M/S. Vibhuthigudda Mines Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009

[Cites 7, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S. Vibhuthigudda Mines Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2009

Bench: V.G.Sabhahit

2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
Aranya Bhavan,
18*" Cross, Malleshxvaram,
Bangalore--O3.

3. The Conservator of Forest,
Bellary Circle,
Bellary.

4. The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Beiiary Division,
Bellary.

5. '?he Range Forest Officer,
Sandur Range, Sandor,
Bellary District.

6. The Forester,  '  _
Departmentllof l?c3irest',f:~:  '
Beilary Rural   -- .
Bellary.   ' _   .. RESPONDE3l\l'§'S

(By Sn".Basavarajﬁéfalr1*eeEd§?Ag»  Govt. Adv. for Respts.)

 ii"l'lii§;.,ii.:ri-Erpétitioia ivsiiiiiied Lmoier Articles 226 and 227 of

the   praying that this Court be pleased to

:'il<.__q1gasli the*F'irsti'llr1;_fo,rrnatio1i Report dated ll.O5.2009 bearing

VT':_FOC No,."1,/2'O:C.J9r?.lO filed by the sixth respondent on

'C'"i1.i,',;'os't;2oV,o9 irréhe Court of the cm] Judge (Jr.Dn.,) 85 JMFC, C'-Be'l.la'ry ,' yidiie Annexuree F'.

"This writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing this the Court delivered the following:--

.--.._s M: 'iii 5, 4 and the same is governed by the provisions of the (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short 'the PC Act') V' prior approval of the Cen.tral Government undeﬁr Sectioni2._fofi7.. the FC Act for diversion of the forest. for activity, viz. mining purpose, \xrhicili.e:vph'ad "lby the Central Government; ptlrsuaint itoeA.prior'appr§oval of the Karnataka Forest Departrnenti' has entered into an agreementiiéiwiith Department of State Pollution Control Board"hashaiso::f?.?icc:t;rd'edCrieceissary approvals; that the petitioneiijaftpere lease and also after having complied with 1nanda{;irj,:* iproviisioiis, has been conducting mining operations »in"its lieasied area and within the area d:e%r1e.reateE;} the Departrneiit of Mines and Geology; that the:_petiitiQne..r_'hasl°'a___subsisting lease as on date; that the violati"0.n'-iof con"di.tions of the lease agreement were 'v.__t',o'mpiaine.d the petitioner and the same was recorded repo~!"t";of the Lo§<ayt.1l<ta and that based on such allegation, the sixth respondent registered First Informa_t_i_on Report dated 11.05.2009 for alleged forest offences. 4} In this backdrop, it is contended on petitioner that:

(i) both the impugned proVCeediAnVgs:":_lz7iIR ' 11.05.2009 .and the 1 1.05.2009 are }i.'e'b§e esiitheii same are only the Lokayukgtét"«i,3--}Z?':ic%i=A._ teteieeipted by

(ii) the be put against §the. petitioneir, "the petitioner was not gi{)':§11_éIi1jy' ogoportunity of being heard before t}ie:"Lokéi}:%;i'kta _;

(iii) 3..sisi._.:.ming the respondents propose to take V0"-..aotion based on the Lokayt1§<1;a report, the second I'€SpOT]d€1'}.[ ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to explain its case against the findings in the Lokayuktag" . report; i

(iv) assuming the respondents iljiave-.got_L ' A to initiate action against ~. it under section 62A of i Act, 1963 (for short, theisazneij ought not to iih.avei'»7ibeenii"--f_*e;${etcised agairf.st __ * 5.1) Perh(:'O2dtrad, Advocate submits that the g..é_§io.kayu1<:it3;' being a report submitted by a can be the basis for filing an FIR and the same " ur_:a'.nnoi{' 'disregarded. The learned Govern.m.ent V11;Advocateii"'bro*tigi'it':to our notice that before preparing the

4. miagery, the Lokaj;t:1<'ta Team has conducted ground "'."i..su1i\?'ejy*--aind prepared survey sketch of the boundaries and i2*..__aEo--ng'V'ti?ith other documents and other necessary input have ore and tools, z11at711é1:[email protected]"ics and vehécrlcs Lzscci fog' such illcfge-1] mining. Piting an FIR is (,")T}1_\;' am initiation of a.C'£i(i)21 aitgg-;1..i_1"t<st'the petit'i<.>1'1cr anti the respondent is yet to i11vestég21t.i;:._Vi1'at'ta.. thc:-T' matter and therefom the pctit'.i011ez' not'e._ht.it]&:'d._to_ 3éc=i'< cguatshéng of the FIR on an §m;;1gi11a1*_',..' 'g.roL.1z'1c§,_"_tA th"a*;' t'=hE-*. responclerzt do not gamposa to i11\4!eé;'ttéVg'L3t'<? thé._1fri'21[t.tfc:*1"°;)1' that the responc1<:1'1ts have aireaihj §]"iV"€SA{'§'C_{&l[€nC£., but hétve not found any evidence against the 15611zicr-'2'1é1";.:_" Vr~1c~1"eI"o1"€:, the §~TJr23n_,\-£2' to quash tt16?_.VF'1'5§t.ti9 Di'<21r;iatéJ:'é'; 3.353 Tluw'-«:5 ie_a1--:'n€L'E.VC}§5\'e1*n:f1'@1_1t-- AC.1\-"<)C.ate {urth C' 1' C.'('Ji"]Ie'_'E]d:_~', that m-*it11e1" ti1ev--fi}i11gVti~f 'éizj &1}}§'p_}iC&1t.iO2'] for isSL:anc:e of }"4'n1"<?:<;I. Transit Pass (.'FTP',"»f0t'Vsh(:~rt) nor issuance of the }¥"I'P' not is§:s.L22?;t'*1<t'¢;> bf the Permits tmder RLl1(?.'..~3 146 am? 14(3) of tl-1&5 Ka1'ﬁs1té':1}<.a:1VFd1:§?svtu¥?3L':'1.e:s b\-* itself xvoulcl not be 271 0":'<..>L,md to tlﬁ; L<'3is;3'\"L;..E<'t2:1 repcart. The aiieged infirmity 1)(::'.i\\.='E?t?£'E «tit-1?.«{3 'ficid 2'1"1z.1~;': S.1<etc11 and the Satteiiite report 211130 camnot be. 21 'j._'g1*4ot1t3:t'1V Vé(f)'»,1'ejec.t. the L<)]<a:1_~;u1<ta-1 yeport or to c;_ue;1sh the t"?i¥1£ V.ftt'!g_t_€.'e'd V'§.;].()':3.i2O(')9 and the S€iZL,I}'€ orcicr dated 1.1..{)3.;2{}£}9 as 10 SLE1'V€}' of India, who is not below the rank of a Deputy Director, after giving notice to the petitioner. 5.5} Learned Government Advocate further;"'su--b_mjits:..v that the seized articles would be returned to _t~h--e..i provided the petitioner gives an UI](Zl€Ftt~1_l{lHg,l§(lJ it possession of the impugned too1s,*v-ehicleis._ai'id n";.aieh'in_er_v_V§asi and when required by the respondenitfoir {urthe'r.. investigation or by the jurisdictional Co*..1_r:*. for §_he"--t_r'ival'nas well as for seizure and confiscation p1'oe--eedingsA that"vmi'ght be initiated by the authoritiesV'co1<1_ceriied"-_i,inder the provisions of the Forest Act, if I'1€"CE?SSEt.1'_Xﬁ ll°1.il'L§'[-'Li-1f(*3'. 6] in view oflt-h_e above rival contentions, the fo11ovvi;:1g questions, xvhienare similar to those raised in Writ Petition No.3E§i';.2i"i".Qf1'disiaosed of on 13.4.2009, arise for our con.sidera.tior¥'lh "this Petition:

.i ":Whether the report of the Lokayukta can / be the basis for the impugned FIR dated (I1) (111) Jr 11.5.2009 and the order of seizure dated 1 1.5.2009?

Whether it is proper for this .

exercise the power of under Article 226 ofjt-he CVoAr;s"titut.io'ir!,; India to quash the Iriforrrrzitioin Report dated "

Whether _*-t_he is empo.wer'ed:_i:__j.to _eeizze.__~ the iiiirriachinery, eiguiprne '~ .. V hirohnl " ore and vehicles belohgirrg to Vth'e'..:_upetitioner, by an order 1i1"."5.2.QG9, for having committed _i1'1eVga_1'«.,iinining operation in the forest as hereunder:

area?f'j_ deciding the above mentioned questions, in "'*[j;._'*N'r1:":~?¢:«1:i.§sn No.3812 of 2009 disposed of on 13.4.2009, we /.55 which is carried on by the petitioners lawfully, but unfortunately, it is the case of the respondents, of course based on the report of the Loicayukta, that the'... it petitioner has allegedly violated the mainten.ance..~«o-F.'_';'__'_l'lV§' ecology and environment;

observance of the laws enactedhi.to__protect""the environment and ecology is sought tolbe en.sii;red. 1

6.6) When the Lokayu.ktctll]'inds faultvagair;st"t.he.__V executives for their failure to impleyrhent such protect the environment: and ee'olo§{y'.- lltvhte petitiotneré projects the grievance againstethe for acting upon the Lolcayulcta _r_ep(;'?Tt. such circurnstan.ces,:.v "_'-our: opinion, the executives _\shoull5ZV--;ha'iie'a_j7re_e--hand to proceed with in.vestiga.:ion:--further':_irz_to'--.th"e.¢matter to do their duty conferred and._l}y«.._people, particularly when faced 'V with ~nH1aney~power and manpower.

.""Oth'e*rwise, the respect for law and people would be A 6. 7,'. f';c_c"oi'din.'c} to the respondents, the petitioner has enzcvrotaclhed into the forest area which is outside leased out area. Learned Advocate General invited our._c_itten,tion that when the leased out area has been l stjtperirnposed on the satellite map, the encroachment it the forest area stands clearly established; and that the satellite imagery obtained from the Karnataka and whereupon the it ' ll re State Remote Sensing Application Centre, which is nodal agency for the entire State with regard to and remote sensing, would prima facie show th.at'.the petition.er had encroached upon t_he--_forest atesi,» outside the leased out area which anio:t]eitcer..lbyl"V" itself and the authorities are duty--l)(jttn,ii:l-t_ to preeent ' such illegal encroachment and mining operatio'n.s apa'r_t' from seizing the rnachineries and."-_to -,confisecI.te the} same by appropriate prov(:;eedin,gsh. _ VA 6.8) Once there lSp.f."l1:".tflt31, evg..;'d§am'£'e,:c5' that the petitioner h.ad'e_n§i--roaehe{,l apon t'he_'foVresft land and operating its --vth.e'.."linttts_ of the leased out area, learaneel git-$_,elUo::a.tellACK3er=era.l ciontends that the responclventts .have, n_o"optiori'-except to initiate crlrninal action against the opetitiorie.rA'E9yVj'lliI1g F H? and seize the minerals m.zir::-ea outst_ale'._the..leased out area, which is a forest pro.du.ce,V"t-ogetherl with the tools, machmeries 'V 'anal'st1ehi'eles"used in the commission of the offence and als V '*_io»_ "c_ortﬁs::ate the same in appropriate proeeecl i n.gs"_." --'T V V' _ is Sixnillatriy, on the second question, viz. whether it is 'f_'prope1':fof*i:his Court to exercise the power under Article 226 l.fof__"t'r'ie Constitution of India to quash the First Information l dated 11.5.2009, we held as hereunder:

.-""'<¢\ /..

l 5 'dJMﬂé:§,W"WM,,..

17 ''?'.I. Issue No.11':

Whether it is proper for this Court to:._ 2' exercise the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to quash 'First Information Report dated 3.2.2009? " it

7.2) 'I'h.e power of_jL:dici(2.'Ev..e4review 1L:'2.der"..;¥¥rIici'§? 226 of the ('L'cmsIz'Iu.Iir)n. [maﬁa ihe.'irs.«heren_t§ power conferred'. under' ..$;.e';<'2i'Ifor-T 43822" Code of (}frr.'rn,fr1a1 procedure. 11' is even.

mough SIiCh. z'r2i*1ereIj_1I p:7;1';;»é'rsfw,{i;~z§;»r¢cJ'-orgfzhe High Court are uer't;§-,,u2z'(;2iee; __.1f7.e'12ei,?3Jple_31r{t1TﬁfeVitfthe power requires g}r'ei'1_f a'n.d the Courts mu,sZ fag?' TvVi'?r.aI. iteviieefszforr. in e:cer(:ise of stzcrhﬁizrher'ca:-1IV' on. sound priricripleis as held by 'me A;3e)rAV'(?(}i:--:ji" the case of INDER M0114'-N GOS'W--:AfvII..'--A.ND 'ANOTHER v. STATE 01:' UT::245eR4j$2Cgf1AL ;A1\T.D...(J'THERS reported in (2oo7)12 SCC 1, _I')e(.:i;!.u@'s'e the in.F'r,erez'1Z powers conferred on this r€3r):.grt h.c:r.,$~'-,t()" l9e.:goarI'r'z.gly exerciesed (1') to give efject Lo (,zr1* Vo'rcz'e.r' U_'r:.".r_«_'4r,-:e}~ jhe Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of procregms of(3or,zrI.,' and (Hi) to otherwise secure the ends ' "ofjz,:sIr'c:é;',- 1311.! in any event not to encourozge uf()laiiorz.&5 "--"c);'7V1he;prouisions of any .<;ta:.u.Ies: in. force much any 2' c'o;1.drfii(ms of ogrc-3ern,enr thereunder which empowers " -wife (:()ITI}:)(2l.(eI'2I o.ufh,or1ify to tczkcz appropriczte ocr,z'on L/"'& :3 . _ xx/t.E_ E"

/3 against the law breakers and those who violate the conditions ofagreernent.

7.3) In any event, such powers should it exercised to style a legitimate prosecu.t_ior1 and therefore the Courts should refrain from giving o,,gpjrirn,aifacie"*.W decision in a case where the entire factsdre ineorriplete '~ and hazy, more so, when t'h.eVe.vidvericeA'hds collected and produced before the .'f_

9. On issue No.11} M Whether. respondent is empowered to seize th'e,__n1aehineify,'"equip.n1e.ntl,l iron ore and vehicles 'be1onging'v .,tc5:.t;he' t,peti.t_io:i1'erf,v bxgwan order dated 11.5.2009, for having"he-o,:rn»rnit.t_e'd 'an illegal mining operation in the forest are'a--,,_\x-e hlaVe'h'er1d.'t'as hereunder:

l."é§"i2'} ;&_Pa.rlialrnent enacted The Forest _i(Cr)i7.';9é3r'2;.dtion}1:V'Act, I980 in order to prevent 'dtej.o'r.estatili)'n. causes ecological imbalance and leads t'o,__'environm.enta.l deterioration. The deforestation. W,ca.uses _u}i{desprea,d concern. Section'2 of the FC Act the restriction. on dereservation of forest or use' forest land for non--forest purposes and as per u said Section, no State C}overnrnent or au.thority shall make, except with the prior approval of the 1%} : '\ 25 Uiolatitm of the principless of nc1f.u.ra.1"ju.sIice_, a.i1'.ra.cIzTn.g Articjie I4 of1'h.e C.Ton.sZz't1.ztior2 ofIH.(1ia."

10.1) In the instant case, since it is the» petitioner has violated the conditions of the f the fourth respondent has jurisdiction to i'nitiate'V'i'aAotion tint that regard.

11) It is also not in disptitet that theltdeeisions rendered in unn.Pesnon tut5oo23 oF2OO9Vdﬁﬁﬁ$edToton 2/¥2009 and\NatFeuuogi%;3§i2tﬁjgooggﬁspegﬁiefon l3ﬁL2009 squarely a_pply to oftlie present case. Following the said deoisionslatndfor*1:he~.reas~o_ns.l stated therein, we pass the following: "

l*oRDER "'1i.o'lr:_a}r:.iQi'l:tta:.. report and the sketches ihthereto can be the basis for the respoﬁdeizts to prosecute the FIR dated l.lv...t§5.2009 and the Seizure order dated "Ji.o5;20o9;

(iii) 26 the prayer to quash the First Information Report dated 11.05.2009 is rejected, giving-C' V liberty to the respondents to ];)I'OC€{'3Cl_";1'I1 accordance with law, subject to the_.orcle':r~s hereunder;

Dep'ut}: Conservator Forests, Bel'laryi: .

Division, .Bellary»fou_rthl'~Re's}:>o1ident;Ashall:

inspect and survey the «.ipmpL»:g11ec§l'areaVl leased out to the l§L3F'~;'lZl.tlC'J.T_f1Q?.?[f'?ivlllllvllliri->lT).1*¢S€'IlC€ of the petitioner,'_.tlrie=,Controlle1ti"o--ty?i7liiies, Indian along with rank of the Director General, of _ anti take appropriate clecisioii as to t'11e'allegecl encroachment by .«_§."[l1€'~ petitioner with reference to the survey and other relevant material documents produced in this regard; El" any encroachment of forest land " isfotind, the respondents are at liberty" to assess the cEama§2§e.s caused on account of _,-'such illegal mining outside the leased out mining area and recover the same from the petitioner;

(iv) 27 The respondents are directed to return the it tools, vehicles petitioner on the condition tha.t the shall. be produced before the \' jurisdictional Magistrate as gancl When' required by law, subject' to the 'f.ndingi*i-inVii .

the inspection to be icvorrducted*--._byci'thei» fourth respondent in the' presence o'f'~t.he¥' petitioner and Conftrollejr iof Nliei'1esi,..»lndian Bureau of Mines, Ba_f1gai0.re:_, a'liCr1ig"vfwi.t'h the nominee rii'ot:p1"be1o__wgth~e Deputy Director Di-rector Geiiierpetl, Survey of 1zi'dia,--.re"ferre§f: "to"ab'ove;i The ore wh'iri§h_i'i's__ii"a§.4r.eady seized by the a.uthorit1es \afhich'«i_s' alleged to have been finiiined outside the leased out area shall be custody of the forest authorities and ifVthfe»,_&iauthorities are at liberty to take ii"iiappr'ojrgjri5étte decision in the matter subject toﬂthe finding in the inspection and assessment of the damages and to recover ﬂthe same from the petitioner;

Subject to the finding arrived at by the fourth responden-t-Deputy C(">r,1.VservatOr of and machinery to

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court