letter dated 2nd March, 2012 to the counsel appearing for the MoEF for getting instructions. Applicant will also make available a copy of the special leave petition to the counsel appearing for the MoEF. 19. Post after two weeks. 314. SLP(C)....CC. 19672/2011: 20. List this matter peremptorily on 2.4.2012 for final hearing, subject to part-heard cases. 21. In the meantime learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu to give a copy of the counter affidavit to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rejoinder, if any, may also be filed in the meantime. 315 & 322. SLP(C) No. 20154/2011, Etc. Etc.: 22. Issue notice in the special leave petition No. 7619/2012. Dasti service is also permitted. 23. In the meantime there shall be stay of dispossession and demolition of the buildings of the petitioner until further orders. 24. List these matters peremptorily on 2.4.2012 for final hearing and will be taken up subject to part-heard matters. 25. Learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu will to give copy of the counter affidavit to the learned counsels for the petitioners in all the matters. Rejoinder, if any, may also be filed in the meantime. 316. I.A. No. 100 in W.P.(C) No. 337/ 1995: 26. Mr. Shyam Diwan, learned senior counsel resumed his arguments at 3.05 p.m. and was on his legs when the Court rose for the day. 27. The matter remained part-heard. 28. We notice that the concerned officers of the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the MoEF are not present in the Court with the original files. Considering the importance of the matter we are inclined to direct the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the MoEF to ensure the presence of a senior rank officer who is conversant with the facts of the case, with the original files including all the reports submitted by the experts, the records of the National Board of Wildlife on the issue on the next date of hearing. 317. 317. I.A. No. 2469 with I.A. Nos. 2782, 2939-2940 and I.A. Nos. 3023-3024 in I.A. 2782, 3030 and 3032 in W.P.(C) No. 202/ 1995 with W.P.(C) No. 130/2011: 29. Not taken up. 318. I.A. Nos. 1308, 1323, 1455, 1468. 1478 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995 and SLP(C) 30622/2011: 30. Not taken up. 319. In I.A. Nos. 2785, 3025 & 3390 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 31. Not taken up. 320. I.A. No. 3402 in I.A. No. 2378 in W.P.(C) 202/1995: 32. List on 19.3.2012. 33. In the meantime, the applicant to serve a copy of the petition to the counsel appearing for the CEC. 321. I.A. No. 21/2012 in I.A. No. 16/2009 in W.P.(C) 47/1998: 34. Application for restoration is allowed. 35. List on 16.4.2012. I.A. Nos. 3317-18/2011 in I.A. No. 3108 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995: 36. Upon being mentioned, taken on Board. 37. List on 19.3.2012. I.A. Not. 2638-39 in W.P.(C) No. 202/ 1995: 38. Upon being mentioned, taken on Board. 39. To be listed along with I.A. No. 1791/ 2007.