Supreme Court - Daily Orders
In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India And Ors. on 14 February, 2024
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
CORRECTED
ITEM NOS.9, 10 & 11 COURT NO.3 SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 202/1995
IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
(INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR 14.02.2024 “ONLY”
[ 1 ] I. A. NOS. 157777 AND 157782/2023 [APPLICATIONS FOR
IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS] IN RE : PRADEEP AND
[ 2 ] I. A. NOS. 37666, 37670 AND 37679/2020 [APPLICATIONS FOR
IMPLEADMENT, DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.] IN RE :
UTTAM KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. AND
[ 3 ] IN RE : “CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI STOREYED BUILDINGS IN FOREST
LAND MAHARASHTRA” [ i ] I. A. No. 2079/2007 [APPLICATION FOR
IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS] WITH [ ii ] I.A Nos. 2301-2302
[APPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS] AND [ iii ] I.A. Nos.
3044-3045 [APPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS] AND [ iv ]
I.A. Nos. 2771-2772 [APPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS]
AND [ v ] I.A.Nos. 111725 AND 154041/2018 [APPLICATIONS FOR
SUBSTITUTION OF APPLICANT, i.e. SMT. HOUSABAI HARIBHAU BHAIRAT AND
CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IN I.A.
NOS. 2771-2772/2009] WITH [ vi ] W.P.(C) NO. 301/2008 AND
[ 4 ] I. A. Nos. 1408, 1457, 1462, 1787, 1863-1864, 3453 WITH I. A.
No. 178808/2023 (APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME) AND I. A. No.
192984/2023 (APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS ) AND
[ 5 ] I.A. NO. 41723 OF 2022 [APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS] IN RE :
AMAN SINGH, RAJASTHAN AND
[ 6 ] I. A. NOS. 43616, 43618 AND 43621/2020 [APPLICATIONS FOR
INTERVENTION, DIRECTIONS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.] IN RE :
ABRAHAM ABRAHAM AND
[ 7 ] I.A. Nos. 2930/2010 AND 3963/2017 [APPLICATIONS FOR
DIRECTIONS AND PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS] WITH I.A.
No. 160714/2019 [APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIAL
TRANSLATION] AND I.A. No. 77320/2023 [APPLICATION FOR OBJECTION ON
BEHALF OF APPLICANT] AND I.A. No. 79064/2023 [APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
TO AMEND THE I.A. NO. 2930/2010 ] IN RE : M/S SHEWALKER DEVELOPERS
LTD AND
[ 8 ] [i] I.A. NO. 19010/2019 [APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS] WITH
85332 [ii] I.A. NO. 75982/2019 [APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T] WITH [iii] I.A. NO. 86706/2019 [APPLICATION FOR
Signature Not Verified
DIRECTIONS] WITH [iv] I.A. NO. 90640/2019 [APPLICATION FOR
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.02.24
PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS] WITH [v] I.A. NO. 122128
12:38:44 IST
Reason:
AND 122130/2019 [APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND EXEMPTION
FROM FI 10.01.2024 LING O.T.] FILED BY MR. NISHANT R.
1
KATNESHWARKAR, ADVOCATE WITH [vi] I.A. NO. 129260 AND 129264/2019
[APPLICATION FOR IMPLEADMENT AND DIRECTIONS] FILED BY MR. RAVINDRA
KESHAVRAO ADSURE, ADVOCATE] AND [vii] I.A. NO. 129279/2019
[APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION] FILED BY MR. GOPAL BALWANT SATHE,
ADVOCATE AND [viii] I.A. NOS. 150901 AND 150915/2019 [APPLICATIONS
FOR INTERVENTION AND DIRECTION FILED BY MS. MAYURI RAGHUVANSHI,
ADVOCATE IN RE : CONSERVATION ACTION TRUST, MAHARASHTRA AND
[ 9 ] I. A. NOS. 85332 AND 85124/2023 [APPLICATIONS FOR
INTERVENTION AND DIRECTIONS] IN RE : ROHIT CHOUDHARY AND
[ 10 ] I.A. NO. 12465/2019 [APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS] WITH I. A.
NO. 98194/2019 [APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS IN I.A. NO. 12465/2019] AND I. A. NO. 127871 AND
127874/2020 [APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION AND DIRECTIONS ] IN RE :
ZUDPI LANDS, STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND
[ 11 ] [i] CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 319 OF 2021 IN I. A. No.
90182 OF 2019 (DISPOSED OF) (APPLICTION FOR DIRECTIONS) WITH I. A.
No. 66719/2021 (APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING NOTORIZED
AFFIDAVIT) AND I. A. No. 140286/2023 (APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION
OF DELAY IN FILING CONTER AFFIDAVIT) WITH I. A. NOS. 197410 AND
197412/2023 (APPLICTIONS FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) IN RE : RAJAJI TIGER
RESERVE, UTTARAKHAND WITH [ii] I. A. No. 186910/2022 (CEC REPORT
NO. 30/2022 - REPORT OF CEC IN APPLN. NO. 1557/2022 FILED BEFORE IT
BY GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL) AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.
52187/2023 (APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) AND
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 197351/2023 AND 2665/2024
(APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO FILE AFFIDAVIT) IN RE : GAURAV
KUMAR BANSAL AND
[ 12 ] I.A. NOS. 263809 AND 263810/2023 (APPLICATIONS FOR
INTERVENTION AND PERMISSION TO FILE DIRECTIONS) IN RE : ANUJ
KAUSHAL & ANR. AND
[ 13 ] I. A. NO. 5891/2019 [APPLICATION FOR DIRECTIONS]
IN RE : COMPENSATORY AFFORESTATION MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
AUTHORITY (CAMPA) FUNDS ALONGWITH IN RE: STATUS OF FUNDS AND
[ 14 ] INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 42944/2019 [APPLICATION FOR
DIRECTIONS] IN RE : ILLEGAL/UNAUTHORIZED MINING IN KAZIRANGA
NATIONAL PARK, ASSAM WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 146755 AND
146756/2021 [APPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION AND STAY] AND
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 158973, 158975 AND 159054/2021
[APPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION, EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. AND
STAY] AND INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 28731, 28732 AND
28905/2022 [APPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION, EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T. AND MODIFICATION OF COURT’S ORDER DATED 12.04.2019] AND
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 41069 AND 41070/2022 [APPLICATIONS
FOR INTERVENTION AND EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.] AND INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION NO. 51917/2022 [APPLICATIONS FOR INTERIM STAY OF
DEMOLITION IN THE ANIMAL CORRIDORS IN KAZIRANGA NATIONAL PARK
DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPLICATION DIRECTIONS – I.A. NO.
42944/2022] IN RE : BHAB BARGOHAI & ORS. IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
NO. 202/1995
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 319/2021 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995
(IN I.A. NO. 90182 OF 2019 [ To be taken up along with WP(C) No.
2
202 of 1995 ]
IA No. 140286/2023 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING COUNTER
AFFIDAVIT, IA No. 66719/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 197412/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 197410/2023 - PERMISSION TO PLACE ADDITIONAL FACTS AND
GROUNDS)
SLP (c) No. 25047/2018 (XVI)
WITH
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 938/2021 in C.A. No. 12234-12235/2018 (XVII)
Date : 14-02-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. [A.C.] (Not Present)
Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate [A.C.] (Not Present)
Ms. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Advocate [A.C.] (Not Present)
Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, Advocate [A.C.]
Mr. K. Parameshwar, Advocate [A.C.]
Mr. M.V. Mukunda,Adv.
Ms. Arti Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Kanti,Adv.
Mr. Chinmay Kalgaonkar,Adv.
Ms. Raji Gururaj,Adv.
Counsel for parties
Petitioner-in-person
Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rao Ranjit, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Naphade,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar,Adv.
Ms. Salonee Paranjape,Adv.
Mr. B.K. Pal, Adv.
Mrs. Shefali Mitra, Adv.
Mr. S.K. Rai,Adv.
Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv.
Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Adv.
3
Ms. Sonal K. Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
For M/s. Mitter and Mitter Co.
Mr. Yashraj Singh Deora, Adv.
Mr. Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Sonal K. Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR
Dr. Aman Hingorani,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Yadav,Adv.
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad,Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari,Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande,Adv.
Mr. Bharat Bagla,Adv.
Mr. Sourav Singh,Adv.
Mr. Aditya Krishna,Adv.
Ms. Preet S. Phanse,Adv.
Ms. Yamini Singh,Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Dubey,Adv.
Mr. C. S. Ashri, Adv.
Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, Adv.
Mr. C. Giri,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Roy Abraham,Adv.
Ms. Reena Roy,Adv.
Mr. Adithya Koshy Roy,Adv.
Ms. Anju kanodiya,Adv.
Mr. Himinder Lal, Adv.
Mr. M. K. Michael, Adv.
Ms. Usha Nandini V., Adv.
Mr. G. Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv.
Mr. Siddharatha Jha, Adv.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR
Mr. James P. Thomas, AOR
Mr. Ravi Sagar, Adv.
Mr. K.K. Vinosh, Adv.
Mr. Remish Lakra, Adv.
4
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Shomona Khanna, Adv.
Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR
Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, Adv.
Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Adv.
Mr. Dama S. Naidu,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR
Mr. Animesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Kumar, Adv.
Mrs. Kshama Sharma, Adv.
Mr. A. Karthik,Adv.
Mr. Vishnu Pazhanganat,Adv.
Ms. Smrithi Suresh,Adv.
Ms. Gunjan Rathore,Adv.
Sreepriya K.,Adv.
Mr. Harsh Parashar, Adv.
Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
Ms. Ankeeta Appanna, Adv.
Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR
Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv.
Mr. Sagar N.pahune-patil, Adv.
Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Adv.
Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR
Ms. Mridula Ray Bhardwaj, Adv.
Ms. Shibani Ghosh, AOR
Mr. Rishad A Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Srishti Agnihotri,, Adv.
Petitoiner-in Person (Mr. Gaurav Kr. Bansal)
Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv.
Ms. Vidyottma Jha, Adv.
5
Mr. N.S. Nadkarni,Sr. Adv.
Mr. Atul Sharma, AOR
Mr. Vikas Negi, Adv.
Mr. S.S. Rebello,Adv.
Ms. Deepti Arya,Adv.
Arzu Paul,Adv.
Ms. Manisha Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Siddhant Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Rishikesh Haridas,Adv.
Ms. Gargi Kapoor,Adv.
Mr. Deep Rao Palepu,Adv.
Mr. Arjun Agarwal,Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary,Adv.
Ms. Tanvi,Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Dinesh C. Pandey, Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv.
Ms. Suhashini Sen, Adv.
Mr. S. S. Rebello, Adv.
Mr. Shyam Gopal, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.
Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Nimisha Menon, Adv.
Mr. Anshul Malik, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ayuushman Arora, Adv.
Mr. Nalin Kohli,Adv.
Ms. Ruchira Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Shishir Deshpande,Adv.
Ms. Swati Jain,Adv.
Ms. Harshita Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Pooja Tripathi,Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Kaushik Choudhury, Adv.
Mr. Saksham Garg,Adv.
Mr. Jyotirmoy Chatterjee,Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kr. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajnish Kumar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G.
6
Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Karan Bishnoi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A. NOS.157777 & 157782/2023 (ITEM NO.1)
1. The present application(s) raises two vital issues:-
i) As to whether mining activity can be allowed within ten kms. radius of any wetland which is a conservation reserve notified under Section 36(A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the said Act’), unless requisite wildlife clearance/permission for the same has been obtained by the project proponents from the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife and/or Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India (for short, ‘MoEF&CC’).
ii) As to whether there should be a complete ban to the mining activities within a radius of one km from the conservation areas and community reserves, as has been directed by this Court insofar as the area within a radius of one km.
from the National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries by the orders dated 26th April 2023 and 28th April 2023.
7
2. The concept of conservation reserves, has been introduced by the 2003 Amendment, when the Parliament inserted Section 36A in the said Act. A perusal of the said section would reveal that the purpose of declaring any area owned by the Government, which are adjacent to the National Parks and Sanctuaries and those areas which link one protected area with another, as conservation reserve is for protecting landscapes, seascapes, flora and fauna and their habitat. By the said amendment, by way of insertion of Section 36C of the said Act, the State Government, where the community or individual has volunteered to conserve, has also been empowered to declare any private or community land not comprised within the National Parks and sanctuaries as a community reserve for protecting flora, fauna and traditional or cultural conservation values and practices.
3. Insofar as the conservation reserves are concerned the provisions as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 18, sub- sections (2), (3), (4) of Section 27, Sections 30 and 32 and clauses (b) and (c) of Section 33 of the said Act shall as far as may apply in relation to a conservation reserve as they apply in relation to a sanctuary. Similarly, insofar as community reserves are concerned, the aforesaid provisions would also apply to the community reserves.
4. By the very said amendment, ‘protected area’ has been defined under sub-section (24A) of Section 2 of the said Act. Protected area means a National Park, a sanctuary, a conservation reserve or a community reserve notified under Sections 18, 35, 36A and 36C of 8 the said Act.
5. No doubt that Tiger Reserves are not included in the definition of the protected area. However, it is to be noted that the concept of Tiger Reserves was introduced by insertion of Chapter IVB of the said Act, which was brought into effect from 4 th September 2006. Under the said Chapter, supremacy was vested in the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) insofar as the management of the Tiger Reserves is concerned.
6. The perusal of Section 38XA of the said Act would reveal that the provisions contained in Chapter IVB were in addition to the provisions already contained, insofar as sanctuaries and national parks are concerned.
7. Prima facie we are of the view that the conservation parks, reserves and the community reserves are for the purpose of providing corridors which connect one sanctuary, National Park to another.
8. Prima facie we also see that at least in an area within a radius of one km. from such conservation reserve and community reserve, mining activity should not be permitted.
9. However, since this issue involves various stakeholders, we find it appropriate that the MoEF&CC engages in a wide based consultation with all the stakeholders and comes out with a proposal in that regard.
10. We, therefore, grant eight weeks time to the Union of India to hold discussions with various stakeholders including States/Union Territories and recommend suggestions in that regard.
11. However, insofar as the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve is 9 concerned there is already a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttrakhand dated 2nd July 2015. The High Court has issued following directions:-
“8. ....We would direct the additional respondent No.12, in association with an officer to be deputed by the District Magistrate, who is familiar with surveying, to measure the distance of the property of respondent Nos.4,5,6,7,8 and 9 from the boundary of “Assan Wetland Conservation Reserve” and if it is found that it is beyond ten kilometers, we further direct that the respondent Nos.4 to 8 will be free to carry on the mining as per law.”
9. As far as the 9th respondent also is concerned, unless it is found that the distance is within 10 Kms, the 9th respondent will be free to continue to mine as per law; whereas if it is found that it is within 10 Kms., as we have prima facie found in respect of respondent Nos. 4 to 8, if it is within 10 Kms., the mining will not be allowed to be carried out by the 2nd respondent……”
12. The said order came to be challenged before this Court. This Court disposed of the special leave petition as withdrawn with liberty to file a review application/petition before the High Court. Liberty was also granted to approach this Court again in 10 case the review failed. Subsequently, in view of the liberty granted, review came to be filed before the High Court which also came to be dismissed on 12th January 2017. Indisputably, the order passed in the review petition has not been challenged before this Court.
13. Therefore, by way of interim order we direct that no mining activities would be carried out within ten kms. radius of the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve without the project proponent obtaining permission from the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife and/or MoEF&CC.
14. The additional reason that weighs with us in issuing this direction is due to the importance given to the said Wetlands, which was declared to be Ramsar Site under the Ramsar Convention.
15. List on 08.05.2024.
I.A. NOS.37666, 37670 and 37679/2020 & I.A. NO.41723/2022 (ITEM NO.2 & 5)
1. List on 04.03.2024.
2. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed in the meantime. I.A. NOS.2079/2007, 2301-02/2008, 3044-45, 111725 AND 154041 OF 2018 with I.A. NO.2771-72/2009 AND W.P. NO.301/2008 ITEM NO.3 List on 08.05.2024.
I.A. NOS.1408, 1457, 1462, 1787, 1863-64, 3453, 178808/23 AND 192984/23 & I.A.NOS.10936/24 & 10949/2024 (ITEM NO.4)
1. List on 03.04.2024.
11
2. As prayed, an affidavit be filed within a period of two weeks. I.A. NOS.43616, 43618 & 43261/2020 (ITEM NO.6)
1. The present application(s) for direction has been filed for the following directions:-
“i) Direct the Respondents 1 to 9 to take immediate and effective action to prohibit all illegal activities, which may further degrade the government land (Purambokku land) in the Chethakkal Village, Ranny Taluk of Pathanamthitta district of Kerla state in survey no 781/1-1 of the Pazhavangadi Panchayat.
ii) Direct the Respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 not to issue NOC for quarrying and mining activities in the government land (Purambokku land) in the Chethakkal village in Ranny Taluk, of Pathanamthitta district of Kerala state in survey no 781/1-1 of the Pazhavangadi Panchayath without conducting proper Environmental Impact Assessment.
iii) Direct Respondent No.2 and 4 to restore and conserve the government land and protect the same from illegal mining and deforestation and to take steps to compensate from the culprits after 12 conducting an enquiry by a team constituted by this Hon’ble Court.
iv) Direct the Respondent No.3 to properly investigate the role of Respondent No.10 in the crime and file a final report in a time period fixed by this Hon’ble Court.”
2. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the allegations in the I.A. with regard to the illegal granite stone quarrying so also felling of trees from reserved forests are found to be true.
3. In the affidavit it is also stated that the land conservancy case is registered against respondent No.12 therein for illegal trespassing and cutting and removal of trees from revenue Purambokku land.
4. It has further been found that the value of the trees which were felled has been undervalued by the forest department. Reassessed value of 500 trees is found at Rs. 72,90,546/- by the Forest Department. A disciplinary action has been recommended against the staff of the forest department.
5. An offence has been registered for violation of Section 27 (1)
(e) (iii) & (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 against three accused. The reply further states that the vehicles involved in the offence were also confiscated under Section 61(A) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.
6. The reply further states that the Divisional Forest Officer, 13 who had issued NOC was also placed under suspension and disciplinary action for major penalty has been initiated against him. So also, charges were framed against Range Forest Officer, three Deputy Range Forest Officers and the other staff members.
7. The reply further asserts that in an inquiry conducted by the Committee the area where the tree felling happened has been found to be reserved forest, which is required to be protected and managed by the Kerala Forest Department.
8. The reply further states that am amount of Rs.18,40,290/- which is remitted as penalty by respondent no.10 therein has been directed to be treated as a revenue deposit.
9. The statements made in the affidavit are taken on record. We only hope that the respondent/State of Kerala shall take the criminal as well as the departmental proceedings to their logical end.
10. I.As. are disposed of.
I.A. NOS.19010/19, 75982/19, 86706/19, 90640/19, 122128 & 122130/19, 129260 & 129264/19, 129279/19, 150901 & 150915/19 (Item no. 7)
1. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant in I.A. No.19010/2019 states that the affidavit in reply on behalf of the State/Respondent No.2 has been received by her yesterday evening and the applicant would like to file its objection to the said affidavit.
2. The same shall be done within two weeks from today.
3. List all these applications on 04.03.2024. 14 I.A. NOS.85124 AND 85332/2023 (ITEM NO.8)
1. Shri Nalin Kohli learned counsel appearing for the State seeks two weeks’ time to make a statement as to in how much time the actual demarcation of the boundary of the Pobitora WLS, as per Notification dated 17th March 1998, would be completed.
2. It is really surprising that though the Wildlife Sanctuary was notified in the year 1998, for a period of 25 years even the boundaries are not demarcated.
3. We hope that the State will consider the issue with urgency that it requires. We may put the State on notice that the failure to do so would entail serious consequences.
4. List on 11.03.2024.
I.A. NO.5891/2019 (ITEM NO. 9)
1. Prayer in the I.A. is to the effect that ad hoc arrangements made for utilization of CAMPA Fund be replaced by statutory mechanism, would no more survive, inasmuch as the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016 has been enacted on 3 rd August 2016. The said Act takes care of all the issues concerning the distribution and utilization of the CAMPA fund. A perusal of the preamble itself would show that the Act has been enacted as a consequence of various orders passed by this Court in the present proceedings from time to time.
2. However, the learned Amicus states that though 90% of the CAMPA Fund has been distributed to the States/Union Territories, some of the States/Union Territories have not utilized any amount 15 for the last three years.
3. We, therefore, find that it will be appropriate that the MoEF&CC places data on record with regard to the utilization of the funds by various States/Union Territories. If it is found that any of the State Governments/Union Territories are not utilizing the funds for the stated purposes, necessary directions in that regard could be issued.
4. List on 08.05.2024.
IA NO.42944/19 WITH I.A. NOS.146755 & 146756/2021, 158973, 158975 AND 159054/21, 28731, 28732, 28905/22, 41069, 41070 & 51917/2022 (Item no.10) List on 11.03.2024.
I.A. NO.263809 AND 263810 OF 2023 (Item 11)
1. The present IAs have been filed by the applicant seeking a direction to the Respondent No.1 MoEF&CC to consider the proposal submitted by Res. No.2-State of Punjab and issue the final notification declaring an area of 100 meters in the State of Punjab as Eco Sensitive Zone (ESZ) surrounding Sukhna Wildlife Century. The applicant has also prayed for quashing the communication dated 21st July 2023 issued by Respondent No.6 and 12 th September 2023 of the respondent No.7 insisting on treating an area of 10 kms. as ESZ pending issuance of requisite notification of declaration of ESZ. It is the contention of the applicant that the said communications are based on erroneous understanding of the judgment dated 26th April 2023 passed by this Court.
2. No doubt this Court in its judgment dated 26th April 2023 has 16 clarified that the ESZs for protected areas would be area specific and there cannot be any hard and fast rule of having a uniform ESZ for the entire country.
3. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India, submits that the State of Haryana has agreed for ESZ of one km. Insofar as Chandigarh is concerned, ESZ varies between 2 to 2.75 km. from the boundary of the protected area.
4. However, insofar as State of Punjab is concerned they have only proposed ESZ of 100 mtrs., from the boundary of the protected area. We are prima facie of the view that providing such a small area as ESZ would be detrimental to the environmental and ecological interest, inasmuch as the protected area is a water body.
5. In any case, even in ESZ areas various activities are permitted. Some of the activities are regulated and some of the activities are prohibited.
6. Insofar as the applicant’s grievance regarding non-granting of permission for his single residential house/farmhouse is concerned, prima facie we do not find that such an activity would come in the prohibited category.
7. We therefore request the State of Punjab to reconsider the issue and send a fresh proposal to the Union of India. In any case, the Union of India will have to take a call as to what should be the ESZ area even from Punjab side, taking into consideration all the factors including the environmental and ecological aspects.
8. List on 08.05.2024.
17
SLP(C) No.25047/2018 (Item no.12)
1. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 8 th February 2023, the Central Government after holing due deliberation with all the stakeholders including the representative of the concerned State Governments/Union Territories have come out with a unified proposal for consideration of the report of the Experts on the subject of compensatory conservation in India.
2. Ms. Bhati, learned ASG states that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the proposal has already been finalized. The proposal finds that some of the aspects covered by the present regime need to be continued and some of the aspects need to be added. However, since the said proposal has been received by the learned Amicus only today, it would be appropriate that we consider this aspect on a subsequent date.
3. List on 24.7.2024.
C.P.(C) NO.938/2021 IN C.A. NO.12234-35/2018 (ITEM NO.13)
1. Shri Parikh, learned senior counsel submits that though vide order dated 4th February 2015 this Court had specifically directed that the No Objection Certificate for the conversion of any plot that has natural vegetation with tree canopy density in excess of 0.1 and an area above 1 hectare should not be granted, the respondent, in contravention of the orders passed by this Court, have given permission for felling 2670 trees.
2. Shri Nalin Kohli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Goa, submits that the State has not granted any permission 18 for conversion of the land. However, the permission was granted for felling of the trees under Goa Preservation of Trees Act, 1984. He submits that compensatory afforestation has already been done.
3. Shri Deep Rao, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6, submits that on account of pendency of the I.A./petition filed by Respondent No.6, the project was shifted to another site. It is submitted that now since the land is not required for the project, the land has been handed over to the State Government for compensatory afforestation and the CAMPA fund has also been deposited with the State Government.
4. We expect the State Government to file an affidavit in this regard within a period of six weeks from today.
5. List on 08.05.2024.
I.A. NO.2930/2010, 3963/17, 160714/19, 77320/23 AND 79064/23 (ITEM NO.16) List on 04.03.2024.
I.A. NOS.8155, 8156 & 8157 OF 2024 (ITEM NO.14) List on 13.03.2024.
I.A. NOS.12465/19, 98194/19, 127871/20 & 127874/2020 (ITEM NO.17)
1. It appears that there are certain small issues which can be resolved by the CEC, the representative of the State Government and the representative of the MoEF&CC sitting together.
2. It is not in dispute that any view with regard to Zudpi Jungle lands issue will have large scale ramifications. 19
3. We therefore, request the CEC to have a joint meeting with representative of State Government, MoEF&CC and come with a fresh report.
4. List on 08.05.2024 CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 319 OF 2021 IN I. A. No. 90182 OF 2019 (DISPOSED OF) WITH I. A. No. 66719/2021 AND I. A. No. 140286/2023 WITH I. A. NOS. 197410 AND 197412/2023 IN RE : RAJAJI TIGER RESERVE, UTTARAKHAND WITH I. A. No. 186910/2022 AND I.A.NO. 52187/2023, I.A.NOS. 197351/2023 AND 2665/2024 IN RE : GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL List after the judgment is pronounced in I.A. No. 20650/2023 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995.
CEC STAFFING ISSUE List on 26.02.2024.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANJU KAPOOR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
20