SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- B.N. Kirpal, V.N. Khare and M.B. Shah, JJ.

Item Nos. 1B, 1B1, 1B2, 1B3, 1F and 1G in I. A. Nos. 421, 548, 276 and etc in W. P. (C) No. 202 of 1995. D/d. 3.4.2000.

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad - Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others - Respondents

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 - Environment Protection - Forest area - Permission for mining activities granted by the Court on the condition to carry out compensatory forestation - Government failed to monitor and see whether said condition fulfilled - Court issuing show cause notice as to why mining operations should not be ordered to be immediately suspended.

[Paras 5 and 6]

ORDER

I.A. No. 421.

It is stated that the Amicus Curiae would be moving a substantive application for re-constitution of the HPC. On request made on his behalf, adjourned to 17th April, 2000. I. A. No. 548

2. Response of only 9 Statutes/Union Territories has been filed. Replies by the other States/Union Territories be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on 1st May, 2000.

3. In clarification of our Order dated 14th February, 2000, on representation being made on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, it is clarified that the said interim order will have no application in so far as plucking and collection of tendu leaves is concerned.

I.A. No. 276

4. It is stated oh behalf of the Union of India that the Survey Report has been received. Copies will be made and given to the Amicus Curiae as well as to the State of Karnataka who may file their response within two weeks. To come up on 1st May, 2000.

I.A. Nos. 419 and 420

5. From the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of Ministry of Environment and Forests, it is evident that only 10 per cent of afforestation which was required to be done by the NMDC has been carried out. It is represented that the rest of the afforestation is required to be carried out in an area which is not within the immediate vicinity of the mines. In our opinion, that is no excuse for not carrying out the compensatory afforestation. If the conditions for grant of the mining lease are not fulfilled, there is no reason as to why NMDC should be permitted to carry on with the mining operations. This aspect should, in fact, have been overseen by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. After grant of such permissions, we expect the said Ministry to monitor and see whether the conditions stipulated by them have been fulfilled or not rather than to leave it to the Court to point out that the conditions contained in letters granting permissions have not been fulfilled. The Ministry of Environment has clearly been remiss in this respect.

6. Now it has come to the notice of this Court that the conditions stipulated in the permission which was granted have not been carried out. The NMDC is required to show cause why their mining operations should not be ordered to be suspended forthwith.

7. Copy of this order be served on the Advocate-on-Record for the NMDC.

8. To come up on 17th April, 2000 by which time the reply should be filed by the NMDC.

I.A. No. 512

9. Along with the additional affidavit of Shri Narendra Kumar on behalf of the M.P. Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd., are Annexures A-6 and A-7. Annexure A-6 contains the details of the forest produce which is to be sold by public auction and which requires interdistrict transport. The produce referred to therein consist of 60013 cubic metres of timber and 71220 fuel stacks. In Annexure A-7 are the details of sold material requiring inter-district transport.

10. It is represented by Shri Mukul Rohtagi, ASG appearing on behalf of applicant-Nigam that the functioning of the said Nigam is to take up the degraded forests, raise plantations and then dispose of the produce as per the working plans. It is in this way that large quantity of forest produce is lying in the various depots of the Nigam, some of which have been sold and some of which have not been sold.

11. With the concurrence of the Amicus Curiae as well as the counsel for the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the said Nigam is permitted to sell and/or transport the quantity of various produce specified in Annexure A-6 and also to effect inter-district or out-of-State movement of the timber and fuel stacks referred to in Annexure A-7 of the said additional affidavit.

12. List on 17th April 1,2000.

I.A. No. 513

13. Additional affidavit has been filed on 29th March, 2000 of Mr. N. K. Bhagat, Conservator of Forests. In paragraph 4, details have been given of the unsold material laying in the depots of the State of Madhya Pradesh. Paragraph 5 contains the figures and particulars of the sold and fully or partly paid material which are also lying in the depots of the State. With the consent of the Amicus Curiae as well as counsel for the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the State of Madhya Pradesh is permitted to sell, remove and transport the material referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said additional affidavit. Similar permission is also granted for the removal and transportation of the fuel wood stated to be lying in the depots of the State.

14. List on 17th April, 2000.

I.A. No. 514

15. List on 17th April, 2000.

I.A. No. 516

16. Let the Union of India file a reply.

17. List on 24th April, 2000.

18. In the Order dated 13th January, 2000 permission had been granted for the rubber wood to be imported on being certified by the Collector. It is obvious that the term 'Collector' mentioned in the said order does not mean that the Collector himself is to certify: It means that a person duly authorised by the Collector would be entitled to certify and the applications in this regard will always have to be made before the Collector. It goes without saying that the ultimate responsibility will be of the Collector himself.

I.A. Nos. 520 and 521

19. Reply by the Ministry of Environment and Forests be filed.

20. To come up on 24th April, 2000.

I.A. No. 539

21. List on 24th April, 2000.

IA. No. 500

22. List along with I.A. No. 513 on 17th April, 2000.

I.A. Nos. 530 and 531

23. List on 17th April, 2000.

I.A. Nos. 535-536

24. List on 24th April, 2000.

I.A. No. 217

25. The State of Assam should file a reply within two weeks. To come up on 24th April, 2000.

I.A. No. 428

26. To come up on 24th April, 2000.

I.A. No. 471

27. Issue notice to the Union of India and the State of U.P. returnable on 17th April, 2000.

I.A. No. 549

28. Issue notice to the Amicus Curiae, the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh returnable on 24th April, 2000.

I.A. Nos. 546-547

29. Counsel for the applicant states that the prayers made in these applications stand allowed in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court and, therefore, he wishes to withdraw these applications. IAs are dismissed as withdrawn.

I.A. No. 557

30. I. A. is dismissed.

I.A. Nos. 558 and 559

31. Issue notice for 10th April, 2000.

32. In IA 424 : CBI should file its response to the affidavit of Shri Santosh Bharati dated 11th March, 2000 which are objections to the Report of the CBI. To come up on 24th April, 2000.

33. IAs relating to U.P. and North Eastern areas (Nos. to be given by the learned Amicus Curiae) be listed on 10th April, 2000.

Order accordingly.