Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—

Section 21/22—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 25/26—Consent to operate—Application for—Rejection—Petition—Maintainability—Not so exceptional a situation so as to al­low writ court to intervene by exercising its extraordinarily high pre­rogative discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution—Statutory alternative remedy available to petitioner in respect of orders impugned—He is always at liberty to approach statutory appellate authority—Direction issued—Petition dis­missed., 2019 FLT (9) (Alld., H.C.) 900

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—

—Section 31—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 33-A and 33-B—Air and water pollution—Show cause notice challenged—Violation of natural justice claimed—Hence, the present writ petition—Held, petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing appeal to National Green Tribunal—Order impugned did not disclose the specific violations of Act concerned—Order impugned set aside—Petitioner would be given opportunity to reply to show cause—Writ petition disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (Bom., H.C.) 188

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—

—Sections 31 and 31B—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 28 and 33-B—National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Section 16—An appeal would lie from an order or deci­sion of the Appellate Authority under section 28 of the Water Act to the N.G.T. only under section 33-B (a) of the Water Act read with section 16 (a) of the N.G.T. Act—Similarly, an appeal would lie from an order or decision of the Appellate Authority under section 31 of the Air Act to the N.G.T. only under section 31-B of the Air Act read with section 16 (f) of the N.G.T. Act—N.G.T’s. jurisdiction being strictly circumscribed by section 33-B of the Water Act, read with section 31-B of the Air Act, read with section 16 (a) and (f) of the N.G.T. Act, would make it clear that it is only orders or decisions of the Appellate Authority that are appealable, and not original orders—Appeals are disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 697

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—

—Sections 31 (a), 17 and 21—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1971—Sections 17 and 25/26—Industrial plant of petitioner was directed to be closed by Chairman, Bihar State Pollution Control Board—Hence, the present writ petition—Held, inspection team found that the plant was situ­ated within habitation and noise level was found beyond the toler­ance limit causing air and noise pollution—Show-cause notice was not replied by the petitioner—Petitioner also did not file affidavit seeking ‘No Objection Certificate’—Plant was found within resi­dential area—No illegality in the order impugned—Writ application dismissed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Pat., H.C.) 661

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—

—Section 37—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 244(1)—Environmental laws—Violation by petitioner company—New unit was

 

started without consent of Pollution Control Board—Learned Magistrate rejected discharge application and charges were de­cided to be framed—Hence, the present revision by petitioners—Held, without consent of Pollution Control Board, petitioner com­pany operated new plant—Discharge application was rightly re­jected—Criminal revision dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Ker., H.C.) 212

Air Pollution—

Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989—Rule 115 (16), (21)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 21—Sale and registration of emission standard Bharat Stage-IV motor vehicles—Extension of period of registration upto 30.9.2020—A comparison of BS-VI fuel with BS-IV fuel shows massive improvement in environment test—Once BS-VI emission norms are introduced—There will be 68% improvement in P.M. 2.5—Problem of pollution not limited to NCR of Delhi but of entire country especially in the major cities—Situation alarming and critical—Necessary to ensure BS-VI compliance uni­formly throughout the country—Even a day’s delay in enforcing BS-VI norms going to harm the health of the people—Sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 is very vague—It does not talk of sale of vehicle but only mentions registration of the vehicle conforming to BS-IV norms up to 30.6.2020—Any extension of time in introducing the new norms not only adversely impacts the health of the citizens but is also vi­olative of Article 21 of the Constitution—Need of the hour is to move to a cleaner fuel as early as possible—Sub-rule 21 of Rule 115 read down in exer­cise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution—It shall be interpreted and understood to read that no motor vehicle conform­ing to emission standard Bharat Stage-IV shall be sold or regis­tered in the entire country w.e.f. 1.4.2020—Writ Petition disposed of as such. , 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 1

Air Pollution—

—Indiscriminate use of firecrackers—Air quality monitoring conducted by C.P.C.B. shows that air quality worsened during Diwali—Actual P.M. 2.5 mass concentrations increased due to firecrackers bursting—Bursting of fire crackers during Diwali not the only reason for deterioration of the air quality—But defi­nitely it contributes to air pollution in a significant way—In envi­ronmental law “precautionary principle” well recognized principle followed to save the environment—”Precautionary Principle” and “Polluter Pays Principle” part of environment law of the country—Plea that burning of crackers during Diwali is part of religious practice—Article 25 of the Constitution of India is subject to Article 21—If a particular religious practice threatening the health and lives of people—Such practice not entitled to protection of Article 25—Short term measures/actions proposed by the Ministry of Environment to tackle pollution problem occurring due to fire crackers during Diwali—Strike a nice balance between the two competing interests—Suggestions given by Union of India ac­cepted—Specific direction with regard to production, sale and bursting of crackers on the occasion of Diwali and on other festivals issued—Writ petitions directed to be listed on 11.12.2018., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 93

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991—

Massive construction without obtaining statutory permission from M.C.Z. M.A.—Allegation that construction was being done between the High Tide Line and Law Tide Line—Hence the present application—Held, the google images showed the structures surrounding the site in question—These structures were also visible in google images in the year 2002—In year 2000 there was a letter of Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Bombay regarding clear­ance—Clearance appeared to be in accord with the MoEF and C.C. Guidelines—Project had also obtained E.C. on 28.6.2016—Allegation of petitioner found to be incorrect—Application dis­missed., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 564

Confiscation of Vehicle—

Black Granite—Transportation of—Without valid permit—Penalty imposed—Lorry owner not given sufficient opportunity—Lorry of petitioner-respondent seized by Tehsildar—District Collec­tor directed petitioner to pay certain sum as penalty—Single Judge set aside the order and remanded the matter to Director—No notice issued to owner of granite—Order of Single Judge confirmed—Mines and Minerals (D&R) Act, 1957—Section 4 (1-A)—T.N. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959—Rule 36-A., 2019 FLT (9) (Mad., H.C.) 493

Confiscation of Vehicle—

—Orissa Forest Act, 1972—Sections 2 (g) and 56—Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980-—Rule 4—Seizure of tractor and trolley alongwith seized forest produce—Order of confiscation passed by opposite party No. 1 was confirmed by learned District Judge in appeal—Hence, the present petition—Held, seized items were being carried without any T.T. permit—Petitioner did not have any transit permit under Rule 4 of Rules, 1980—Allegation that nine pieces of sal seized were kept in the tractor by the villagers in enmity was without any foundation—Petitioner being owner was also responsible for the act committed by his agent or servant—Petition failed—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Ori., H.C.) 215

Confiscation of Vehicle—

—Orissa Forest Act, 1972—Sections 27 (2) and 56—Seizure of tractor and trolley—By Forest Officer—Order of Authorized Officer challenged in appeal—Learned District Judge dismissed the F.A.O.—Hence the present petition—Held, the petitioner was not found involved in the offence—The incident that had taken place was also not within his knowledge—Direction to release tractor and trolley—Petition allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Ori., H.C.) 522

Constitution of India, 1950—

Article 226—Constitutional valid­ity of legislation—Challenge to—Constitutional validity of a legisla­tion—Can be questioned only on limited grounds—First ground : lack of legislative competent and second : amendment infringes fundamental right and other rights conferred by the Constitution., 2019 FLT (9) (Kant., H.C.) 797

Constitution of India, 1950—

—Article 226—Mining work—Petitioner unable to work for a period of 4 months 20 days without his fault—Present writ petitioner to get exemption from paying set­tlement amount for that period—Held, during the period in

 

question, the petitioner was unable to do mining work due to the restriction imposed by State Government in compliance of the order of Hon’ble Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata—Petitioner entitled for exemption from paying settlement amount—Writ petition allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Pat., H.C.) 886

Constitution of India, 1950—

—Article 226—National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Section 22—Scope and ambit of—Direction of Division Bench of the N.G.T. to the Forest authorities including the Collector and Principal Chief Secretary to take steps to remove all the encroachments on the forest lands within there weeks and resititute the environment—Subsequent order of Judicial Member for compliance of earlier order—Challenged under writ jurisdiction—Maintainability of—Perusal of records—Petitioner filed a civil suit for the same cause of action—Not succeeded in getting any relief—Contention raised that orders were passed without hearing him—It is always open to the peti­tioner to approach the Division Bench of N.G.T. and seek appropri­ate relief—Further statutory remedy of an appeal under section 22 of the N.G.T. Act was also available to him—Petition dismissed as alternative remedy is available to the petitioner., 2019 FLT (9) (Bom., H.C.) 431

Constitution of India, 1950—

—Article 226—Powers of Court to decide and conclusively determine the rights of the parties under—Once these rights have been determined after hearing of the inter­ested parties at length—Then permitting withdrawal of the writ pe­tition will not be in the interest of public as it may lead to multiplicity of litigation—Petitioner being subsequent purchasers af­ter issuance of notifications under section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 has no locus—Prayer for withdrawal of writ petition declined—Petitions dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.-G.B.) 400

Constitution of India, 1950—

—Articles 226 and 14—Constitutional validity of legislation—Challenged on ground of viola­tion of Article 14—This ground available only in case of manifest arbitrariness., 2019 FLT (9) (Kant., H.C.) 797

Constitution of India, 1950—

—Articles 323-A and 323—National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Sections 14 and 29—Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985—Sections 14 and 28—The N.G.T. is not a Tribunal set up either under Article 323-A or Article 323-B of the Constitution, but is a statutory Tribunal set up under the N.G.T. Act—Such a Tribunal does not exercise the jurisdiction of all Courts except the Supreme Court is clear from a reading of sec­tion 29 of the N.G.T. Act—Thus, a conjoint reading of section 14 and section 29 of the N.G.T. Act must be contrasted with a conjoint reading of section 14 and section 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985—Appeals are disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 698

Encroachment—

Of government land and water bodies—School authorities raised compound wall, encroached area and perma­nent structure raised—With intention to grab Government land—Water bodies and water resources to be protected by State—There cannot be any encroachments of such water bodies—School au­thorities further encroached land in tank-bed area—Encroachments to be removed without any leniency or any mis­placed sympathy—Hence order passed by District Collector for removal of encroachments in Government land stands confirmed—T. N. Land Encroachment Act, 1905., 2019 FLT (9) (Mad., H.C.) 509

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—

Sections 3 (2), 5, 23 and 25—Plastics Manufacture, Sale and Usage Rules, 1999—Ban prayed on the sale and one time use/ throw away plastic items and carry bags—Writ petition filed with the prayer that there should be a law made by State Legislature as was in State of Kerala—Held, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, in exercise of the power conferred by section 23 of Act, 1986 delegated the power under section 5 of Act to the various State Governments including Tamil Nadu—State Government had also issued Notification under sec­tion 5 of Act giving absolute power of prohibition of any Industry, closure or its regulation—Legal issue raised by the petitioner was covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. M.V. Nayudu—No merits in the petition—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Mad., H.C.-M.B.) 351

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—

—Section 3 (2) (1) (v)—Coastal Zone Notification, 2011—Clause 4 (ii) (j) (D)—Environmental and C.R.Z. clearance—Granted by Central Govern­ment for construction of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Memorial in the Arabian Sea—Order of Central Government dated 23.2.2015 and Notification dated 17.2.2015 amending the clause 4 (ii) (j) (D) of Notification, 2011 were challenged to be illegal—Hence the in­stant P.I.L.—Held, the Central Government after following due pro­cedure and after considering objections and suggestions, issued Notification dated 17.2.2015—Clause (D) of Notification dated 17.2.2015 conferred power on the Central Government to dis­pense with the requirement of public hearing if satisfied that the project would not involve rehabilitation and resettlement of public or the project site was located away from human habitation—Incorporation of clause (D) did not appear to be invalid or ille­gal—No merits in the P.I.L.—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Bom., H.C.) 335

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—

—Section 5—Environment (Protection) Rules 1986—Rule 4 and Notification No. 157 (E) dated 27.2.1996 and S.O. 730 (E) dated 10.7.2002—Quashing of order—Petition for—Petitioner doing work of production of Bee Hive Hard Coke—Direction issued to him for closing down his unit and its operations with immediate effect—Sustainability of—Respondent No. 2 before passing direction impugned, neither provided an opportunity of hearing to petitioner—Nor recorded reason in writing for waiving same on ground of likelihood of grave injury to environment—Thus, respondent No. 2 passed impugned order in violation of procedure laid down under Rule 4 of Rules, 1986—Impugned order quashed—Matter remanded with direction—Petition disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 23

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—

—Section 5—National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Sections 29 and 5—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 226 and 227—Writ petition—Alternative remedy—Impugned order passed by Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority under section 5 of Act 1986—Directing the petitioner to remove rooms unauthorisedly constructed within “No Development Zone”—Alternative remedy lies before National Green Tribunal—Hence writ petition is not tenable before the High Court.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Bom., H.C.-G.B.) 129

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—

—Section 15—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 21—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 379—Quashing of F.I.R.—Proclane Machine and Dumper of petitioner were seized—Prayer rejected—Hence, the present petition–Held, departmental authorities were proceeding with the case—After filing of charge-sheet or otherwise the matter of cognizance by the Court would arise—On the pretext that the police authorities were not competent to investigate the offence under section 379, I.P.C. also could not be a ground to quash F.I.R. at the preliminary investigation stage—No merits in the petition—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (MP., H.C.-G.B.) 244

Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986—

Rule 3, Schedule 1 to IV—Air pollution and water pollution—Schedules framed under Rule 3 lay down very stringent parameters to check air pollution and water pollution—State Government can prescribe more strin­gent provisions than provided by Central Government—Guidelines mentioned therein to be followed by State Pollution Control Board—Since Schedules of Rules, 1986 not being complied with in letter and spirit—Therefore, Central Pollution Control Board directed to be impleaded as party in writ—Accordingly newly added respon­dent directed to inspect each and every industry in State of Uttarakhand to see whether norms laid down in Acts being complied with and to submit report to this Court—Ordered accordingly., 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 71

Environment and Ecology—

Prayer to bring back the flow of satrong river to its original course—Due to change of flow of river various villages were facing damages and destruction of proper­ties—Water Resources Department had prepared a project at esti­mated cost of R 5 Crores for the closure of breach of the embank­ment and to divert the river to its original course—A High Powered Committee also formed to make on the spot study of the ground realities—Being satisfied with the actions of the department no need to continue the present Public Interest Litigation—P.I.L. closed., 2019 FLT (9) (Gau., H.C.) 777

Environment and Ecology—

—Public Interest Litigation—Petition filed to conserve and preserve Bugyal (Alpine meadows) situated below the area of Roopkund in District Chamoli—Also to remove the permanent structure/ construction of fibre huts by the Forest Department and to stop commercial grazing in area of Bugyals—State Government not taken any effective steps to con­serve and preserve the world famous Bugyals/Meadows in the District of Chamoli—Construction of Fibre huts in Bugyals causing irreparable damage to the environment and ecology of the area—No camping activity should be permitted—Bugyals are eco-sys­tem in themselves—Duty cast upon the State Government to protect and improve environment and to safeguard the forests and the wild-life of the country—State Government directed to remove all the permanent structures from the Alpine Meadows including Aali-Bedini-Bagzi Bugyals and to constitute Eco-Development Committees—To restrict the number of tourists visiting the Alpine Meadows—Not to allow permanent structures—To ban overnight stay in the

 

Alpine Meadows and commercial grazing of cattle—District Magistrates directed to ensure removal of plastic water bottles, cans etc. from there—No encroachment to be allowed—Encroachments, already made to be removed—All pending applications disposed of accordingly.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 34

Environment and Ecology—

—Public Interest Litigation—Proposal for cutting down large numbers of trees—Petition against—Forest Department, an expert body, knows which will be healthy tree or which tree poses threat—Which tree re­quires pruning and topping—Forest Department has responsibility to ensure not to cut down healthy trees—If at any point of time any tree in a healthy condition cut down otherwise than for public pur­pose—It shall be open for any person to lodge complaint against violator—Further, Act by itself provides that if a tree is cut as a replacement 10 more trees to be planted by Forest De­partment—Therefore, no requirement to continue with P.I.L.—Disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (Megh., H.C.) 69

Environmental Clearance—

Construction of Dam on River Yamuna—Project named Vyasi Hydro Electric Project (H.E.P.)—Bifurcation of original project later on into Lakhawar and Vyasi H.E.P.—Construction of Vyasi H.E.P. transferred to N.H.P.C. and E.C. was granted on 7.9.2007—Subsequently E.C. transferred to Uttarakhand Jal Vidyuut Nigam (U.J.V.N.L.)—State Government requested to M.o.E.F. to grant exemption from obtaining fresh E.C.—Applicants raised objection that exemption granted would not be proper on the ground of disaster of 2013 and the findings of a study conducted by a noted Geologist—Hence the present applica­tion by applicants—Held, a direction to the E.A.C. to appraise the project afresh in terms of E.I.A. Notification 2006 while imposing general and specific conditions—Till the project was to be reappraised the status quo would be maintained—Original application disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 386

Environmental Clearance—

—Granted by Ministry to respondent No.1 to establish a hotel—Hence the present appeal—Objection was regarding problem of waterlogging as already there were several hotels in the area—Held, Water Department of Govt. had already given NOC with condition that Project Proponent would not alter the storm water drains and water bodies—Project Proponent also agreed to provide land for the road on northern side—Project had undergone sufficient scrutiny at every level, at State as well as at the level of Moef—No merits in the appeal—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 550

Environmental Law—

Doctrine of Public Trust—Certain resources like air, sea, water and forests have such a great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership—They are a gift of nature and should be freely available to everyone irrespective of their status in life., 2019 FLT (9) (Tri., H.C.) 872

Environmental Law—

—Eco Sensitive Zone—Declaration of—Public Interest Litigation for—Declaration of Eco Sensitive Zone of protected areas of Parasnath and Topchauchi Wildlife Sanctuary—Since various proposals received from public/stake holders in re­spect of draft notifications—Therefore, matter adjourned for three weeks to enable State Government—To come out with an affidavit in this regard—Because at this stage a whole hog review of proposal—Cannot be made. , 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 445

Environmental Law—

—Establishment of (Hukna) Great Indian Bustard and other animals and birds in the sanctuary—Issuance of notification dated 21.5.1981—Subsequent purchasers who had purchased the land for establishment of industrial unit have no lo­cus standi to challenge the notification under section 18 or subse­quent determination by the SDO incorporating 29 villages within the boundaries of proposed sanctuary—Any subsequent notification to bring the area within municipal limits or otherwise will be of no avail., 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.-G.B.) 401

Environmental Law—

—Grant of licence/permission to wood-based industry—Certain amendments were made in guidelines by a notification—Objection of the petitioner was that State had not made any assessment of Timber availability before grant of li­cence/permission—Hence, the present P.I.L.—Held, by amended Notification (Para 5(b) of Notification No. S.O. 3000 (E) dated 11.9.2017), the State Government would extend the boundaries of a municipal area to the edge of reserved forest and then to grant licence, adjacent to the reserved forest—Violation of direction of Supreme Court in ‘T.N. Godaverman Thirumulpad’—Para 5(b) of amended Notification suspended till next date fixed—Petition ordered ac­cordingly., 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 238

Environmental Law—

—Resumption of Reserved Forest Area From appellant Trust—Order for—Petition against—Dismissed—Writ ap­peal—Land in question a part of Reserve Forest not disputed—Even in original allotment, it was clearly shown to be Reserve Forest Area—Under expectation of de-reservation by State Government—Land in question allotted to appellant Trust—For running educational insti­tution—But with intervention of Parliamentary Legislation and sub­sequent services of prohibitory orders passed by Supreme Court—No possibility of turning Nelson’s eyes towards reality and still insist upon dereservation of Forest in favour of appellant Trust—Benign leniency shown by State Government in not resuming re­maining part of 10.67 acres of land of same Reserve Forest—Cannot be allowed to be misused or abused—By allowing claim of appellant Trust to exceed any further and claim whole 40 acres of land—Resumption of Reserve Forest does not amount to any violation or breach of directions of Supreme Court by State—Appeal dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Mad., H.C.) 878

Environmental Law—

—State Government has decided not to acquire the land of agriculturist/farmers as Great Indian Bustard thrives in such environmental ambiance—And has permitted the farmers to continue their agricultural operations and stay there—Contention of the petitioner that without there being any acquisition, sanctuary could not have come into existence is de­void of merit—Rejected., 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.-G.B.) 400

 

Environmental Pollution—

Ganga Ghat cleaning project—Cleaning project for 72 Ghats of Haridwar has already been sanctioned by N.M.C.G. for three years—Nagar Nigam, Haridwar directed to deploy 400 clean­ing staff alongwith modern cleaning equipments for regular clean­ing works—Directions issued accordingly—N.M.C.G. requested to accord the necessary sanction for the tasks within a period two months from the day of directions.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 231

Environmental Pollution—

—Invocation of bank guarantees fur­nished to appellant at behest of respondent—Interference therein—Legality—Purpose and object of bank guarantees to enable appel­lant to secure compliance with environmental standards pre­scribed in accordance with law—Failure of respondent to discharge obligation imposed upon it by Task Force Committee—Therefore, Tribunal erred in interfering with invocation of bank guarantee and directing appellant to refund amount covered by guaran­tees—Appeal allowed—Impugned order of Tribunal set aside., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 765

Environmental Pollution—

—Protection of water bodies highly re­quired for protecting environment—Providing clean environment, a part of right to life—Right to life includes clean air, water and envi­ronment—It is duty of State Government, local authorities and other Government authorities dealing with these matters to see that water bodies on protected properly—Cleanliness of city which includes removal of garbage and protecting environment against pollution—Is also part of duty of local authorities—Thus, to look after matter Committee of Experts constituted—Further directions issued., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 738

Environmental Pollution—

—Situation at Srikot Gangnali Rudraprayag, Karnprayag, Nandprayag, Gopeshwar Chamoli, Joshimath, Badrinath and Uttarkashi highlighted—Directions issued in respect thereof—Petition disposed of with observations., 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 231

Environmental Pollution—

—Srinagar Ghat—Seven drains are tapped—Ten drains are untapped—Alarming situation—Direction issued to complete the tapping and permanent treatment of these drains by January, 2019—Direction issued to complete the work on or before 1.2.2019., 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 231

Environmental Pollution—

—Suo motu Cognizance to tap the drains discharging un­treated water into River Ganga and its Tributaries—Directions were issued to the State in such respect previously—Perusal of counter- affidavit—Out of 135 drains only 70 drains were tapped in earlier program—Out of remaining 65 untapped drains, interception di­version and treatment of 59 drains were approved by National Mission for Clean Ganga in March, 2017 under Namami Ganga Program through 18 D.P.Rs.—For 6 untapped drains the remedial measures are being undertaken under the guidance of N.M.C.G.—State Government and the executing agencies including the contractors are directed to seal and divert 65 untapped drains which discharge water without treatment into river Ganga or its tributaries forthwith.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 231

 

Environmental Pollution—

—Untreated water flows from untapped drains in River Ganga—These drains are ordered to be sealed and diverted forthwith., 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 231

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—

Section 2—Bihar Tenant Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973—Sections 12 and 14—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Rent re­ceipt—Issuance of rent receipt to petitioner—Petition for—Legal status of land in question recorded as “forest” or “Jungle jhar”—Admittedly after purchase of land in question from predecessor-in-interest, same mutated in name of petitioner’s father—Rent re­ceipt also issued to him—Purpose of issuance of rent receipt—Merely to collect land revenue from person in possession of land—Provisions of section 2 of Act, 1980 has nothing to do with payment of land revenue—Or Collection thereof by revenue authorities—Rather to save such land from further deforestation irrespective of nature of ownership of land—Therefore, impugned order re­straining to issue rent receipt—Cannot be sustained—Quashed—Direction issued to respondent to accept rent from petitioner for land in question and to issue updated rent receipt in lieu thereof—Petition allowed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 17

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—

—Section 2—Grant of quarry­ing lease in forest land—Refusal of—Held, if the lands were cov­ered by wide definition of “forest” or “forest land”, quarrying could be granted only after obtaining the permission of Central Government—However the applications of the petitioner could not be rejected only on the ground that the lands subject-matters were “deemed forests”—Orders impugned set aside—Applications of petitioner for the lease would be considered afresh—Petitions al­lowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Kant., H.C.) 801

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—

—Section 2—Restriction on dereservation—Forest clearance—Order of forest clearance granted by State of Chhattisgarh—For diversion of 83.12 ha. of additional forest land in East Bhanupratappur Forest Division for non-forest purpose for construction of Phase I of Dalli-Rajhara-Rawghat Railway Line—Sustainability of—Project in pre­sent appeal involves linear diversion of use of forest land—No contention of appellant that tribals or forest dwellers in forest land involved fall in category of Primitive Tribal Groups or Pre-Agricultural Communities—Therefore, current proposal of diver­sion of 83.12 ha. of forest land for construction of said railway line—Exempted from requirements of consent of Gram Sabha (s)—Moreover, no requirement of pre-settlement of rights of sched­uled Tribes or Forest Dwellers of area involved in project in Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—Besides, Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006—Not in Schedule of Acts in National Green Tribunal Act, 2000—Therefore, appeal devoid of merit—Dismissed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 167

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—

—Section 2—Restriction on use of forest land for non-forest purpose—Purpose of section—To check deforestation irrespective of fact that land

 

owned by Government or by a private person—Thus, a land encroachment proceeding—Cannot be initiated against any land owner alleging vio­lation of provisions of said section—Impugned orders set aside—Petition allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 197

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—

—Section 2—Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972—Sections 27, 28 and 35 (8)—Public Interest Litigation—Enquiry regarding construction of road, in total disregard of Forest (Conservation) Act in Corbett Tiger Reserve—Also prayed for proper punishment to the responsible authorities—Held, after enquiry by two member’s Committee, it was found that the alleged road was a Kutcha road of 4.5 Km. which was fully covered by leaf litter—In year 2004-2005 the Kutcha road was re­paired by the Forest Department and since then was being used by the Forest officials for patrolling—There was no sign that the road was being used by the people of the area and there was no sign of population or habitation along with the road—Frequently elephant dung and tiger scat was observed on the road—Respondents were directed not to allow any person to use illegally the Kutcha road and other activities in future without prior permission of Central Gov­ernment—P.I.L. disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 367

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—

—Section 2—Writ petition—For direction to register sale-deeds of flats constructed over land in question—Registration of any sale-deed or refusal of same—Governed by provisions of Registration Act, 1908—As such same must be done in conformity with relevant provisions of said Act—If any document fulfills all necessary requirements provided under Act, 1908—Same cannot be arbitrarily refused to be registered—Refusal of registration of any document infringes valuable right of a persons—Thus, same must be supported by justifiable rea­sons—Land in question—Raiyati land—Finding in this regard con­firmed upto Supreme Court—Therefore, in absence of any record regarding entry of land as “Jungle Jhari”—Plea of respondent not sustainable—Further, Civil Court declined to accept possession of respondent-State on basis of notification dated 24.5.1958 and this judgment attained finality—Therefore, notification would also not help case of respondents—Petition allowed—Respondent au­thorities directed to register sale-deeds of flats constructed over said land., 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 205

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—

—Section 2/3—U.P. Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976—Section 4/10—Encroachment on private forest land—Allegation of non-forestry activities by raising constructions—Hence the present applica­-tion—Held, Forest Department and MoEF directed to initiate pro­ceedings for violation of Act, 1980—Also directed to conduct en­quiry against persons/ officials responsible for violation—Application disposed of.

, 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 544

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—

—Section 2, Explanation—Kerala Vested Forests (Management of Reserved Areas) Rules, 1980—Rules 3, 5 and 7—Kerala Forest Act, 1961—Sections 3 and 4—Action initiated by Forest Officials against petitioners by re­moving pipes installed by petitioners to draw water from upstream of a

 

river for agricultural operations flowing through a reserved for­est—Writ against—Government is vested with ample power under Kerala Forest Act, 1961 to issue a notification—Then declare that a particular area is reserved forest—On issuance of notification activities in reserved forest is managed and controlled under aforesaid Act or any other Act or Rules in that regard—Held, agri­cultural operations are protected to the extent defined under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Rules, 1980—Non-forest purpose defined in the Explanation does not take in among other things, activities of laying pipelines—Since it is a reserved forest area—Agriculturists who require to draw water may have to seek permission from forest authorities—Activity alleged to be un­dertaken by petitioners was not a non-forest purpose in view of exclusion made under Explanation to section 2 of Act of 1980—Writ petition disposed of. , 2019 FLT (9) (Ker., H.C.) 144

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—

—Section 3—Diversion of forest land—For purpose of both drinking water and industrial purpose—Submission of Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) that user agency acted in violation of the Act—Contention of appellants that permission granted by the State Government does not contain prohibition for utilizing water for industrial purpose—Administrative mechanism required to be put in place to ensure that decision to release water for industrial pur­pose is monitored by the Collector of the District—Collector re­sponsible for Thoothukudi Division directed to convene a meeting of all concerned Departments including Public Works Department, Irrigation Department and Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board (TWADB)—Collector to ascertain whether any surplus water is available after fully meeting drinking water requirement—Direction may be issued for allocating a suitable quantity of water for industrial purpose—Joint meeting of representatives of State Government and the TWAD Board directed to be held to resolve the issue and forward the pro­posal to MoEF and CC within three weeks—Appeals disposed of accordingly., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 420

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—

—Sections 3 and 5—Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006—Section 3 (1) (a)—Restoration of forest land—Contention of applicant that respondents are constructing houses under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna in forest without prior approval of Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF)—Land in question a forest land—Admittedly at the time of construction of the houses on forest land no forest rights were conferred on people on the forest land nor any prior approval of MoEF had been obtained under the provisions of the 1980 Act—Orders of competent authority regarding conferment of forest rights to eligible individuals not placed before the Tribunal—Constructions being carried on and already raised illegal and in contravention of provisions of 1980 Act—State Authorities di­rected to initiate action for removal of constructions and restora­tion of the forest land to it’s original nature—Original application disposed of accordingly.

, 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 390

Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016—

Rules 13 and 15(1)(2)—Customs Act, 1962—Sections 125, 112(a) and 114-AA—Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992—Section 11(8) and (9)—Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993—Rule 17(2)—Waste Management Rules—Rules 13 and 3(1)(23)—Respondents imported certain consignments of Multi-Function Devices (Digital Photocopiers and Printers (MFDs)—Imports were held to be in vio­lation of Foreign Trade Policy framed under Act of 1992 by Commissioner of Customs—Redemption fine was imposed and consignment released for re-export only—Penalty was also im­posed—High Court noticed provisions of sections 11(8) and (9) of the Foreign Trade Act read with Rule 17(2) of 1993 Rules providing for confiscation of goods in the event of contravention of the Act which may be released on payment of redemption charges equiva­lent to market value of the goods—High Court rightly held that MFDs having utility period, Extended Producer Responsibility would arise only after utility period was over—No error in direction to respondents for deposit of bond without sureties for 90% of the enhanced valuation of the goods—Whether confiscation needs to be ordered or release be granted on redemption at the market value left to DGFT to decide—Appeal dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 184

Illegal Mining—

District of Jaintia Hill—19 labourers died while in mining operation—Matter was transferred to National Green Tribunal, New Delhi—Tribunal stopped all rat hole mining and illegal mining and also illegal transport of coal—Hence the instant appeals—Certain applications were filed before Supreme Court seeking transportation of coal—Counsel for Meghalaya State submitted report prepared by the Committee formed by National Green Tribunal according to which 176655 MTs. of coal was still to be transported in Meghalaya for which challans had already been issued upto 31.1.2019 but due to mining incident, the Court on 15.1.2019 had stopped all transportation of coal—As the challans were already issued only for the transportation of quan­tity of 75050 MTs. of coal—The State of Meghalaya was directed to ensure that only that quantity (i.e. 75050 MTs.) of coal would be transported for which challans had already been issued—State would take appropriate precaution while granting permission for transportation—With the direction the applications are disposed of—Appeals ordered according., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 830

Illegal Mining—

—Public Interest Litigation—To stop illegal mining and to protect the environment from illegal mining and its adverse affect on the ground water level in the area—Perusal of papers available on record—Mining activities have no connection with the construction of a lake/pond/rain water harvesting tank—Permissions granted for the construction of rain water harvesting tank and to store the water/rain in the tank—Permission in fact was really for the mining purpose and not for construction of rain water

 

harvesting tank—No prudent person can believe that an agricultur­ist will construct a rain water harvesting tank on his entire agricul­tural land for the purpose of irrigation—Grant of permission for construction of pond/tank is merely an eye-wash and just to legalize the illegal act, just to permit the mining in the guise of construction of lake/pond/rain water harvesting tank—State authorities shut their eyes and failed to see the real object—Permission granted must not have been granted without the connivance and ulterior motive of the State authorities—Permission granted is a camou­flage—Court is constrained to issue the directions to the State au­thorities on many issues and to submit action taken report within a period of eight weeks before the Court—Petition disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 226

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

Sections 2 (4) (6) (iv) and 33—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 3 (e)—Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972—Rule 40 (2)—Truck of the petitioner seized by official of Forest Department—Truck was loaded with stone chips—Petitioner filed present Writ Petition challenging the order of District Magistrate in appeal as well as the revisional order passed by Principal Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest—He also prayed for releas­e of truck—Held, stone chips were not forest produce rather were produce of minor minerals—Rule 40 (2) of Rules, 1972 provided penalty for unauthorized extraction and removal of minor minerals—Orders impugned set aside—Release of truck ordered—Writ petition allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Pat., H.C.) 869

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Sections 2, 41 and 52—Wilife (Protection) Act, 1972—Sections 27, 29, 39 and 51—Seizure of vehicle—Illegal transport of sand from the reserved zone—Application to release the vehicle rejected—Appeal and revision also dismissed—Hence the present petition under section 482, Cr. P.C. by the vehicle owner—Held, section 52 (c) of Indian Forest Act has an overriding effect an other laws including general provisions of Cr. P.C.—Criminal Court had no power to deal with the property seized under the Act—High Court could exercise its power only in exercise of its power of judicial review—Remedy available only under Forest Act—Petition dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.) 458

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Section 26(1)(b) and (g)—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 156(3) and 482—Stand of Forest Department that since permission was granted in the name of one or two persons, the suites and tents could not be occupied/used by more persons is absolutely wrong—Gathering of some more persons at a place where permission was granted by a competent authority for three suites and ten tents cannot, at all, be said to be illegal gather­ing—Their presence was absolutely valid and they cannot be said to be rank trespassers in the said campus—First, granting valid permis­sion for three suites and ten tents and then initiating legal proceed­ing against them is an abuse of process of law—There is no allega­tion that applicants set fire to a

 

reserved forest or they kindled fire or left fire burning in such manner as to endanger reserved forest—There is also no allegation that applicants burnt lime/char­coal or removed any forest produce—Thus, it is clear that provi­sions of the Forest Act, under which applicants have been charged and summoning orders have been issued, are not attracted—Held, the continuation of proceedings against the applicants for the offence punishable under section 26 of the Indian Forest Act is a sheer abuse of process of law and would lead to patent miscarriage of justice with the applicants—Charge-sheet as well as the summoning orders are liable to be quashed—Applications allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 218

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Section 26 (1) (f)—Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984—Section 3—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 4 and 5—Charge-sheet under section 3 of Act, 1984 filed by Forest Officer against respon­dents—Lower Court dismissed the application of the petitioner—Offence of the respondents was punishable under section 26 of Act, 1927—Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed—Hence the present petition under section 482, Cr. P.C.—Held, the offence committed under the Act of 1984 was to be investigated by the Police Officer under Cr. P.C.—Forest Officer had no jurisdic­tion/authority to investigate the offence unless authorized by a Magistrate—He therefore could not file charge-sheet under Act, 1984—Only remedy that was available, was to file complaint under sec­tion 200, Cr. P.C.—No interference with the orders impugned—Petition dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Chhat., H.C.) 774

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Section 29—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956—Sections 6, 2(3), 11 and 3—Encroachment—Direction for removal of encroachment passed by Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer—Petition against—Summary proceeding for eviction can be resorted to by Government only against such person who is in unauthorized posses­sion of any land of Government—If there a bona fide dispute re­garding title of Government vis-a-vis private person over any property—Government cannot take unilateral decision in its own favour—Claiming property belongs to it—In present case, dispute of title between petitioner and State over land in question—Thus, petitioner cannot be evicted by respondent—Impugned orders quashed—Petition allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 197

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Sections 30, 32, 33, 41, 52 (5) and 42—Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1972—Rule 40 (2)—Confiscation—Of truck—On ground that driver was found violenting the provisions of sections 33, 41 and 42 of Act—Truck was loaded by driver with stone materials—Forester seized the truck and confiscated—Confiscation of vehicle on ground mentioned by confiscation Authority was not in accordance with law—Hence the impugned order is set aside—Owner of truck is directed to file fresh application for release of vehicle., 2019 FLT (9) (Pat., H.C.) 574

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Sections 33—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 4/21—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 413 and 414—Quashing of entire criminal proceedings—Order of taking cog­nizance also challenged—Charge was of smuggling emerald—Hence the present petitions—Held, in respect of the offence under section 4/21 of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957, the cognizance in respect of offence could not have been taken by Court below—The orders impugned regarding taking cognizance quashed—Prosecution however would take its course according to law as available in respect of the offence under section 4/21 of M.M.D.R. Act, 1957—Both quashed—Petitions allowed in part., 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 631

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Section 33 (c)—Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—Section 2—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 482 and 468—Quashing of criminal proceeding—Limitation for taking cognizance—Offence under section 33 (2) of Indian Forest Act—Punishable with imprisonment for a term ex­ceeding one year but not exceeding two years—In case of more than one offences tried together—Period of limitation—To be de­termined with reference to offence punishable with more severe punishment—Limitation for taking cognizance of such offence—Is upto three years—Information report lodged on 3.5.2004 and Trial Court took cognizance on 5.9.2006 i.e., within three years—Therefore, no illegality in order of cognizance—Application dis­missed., 2019 FLT (9) (Alld., H.C.) 426

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Sections 41 and 42—Forest pro­duce—Reversal of acquittal of appellants by High Court and sen­tencing appellant for offences alleged—Legality—Non-production of seized wood and vehicle—Effect of—Renders prosecution case fragile and unsustainable—Mere production of seizure memo does not tantamount to production of seized wood and lorry—Conviction and sentence set aside—Appeal allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 772

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Sections 41 and 42—Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules—Section 20—Trial under—Judgment of acquittal passed—Legality of—Perusal of evi­dence on record—426 scants of khair wood found loaded in the truck which were having hammer marks—Transported under a valid permit—Evidently wood loaded in the truck in dispute was having hammer marks—As per A.S.I. wood loaded in the truck was being transported under proper and valid permit—As per owner of the truck the driver of the truck parked the truck outside the house of owner as per prior information given by the driver in route Gagret at Fatehpur where the Khair wood was loaded by the labour in the truck, there was no weighing scale—Strong possibility that the truck might have been loaded with load exceeding the limit provided vide export permit which was issued in favour of the owner of the truck—It cannot be presumed that accused knowingly got the truck loaded with wood excessively and under the guise of permit in­tended to transport extra wood—Act and conduct of the accused seems natural—In
case he was knowingfully transporting excessive wood he could have

 

trans­ported it on the same day—Accused had no intention to commit the crime by illegally transporting the excess wood—Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt—No interference warranted—Judgment of acquittal affirmed—Appeal dismissed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (H.P., H.C.) 581

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Section 52—Indian Forest Act, 1989 (Bihar Amendment) section 68—Confiscation—Seizure of logs of shisham tree and tractor alongwith trailor—Release application—Since petitioner ready to pay value of property seized and confis­cated as would be estimated by such officer for release of arti­cles—Therefore, in view of section 68 of Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989—Direction issued to authorities concerned to estimate value of property seized and confiscated—Further directions also issued—Petition disposed of. , 2019 FLT (9) (Pat., H.C.) 154

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Section 52—Petitioner was caught excavating and transporting sand—Also destroyed the habitat of crocodiles—Application of the petitioner for the release of truck—Rejected by Authority concerned—Hence the present petition—Held, Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Krishnan, (2000) 7 SCC 80, has held that no liberal approach should be adopted for the release of vehicle involved in forest offences and vehicle should not be returned till the culmination of the proceedings—No infirmity or illegality in the order impugned—Petition dismissed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.) 820

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Section 52—Where the forest official started confiscation proceedings under the Forest Act, the provi­sions of section 52 of Act (as amended by M. P. Amendment) will prevail., 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.) 454

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Sections 52 and 67—Wild Life Protection Act, 1972—Section 50 (1) (c)—M.P. Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 1996—Rules 30 (15), 18 and 53 (3)—Confiscation of truck and criminal proceedings against the petitioner—Application to release the truck—Rejected by authority—Hence present writ petition—Held, confiscation is not punishment—Contention that confiscation and criminal proceedings could not run simultane­ously—Rejected—Release of truck would tempt the forest offend­ers to repeat commission of such offence—No merits in the peti­tion—Dismissed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.) 578

Indian Forest Act, 1927—

—Review Petition—No specific provision in the Forest Act, 1927—Confers a power of review upon the Additional District Judge—Absence of a specific statutory power conferring the power of review upon the authorities consti­tuted under the Forest Act, 1927—”Procedural” review—Explained—No circumstance existed or warranted the invocation of power of review, 2019 FLT (9) —Additional District Judge reconsidered and re-evaluated the claims of the parties on merits—Procedure adopted is without jurisdiction and in absence of statutory power of review—No scope for the Additional District Judge to have re-ex­amined his earlier decisions—Petition allowed—Order impugned quashed., 2019 FLT (9) (Alld., H.C.) 285

Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986—

Sections 5, 13, 15 and 18—Conviction under section 5 (1)—Appeal against con­firmed—Instant revision against—Report meant under sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act is a report by the Detecting Officer to the authorized officer regarding detection made by him—Scheme of the provisions for prosecution is that—There must be a first report by detecting officer to the authorized officer—In turn the autho­rized officer shall send a report to the Court under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of Act—If authorized officer finds necessity of a prosecution—He will have to authorize prosecution by way of sanction—Only when sanction is also obtained in the Court—Court can take cognizance on the report submitted by au­thorized officer under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act—These essential provisions are not complied in the case—Cognizance in the case not legally taken by Trial Court—Revision petition allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Ker., H.C.) 27

Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001—

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Confiscation proceedings with regard to the vehicle carrying river sand initiated—2nd respondent has passed order directing the pe­titioner to produce a demand draft of R 5,50,000—In lieu of confis­cation of vehicle—Revision against dismissed on the ground of limi­tation—Writ against—Held, payment of amount in lieu of confisca­tion is optional to the owners of the property—Imperative provision contained under sub-section (4) is unequivocal that the confiscation of vehicle—On finding guilt is mandatory upon the primary authority—But option can be left to the owner as per the proviso thereto—Order impugned is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction to that extent—Liable to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India—Writ petition is allowed to above ex­tent. , 2019 FLT (9) (Ker., H.C.) 150

Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—

Rule 24-A—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 8-A—Deemed extension to the lease for a further period of 2 years—Registered lease deed executed between Government of Bihar and the petitioner on 5.3.1986—Petitioner applied for re­newal by way of first renewal—Rule 24-A (6) amended w.e.f., 18.7.2014 whereby deemed extension for two years or until state Government passes order thereon in case lease renewal application was filed within time—Section 8-A added in the Act with effect from 12.1.2015 and lease granted in favour of a firm would be extended upto period ending 31.3.2020 or till renewal period or for a period of 50 years—Whichever is later—Petitioner applied for renewal in conformity with Rule 24-A of the Rules—Lease enjoyed deemed renewal under amended provisions of Rule 24-A (6) of the Rules—Section 8-A incorporated by 2015 Amendment and mining lease was to be granted for a period of 50 years—Renewal appli­cation remained pending since 3.2.2005—

 

The lease of petitioner got extended until the year 2036 under section 8-A (6) of the Act—No complaint of any violation of condition of lease by peti­tioner—Lease got extended by operation of law until year 2036—Impugned order dated 15.11.2016 set aside—Matter remitted to Principal Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology for consideration afresh—Writ petition allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Pat., H.C.) 528

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

Section 3 (e)—Assam Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 2013—Rule 27(4)—Payment of outstanding bills of contractors—Deduction as forest royalty payable to State Forest Department on account of removal or consumption or utilisation of earth—Provisions of Rule 27(4) of the Rules of 2013—Cannot be read to mean that State can demand or realise forest royalty from the end user of the “earth” unless State justifies that petitioners are permit holders—Present case squarely covered by decision the Court ren­dered in Md. Muslim Ali and M/s. Trinayan Associates—Demand for forest royalty made against petitioners in all the five writ peti­tions not sustainable—Demand raised against petitioners by Public Works Department of State of Assam for payment of forest roy­alty held to be without jurisdiction—Writ petitions allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Gau., H.C.) 190

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Sections 4 and 21—Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules 1986—Rule 48 (7)—Illegal mining—Vehicles seized under the Act—Jurisdiction of Criminal Court to release the seized vehicle—F.I.R. registered under sections 143, 323, 341, 332, 353, 379 and 392 I.P.C. and section 4 read with 21 of the 1957 Act—Held, once the Officer of the Mining Department who seized the vehicle has re­ported such seizure to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, he shall cease to have the power to release the vehicle—In that event the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be empowered to release such vehicle, with or without the condition of deposit of compounding fee. , 2019 FLT (9) (Raj., H.C.-J.B.) 156

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Sections 4 (1-A), 23-A and 21 (5)—Confiscation of minerals—Entitlement for possession—Held, person from whose possession such minerals confiscated—Is not entitled to seek possession thereof—Petition dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Alld., H.C.) 383

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Section 5(1)—Mining lease—Recommendation made by State Government to Government of India for grant of prior approval—Binding effect—Prior approval of Government of India a condition precedent for State to consider application for grant of mining lease—Mining lease shall not be granted except with previous approval of Central Government—Therefore, recommen­dation made by State Government will not be binding on Government of India—Notwithstanding recommendation, always open for Government of India to deny grant of previous approval.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Kant., H.C.) 893

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Section 5(1)—Mining lease—Withdrawal of prior approval—Legality—After having granted prior approval on consideration of request made by State Government—Prior approval cannot be withdrawn mechanically without application of mind—Before prior approval withdrawn—Examination on merits required—Since withdrawal of previous approval affects right of petitioner—Therefore, appropriate to issue show cause notice and permit petitioner to file reply to same and pass orders thereafter after taking into consideration stand taken by petitioner—Impugned order set aside—Petition partly allowed—Directions issued., 2019 FLT (9) (Kant., H.C.) 893

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Section 9 (2)—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 64-A and 64-B (2)—Demand for recovery of R 18.15 lacs and R 14.28 lacs on account of interest on belated payment of royalty—Averment of petitioner that as was mutually agreed between the officials and petitioner royalty was payable on quarterly basis—Same was be­ing paid as such—Demand of interest now raised by the respondents is contrary to past practices and against the doctrine of legitimate expectation—Provisions of Rules 64-A and 64-B (2) clearly pro­vide that royalty is due when the mineral is removed by the lessee—Interest is to be calculated after sixteenth day from when the mineral was removed—Any concession wrongly given by the State Geologist cannot bind the Government—Petitioner has no right to insist that respondents were not enforcing mandate of law by not charging interest on late payment of royalty, they should continue to do so—Doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot be applied in cases of invalid expectations—No material to show that respondents had given assurance that petitioner was not required to pay royalty in terms of the Act and the Rules—Writ petition dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (H.P., H.C.) 9

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Section 10-A (As amended by Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2015)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Ultra vires—All minerals vest in State—Mining lease granted in respect of public properties vesting in State—Object of amendment to ensure adoption of a fair and transparent process in mining lease—Thus, after amendment came into force—Applicants applying for prospecting licences and mining lease—Will have to compete with others participating in process of auction—In fact, amendment brought about to reduce arbitrariness in process and to make it more transparent—No violation of any funda­mental right guaranteed by Constitution of India due to impugned amendment—Petition dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Kant., H.C.) 797

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Section 10-A (1) and (2)—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 22 (1)—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2015—Grant of mining lease of iron ore and manganese—Writ petition filed for the execution of lease deed—Held, direction of Supreme Court was that

 

State of Karnataka would not grant any mining lease except in accordance with Act, 1957—Petitioner was seeking execution of lease on the basis of his application under sub-section (1) of section 10-A of Act, 1957 as the same was already decided by granting of mining lease prior to 12.1.2015—Hence the amendment in section 10-A of Act, 1957 with effect from 12.1.2015 would have to be kept out of considera­tion in the facts of the case—Order impugned set aside—Writ peti­tion allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Kant., H.C.) 793

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Section 10-B—Writ petition seeking a declaration that petitioner is entitled for issuance of quarrying lease—‘Bauxite’ is a mineral in­cluded in the Fourth Schedule of MMDR Act, 1957—The minerals specified in the Fourth Schedule are “notified minerals”, defined un­der section 3 (ea) of MMDR Act, 1957—“Minor minerals” is de­fined to mean as per section 3 (e) of Act, 1957, building stones, gravel, ordinary clay, ordinary sand other than sand used for pre­scribed purposes, and any other mineral which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a minor mineral—Unless and until a clarification/guidelines is issued by the Central Government/any competent authority, the State authority cannot be found fault with in not considering the re­quest made for—Writ petition is dismissed with observations., 2019 FLT (9) (Ker., H.C.) 634

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Sections 15, 23-C, 13, 4 (1-A)—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 301, 302 and 303—Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010—Rule 71—Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966—Rule 44-BB—Prohibition on movement of sand beyond border of the State of Gujarat—Validity—No power flows from provisions of section 23-C to make rule regulating transportation of legally excavated minerals—Only trans­portation and storage of illegal mining which can be regulated—Impugned rules violate Part XIII of the Constitution of India as ef­fect thereof is to fetter the freedom of trade, commerce and in­tercourse under Article 301 thereof—Expression “freedom” must be read with expression “throughout the territory of India”—Expression “public interest” under Article 302 may include a regional interest as well—State Government could not have imposed such a prohibition under the statute whose object is to regulate development of mines and minerals and not the trade and commerce per se—Nothing prevents the appellant from restrict­ing the quantum of sand being excavated—Once the appellant-State permits sand to be excavated—Neither it can restrict its movement within the territory of India nor is the same constitutionally permis­sible—View taken by the Gujarat High Court in the im­pugned judgment affirmed—Appeal dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 263

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Section 19—Prospecting licences and mining lease—If prospecting licence or mining lease granted, renewed or acquired in contraven­tion of provisions of Act, 1957 or Rules framed thereunder—It be­comes void., 2019 FLT (9) (Kant., H.C.) 893

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—

—Section 21 (4) and 21 (4A)—Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2017—Rule 12—Seizure of vehicle—Petition for release—Vehicle in ques­tion seized as same carrying sand in excess of permissible limits—Permission for confiscation of vehicle in question sought by re­spondent No. 2 from concerned Civil Court—Validity of—Respondent-authority not registered offence against petitioner for incident in question—Though vehicle seized but not produced be­fore Court—Respondent authority not authorized to confiscate ve­hicle in question—Power of confiscation vested in Court concerned and that too after producing vehicle before Court—Direction issued to release vehicle in question on payment of amount of sand—Petition partly allowed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Guj., H.C.) 626

Mining Laws—

Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957—Section 6—When the appellant exceeds the permission granted to them un­der the grants, they effectively resort to an unauthorised extrac­tion since the grant has to be seen as the authority on the basis of which they can extract minerals from Government land up to the specified quantity—Mere payment of a consolidated royalty by the appellants will not detract from the fact of uanuthorised extraction to the extent it is in excess of the permitted quantity specified in the grant—Appellants, having admittedly resorted to extraction over and above the quantity permitted in the grants issued to them, have necessarily to bear the legal consequences that would result from such unauthorised extraction, both under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules as also under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act—Writ appeals are dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Ker., H.C.) 890

Mining Lease—

Environmental clearance—Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2014—Rule 34-E—Lease of sand ghat—Cancelled by Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar—Hence the present petition—Held, agree­ment itself was illegal in view of the stipulation made in the envi­ronment clearance and settlement agreement—The settlee/ lessee could not be subjected to adverse consequences—Respondents di­rected to immediately refund the amount after deducting the ap­propriate amounts—Petitioner advised to move before competent Civil Court for any disputed claim—Writ petition disposed of. , 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 448

Mining Lease—

—Excessive or illegal mining—Grant of environ­mental clearance—Sarda Mines Private Limited started mining extracting iron ore on basis of permission granted on 13.7.1999—Environmental clearance for extraction of iron ore granted w.e.f. 22.9.2014—It referred to “proposal for expansion of production of iron ore (lump) from 1.5 L.T.P.A. to 4.0 M.T.P.A.”—Production of iron ore (lump) introduced in environmental clear­ance was alien to

 

permission granted on 13.7.1999—Environmental clearance does not have retrospective effect—There has been ex­cess mining from the first year of production itself—Central Empowered Committee to quantify the penalty to be im­posed in terms of the environmental clearance—Any mining in ex­cess of environmental clearance illegal—Lumps are by-product of the extraction of iron ore or R.O.M.—Permission granted to S.M.P.L. was to extract mineral iron ore and not for by-product or iron-ore lump—C.E.C. directed to rework the quantum of excessive pro­duction/illegal mining by S.M.P.L. and consequent penalty—Applications disposed of accordingly., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 85

Mining Lease—

—Extention of mining lease for ‘obstructed period’—U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963—Rules 23 (1), 68 and 52-A—Application for—Sustainability of—Held, in absence of any statutory provision or any term contained in lease deed—No extention of time period for ‘obstructed period’ can be granted—Petition dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Alld., H.C.) 616

Mining Lease—

—Refusal of renewal of mining leases of limestone minerals to operate under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Since all mining activities are prohibited as per order dated 4.8.2006 by Apex Court within 1 k.m. of boundaries of National Parks and Sanctuaries—All mining leases in all four ap­peals situated within 1 Km. of Jamuwa Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary—Besides, this wildlife sanctuary located close to city of Jaipur—Is ecologically extremely sensitive—Therefore, in terms of order of Supreme Court—No mining activity can be permitted within 1 Km. of boundary of Jamuwa Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary—Appeal dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 248

Mining Lease—

—Violation of statutory requirements—Illegal min­ing—Report of the Central Empowered Committee (C.E.C.) that re­spondent No. 4 flagrantly violated the law and carried out mining in the forest areas—State Government took necessary steps in the matter—State took action not only to stop mining but also to initiate proceedings against the erring officials—All mining activities in the forest areas have been stopped long time back—Steps already taken to recover the entire sale proceeds of C.M.T. of iron ore that was mined and transported by respondent No. 4—Disciplinary proceedings initiated against erring officials found guilty of professional misconduct—Disciplinary enquiry or­dered against the then Assistant Mining Officer by the State Government—Respondent No. 4 black listed by the State Government—Confiscated iron ore mined from adjoining forest ar­eas allowed to be auctioned by the authorities—No need to direct C.B.I. enquiry—Applications disposed of accordingly. , 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 123

Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 1944 (Assam)—

Extraction of stone—Dispute regarding fixation of royalty between appellants and respondents—Writ petition of appellants was dismissed with cost—Hence the instant appeal—Held, the appellants were allowed to extract stone from a quarry called “Baleswar Stone Quary”—Appellants claimed the fixation of royalty at the rate which was fixed in another writ

 

decided on 10.10.2007—The royalty fixed in another writ was related to the area of ‘Lakhidharra Nalah’ and there was no reference of ‘Baleswar Stone Mahal’—Appellants were not entitled to get the same rate of royalty—Appeal lacks merit—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Gau., H.C.) 789

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (Bihar)—

Rules 22-A and 52—Lease of the petitioner was terminated and amount was forfeited—Revision of the petitioner was partly al­lowed by Mines Commissioner—Hence the present writ petition—Held, remission of the auction amount for the corresponding period during which the petitioner could not do the mining operation was not sufficient compensation—The act of cancellation of mining lease granted to the petitioner was not held to be proper by the Mines Commissioner—However, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Mines Commissioner had not passed order directing the petitioner for mining for the remain­ing period of lease—Petitioner directed to file necessary represen­tation before Collector, Nawada for proper compensation for the period during which he was not allowed to mine—Writ applications disposed., 2019 FLT (9) (Pat., H.C.) 861

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 (Bihar)—

—Rules 33 and 40—Every lessee or permit holder is required as per Rule 33 (3) of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972, to submit every month to the competent Officer a true and correct return for minerals in Form ‘H’ by the 15th of the following month—Under Rule 40 (10), it is the District Mining Officer/Assistant Mining Officer in whose discretion whether to take action against the contractor in the event works contractor deposits or pays the royalty in respect of the mineral so consumed/supplied by him as shown in the aforesaid affidavit and particulars—Writ application is dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Pat., H.C.) 665

Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 (M.P.)—

Rule 36 (2)—Auction of sand quarry—Auction finalized in favour of petitioner—Letter dated 29.5.2012 issued to the petitioner to stop mining operation and was directed to obtain, No Objection Certificate—Environmental clearance issued on 21.5.2013—Petitioner had to stop quarrying for 357 days—Petitioner claimed the extension of quarry period—Claim rejected—Hence present writ petition—Held, as per agree­ment, the petitioner had to extract a fixed quantity of minerals within stipulated period—Petitioner failed to prove that he had ex­tracted less quantity of minerals—No direction could be given to the respondent No. 3—No merits in the petitions—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.) 539

Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 (Odisha)—

Rules 24 (ii) and 28 (ii)—Deduction of amount—From the total amount of works executed by the petitioner/ contractor—Hence the present peti­tion—Held, in the tender call notice—There was no reference with regard

 

to payment of royalty by a bidder—However the agreement executed between the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 pre­scribed special conditions—Therefore, the contention raised by petitioner that he was not liable to pay royalty, was not accept­able—However, the calculation of royalty @ R 14/ per cubic metre, as had been done towards the work undertaken by the petitioner, was contrary to clause-60 of the agreement—Opposite party di­rected to calculate the royalty—Writ petition partly allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (Ori., H.C.) 179

Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 (U.P.)—

Rules 52-A and 68—Mining lease—Grant of extention of period of mining permit—Prayer for sustainability—Power to grant relaxation under Rule 68 not attracted in case of mining permit granted under Rule 52-A of Rules, 1963—It is for limited purpose enabling Bhumidhar of an agri­cultural land—To remove saved sand and morram accumulated due to flood over his agricultural land—Direction issued—Petition dis­posed of.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Alld., H.C.) 823

National Green Tribunal—

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 136—Encroachment of forest land—National Green Tribunal disposed the O.A. without considering the objection of the respondent—Hence the present civil appeal—Held, in earlier civil appeal filed by the appellant, there was the direction by Supreme Court to the N.G.T. to consider the objection of the appellant—N.G.T. with­out waiting for the copy of order in earlier civil appeal disposed of O.A.—The action of the N.G.T. seems to be indefensible—The N.G.T. was bound to follow the order of Supreme Court—Order impugned set aside—O.A. would be restored—Appeal allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 613

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

Sections 14, 15 and 18—Section 15 of the Act provides power and jurisdiction, independent of section 14 thereof—Further, section 14 (3) juxtaposed with section 15 (3) of the Act, are separate provisions for filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these sections independently—The limitation provided in sec­tion 14 is a period of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first arose and whereas in section 15 it is 5 years—Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep sections 14 and 15 as well contained jurisdictions—Section 18 of the Act recognizes the right to file applications each under sections 14 as well as 15—Therefore, it cannot be argued that section 14 provides jurisdiction to the Tribunal while section 15 merely supplements the same with powers—Civil Appeal No. 5016 of 2016 and Civil Appeal Nos. 8002-8003 of 2016 are dismissed—All the other appeals are al­lowed., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 587

 

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

—Section 14(3)—Limitation to seek application for adjudication—Held, no application for adjudication entertainable by Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months—From date on which cause of action for such dispute first arose—In instant case, applicant ap­proached Tribunal after so many years—Whereas fact regarding construction of dam, barrages etc. took place at least 20-25 years ago—Further, their intention known to all including applicant—Therefore, no reason for Tribunal to entertain and to grant any relief to applicant—Original application being devoid of merits de­serves to be rejected—Application dismissed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 252

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

—Sections 15 (1) (c) and 20—The N.G.T. Act being a beneficial legislation, the power be­stowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly—The exis­tence of the Tribunal without its broad restorative powers under section 15 (1) (c) read with section 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and toothless, and shall betray the legislative intent in setting up a specialized Tribunal specifically to address environ­mental concerns—The Tribunal specially constituted with Judicial Members as well as with Experts in the field of environment, has a legal obligation to provide for preventive and restorative measures in the interest of the environment—Civil Appeal No. 5016 of 2016 and Civil Appeal Nos. 8002-8003 of 2016 are dismissed—All the other appeals are allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 586

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

—Section 15(3)—Compensation for damages—Application for—Sustainability of—Applicant sought relief and compensation for damages—Caused to river Ganga and its aquatic life by hydraulic structures at Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal resulting into loss of livelihood to fish­ermen—Applicant failed to mention dates of commencement and execution of any of the projects mentioned in his application—While he admitted execution of projects almost 25 years ago—With due permission under law and with all environmental clearance from competent authority after environmental appraisal assessments—No basis for computing total claim–No allegation made with regard to violation of any Acts given in Schedule 1 of N.G.T. Act, 2010—While Act, 2010 provides compensation to victims of pollution and another environmental damages—Hence, application lacks merit—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 253

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

—Section 16—Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 31B—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 33-B—Section 33B of the Water Act and section 31B of the Air Act were both enacted on 18.10.2010, which is the very date on which the N.G.T. Act came into force—Whereas section 33B (c) of the Water Act read with section 16 (c) of the N.G.T. Act make it clear that directions issued under section 33A of the Water Act are appealable to the N.G.T., directions issued under section 31A of the Air Act are not so appealable—This being

 

the case, all the orders, being composite orders issued under both the Water Act and the Air Act, it will not be possible to split the said orders and say that so far as they affect water pollution, they are appealable to the N.G.T., but so far as they affect air pollution, a suit or a writ petition would lie against such orders—Appeals are disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 698

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

—Section 16—Appeal—Condonation of delay in filing of—Appeal filed beyond period of ninety days from date of communication of the order—Environmental clearance granted to the respondent No. 1 on 25.1.2018 and up­loaded on the website of MoEF on the same day—Grant of EC ad­vertised in two newspapers on 31.1.2018—Present appeal filed on 2.5.2018 i.e. beyond period of 30 days and extended period of sixty days—Environmental clearance was put in public domain on 29.1.2018 and could have been downloaded same day—It was also published in two local newspapers on 31.1.2018—Appeal filed on 2.5.2018 much beyond the period of 90 days—No explanation from the appellant for filing the appeal after such long delay—Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay in filing of appeal in excess of 90 days—Both applications and appeal dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B-N.D.) 412

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

—Section 16—Environmental clear­ance—Grant of—Appeal against—Expert Appraisal Committee granted environmental clearance under aegis of M.O.E.F. and C.C. as per Notification, 2006 to respondent No. 5—For construction of India-based Neutrino Observatory Project—Though, such pro­ject, respondent No. 5 has to construct an underground laboratory for experiments in field of neutrino physics—Sustainability of—Since, project involved appraisal at inter-State level—Project needed to be appraised considering fact that I.N.O. site was in ecologi­cally sensitive Western Ghats and I.N.O. site at distance of 4.9 Km from Mathikettan Shola National Park in Kerala—Therefore, it was cor­rect on part of E.A.C. and M.O.E.F. to appraise project at their level—In any case, even when State S.E.I.A.A./ S.E.A.C. not constituted, it is M.O.E.F. or E.A.C. which appraises projects—Since, study of im­pact on two States involved and also that M.O.E.F. constituted vari­ous committee/ Expert Groups regarding Western Ghats, Tamil Nadu-S.E.I.A.A./ S.E.A.C. could not have appraised this project—Since reports regarding Western Ghats submitted by Committees constituted are under consideration of M.O.E.F. and decision likely to be taken shortly—Therefore, specific or general condition or recommendation made by Committees/Expert Groups—Will be mandatorily made applicable in current project of I.N.O. also—Further direction that project will not be implemented until and un­less approval of National Board for wild life received since project site is within Eco Sensitive Zone of National Park in Kerala—Appeal disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 173

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

—Sections 16 and 14—Appeal—Dismisal on ques­tion of limitation—Appeal in question preferred before the Tribunal challenging grant of

 

environmental clearance filed on 17.6.2016—Environmental clearance was granted on 1.10.2015 and appeal was filed beyond period of limitation—Submission of appellant that the order granting clearance was not in public domain and website of the Department did not reveal so—SEIAA produced printouts of website to show that it was published on the website on 1.10.2015 itself which was sufficient to bring it in public domain—Appellant did not prefer the appeal within the period of 30 days and not within 60 days for condonation of delay—No acceptable ground to set aside the order/judgment passed by the Tribunal—Review ap­plication dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 396

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

—Section 22—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 100—It is settled that there is no vested right of appeal unless the statute so provides—Further, if a statute provides for a condition subject to which the appropriate Appellate Court can exercise jurisdiction, the Court is under an obligation to satisfy itself whether the condition prescribed is fulfilled—Therefore, the right of appeal provided under section 22 is to be read subject to the conditions provided therein—Section 22 pro­vides for an appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds specified in section 100 of the CPC—Under section 100 CPC, an appeal can be filed only on the ground that the case involves a substantial question of law as may be framed by the Appellate Court—The scope of appeal under section 22, therefore, is restricted to sub­stantial question of law arising from the judgment of the Tribunal—Civil Appeal No. 5016 of 2016 and Civil Appeal Nos. 8002-8003 of 2016 are dismissed—All the other appeals are allowed., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 587

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 18—Judicial Review—Under the N.G.T. Act, the Tribunal exercising appellate jurisdiction cannot strike down rules or regulations made under this Act—Therefore, it would be falla­cious to state that the Tribunal has powers of judicial review akin to that of a High Court exercising constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India—Held, the State Government order made under section 18 of the Water Act, not being the subject matter of any appeal under section 16 of the N.G.T. Act, cannot be “judicially reviewed” by the N.G.T.—Appeals are disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (S.C.) 698

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—

—Public Interest Litigation—Petition of petitioner dealt with problem of environment pollution—Held, National Green Tribunal has been constituted to deal with the issue of solid waste management—South Zone-Chennai Committee has also been constituted—An effective and efficacious remedy available—Writ petition disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (Mad., H.C.) 256

Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000—

Rules 5 (1), 6, 7 and 8—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Noise pollution—Indiscriminate use of loudspeaker in a residential area

 

regardless of home—Petition against—Held, Rules, 2000 manda­tory in nature—Law relating to Noise Pollution need to be strictly complied with in larger public interest—Inspite of law laid down in case Noise Pollution (V), In Re, 2005 (5) SCC 733 and statutory rules framed by Central Government—On account of inaction on part of concerned authority—Most of citizens feeling inconve­nience and their health affected by noise pollution—Accordingly in addition to directions issued by Supreme Court, further directions issued., 2019 FLT (9) (Alld., H.C.) 837

Orissa Forest Act, 1972—

Section 56—Confiscation of vehicle—42 pieces of sal were found in the vehicle—District Judge con­firmed the order of confiscation passed by Authorized Officer-Cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests—Hence the present writ peti­tion—Held, contention of the petitioner was that he had sold his vehicle—He however had contested the case—Driver was not ex­amined—Petitioner could not escape the liability for the offence committed by the driver—Petition sans merit—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Ori., H.C.) 355

Orissa Forest Act, 1972—

—Section 56—W.P. (C.) No. 772 of 2010 has been filed by the owner of the Mini Truck (TATA-407) bearing Registration No. OR-01-8151—Whereas the W.P. (C.) No. 22689 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner namely Jadumani Behera claiming to be the owner of the timber seized in the process of seizure involved herein from the Mini Truck bearing Registration No. OR-01-8151—Both the impugned orders emanated involving a proceeding under section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and concluded by the order of the Authorized Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forest for confiscation of the Mini Truck involved herein alongwith timbers—Held, in absence of the T.T. permit for transportation of the forest materials keeping the owner of the timber behind screen, all through this Court finds, there is a clear case involving an offence under section 56 of the Act, 1972—Both the writ petitions, stand dismissed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Ori., H.C.) 656

Orissa Forest Act, 1972—

—Section 56 (2-a)—Imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation—Legality—Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the property seized, which is liable to confiscation is un­called for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act—The amendment to Orissa Forest Act, 1972 was made by Orissa Act 12 of 2003—The word ‘may’ appearing in section 56 (2-a) has been substituted by ‘shall’—In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh, AIR 2005 SC 294 and amendment to Orissa Forest Act, 1972 the inescapable conclusion is that the Court has no power to impose fine in lieu of confiscation—The view taken in Gurudeo Singh Rai v. Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests, Rairakhol Division, 76 (1993) CLT 671 is not correct enunciation of law, which is accordingly over­ruled., 2019 FLT (9) (Ori., H.C-F.B.) 571

Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016—

Rule 4 (c)—Maharashtra Non-biodegradable Garbage (Control) Act, 2006—Sections 4 (1) and 18 (3) (i)—Quashing of Notification—Ban on manu­facturing, transport, store, sale, import etc. of non-woven polypropylene bags (carry bags)—Some interim order passed by Division Bench of Bombay High Court—Same reliefs claimed by petitioners in the present writ petition—Grievance of the petition­ers was that the State Government had banned the manufacturing of carry bags below 30 microns in thickness however it had per­mitted the use of packaging material above 50 microns in thick­ness—Held, impugned Notification recognized the garbage prob­lems faced by the Administration due to non-biodegradable bags—Petitinoers did not claim that their bags were not non-biodegradable—Ban had already been imposed and without hearing to the respondents no stay order could be passed—Interim prayer rejected—List the peti­tion for admission on date fixed—Writ petition ordered accord­ingly.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Bom., H.C.-N.B.) 329

Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016—

—Rules 4 (c), (d)—M.P. Jaiv Anaashya Apashistha (Niyantran) Adhiniyam 2004— Section 3—Notification dated 24.5.2017 issued by the State Government prohibiting the manufacturing, storage, transportation, sale and use of plastic carry bag in the State of M.P.—Validity—Source of power to legislate by the State—Flows either from entries in the State List or the Concurrent List—State Act enacted after sanction of the President—State was competent to enact the State Act in view of fact that it is in relation to public health falling in Entry 6 of List II of the Seventh Schedule—Since amendment has effect of restriction on freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse—State sought sanction of the President to promulgate the Ordinance—Such sanction was constitutional requirement—Such sanction having been granted—State Act cannot be disputed on ground that it con­travenes any of the provisions of the Central Rules—Section 5 of the Central Act authorizes Central Government to issue direction for closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or pro­cess—Once Central Government delegated its power under section 23 of the Central Act, State Act is a valid piece of legislation—State Act not in contravention of the Central Rules but only puts more stringent conditions than permissible under the Central Rules to eliminate use of plastic carry bag—Writ petitions dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.) 466

Pollution of Lake—

Letter petition by applicant—Registered as original application—Lake alleged to be polluted by waste and sewage water coming from 100 houses—Held, a storm drain was proposed to be constructed to prevent any flow of water from residential area to the lake—Villagers were asked to make provi­sions for individual toilet soak pit for collection of human waste and sewage, etc.—Apprehension of the petitioners would be taken care from the proposed layout—Application disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 561

Precedent—

Wrong allotment in one case cannot be cited as precedent.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Bom., H.C.-N.B.) 442

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960—

Sections 11, 35 and 38—Transport of Animals Rules, 1978—Rules 77, 78, 83 and 84—Public Interest Litigation—Petition to prohibit usage of battery cage facilities and declare same as illegal—Consideration of—Since matter under ac­tive consideration before Government of India to consider report of Law Commission in regard to matter, which is subject matter of writ Petition—Therefore, fit to request Union of India to frame Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Egg Laying Hens) Rules as well as Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Broiler Chicken) Rules—Further, Directions also issued—Petition disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (Utt., H.C.) 74

Public Interest Litigation—

Filed by resi­dents of village—For stopping mining work and also blasting hillock carried out in pursuant to mining lease—As it may cause serious harm to school going children—Exact distance of school from leasehold area not mentioned in writ petition—Though as per report, the school and hostel are quite far away from mining site—There are no incidences of harm to anyone by operation of the lease—Petition disposed of—Petitioner may approach the Pollution Control Board., 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 344

Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950—

Section 2—Offence under—Conviction—Sentenced to undergo two years and six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of R 1,000/- with default clause—Legality of—Appreciation of evidence—As per evi­dence of this alleged eye-witness accused being owner of the Ox, the Ox sneaked in the accused’s field, who got furious and started beating it, in order to drive it off of the field—Ox sustained some injuries and started bleeding—Ultimately fell in a drain about 500 yards off the ac­cused’s field and departed—Place of incident was a rugged terrace of the jungle surrounded by small whillocks—Ox was found lying dead in a trench about 500 steps away from the field of accused—Death of Ox was not caused by the lathi blows alone—Medical evi­dence—Ox died of profuse bleeding and lack of oxygen—Injuries—Fracture in last rib and bleeding from the raptured Kidney and urethra—Probability of death resulting from rupturing of kidney and urethra cannot be ruled out—Ox died of injuries suf­fered by relentless lathi blows by accused but the same was a re­sult of sudden and explicable outbreak of anguish of a tribal on finding his field being ruined or damaged by the Ox—Motive to kill the Ox cannot be inferred—Circumstances showing accidental death and not an intentional slaying—Appeal allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Accused acquitted.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Raj., H.C.) 407

Saw Mill License—

Owner of property purchased land in ques­tion along with a building and electrical fittings on 10 March, 2010—Nothing discernible from sale-deed as to existence of any wood furniture unit in said property—Or as to purchase of machinery stated as installed therein—After purchase of said property—Owner with intent to start a saw mill—Made an application before local authority and obtained licence—While as per judgment of Apex

 

Court, only a saw mill established and in existence before 30 October, 2002 could alone continue in property concerned—Situated in close proximity with forest—Therefore, licence and all such other proceedings/clearance obtained by present owner—Seeking to extend benefits as if sawmill in existence before 30 October, 2002, set aside—Appeal of owner dismissed with cost., 2019 FLT (9) (Ker., H.C.) 640

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006—

Sections 2 (c), 2 (o) and 3—Scope of—Availability of benefit—Claimant is neither staying nor residing in the forest—On account of cultivation he may depend upon forest land for livelihood but that by itself is not sufficient to clothe him with any right—Such encroachment cannot be viewed as bona fide—Recognition of vesting of forest rights is subject to condition that such Scheduled tribes or tribal communities or other traditional forest dwellers had occupied the forest before 13.12.2005—Any individual who is not part or member of such community cannot aspire and seek protection of 2006 Act—No pleading that his encroachment or use of forest was as a member of some community as part of joint act of that community—As per allotment order she belongs to a Scheduled Caste not a Scheduled Tribe—She is not residing in forest in which her right is recognized—Relevancy of the Act 2006 is only for small community or small number of people—Registry directed to register the petition as P.I.L. as the provisions of the Act 2006 are being misused or abused—Petition dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Bom., H.C.-N.B.) 441

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006—

—Sections 2 (c), 3 (1) (a) and 3 (1) (g)—Expression “Forest dwelling scheduled tribes”—Means the members or community of the scheduled tribes who primarily reside in and who depend on the forest or forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs including the scheduled tribe pasto­ralist communities—To be construed in the right perspective., 2019 FLT (9) (Raj., H.C.-J.B.) 360

Shrimp Farm—

Only water source available to petitioner is Kazhuveli, wetland area as notified under section 26 of T. N. Forest Act—Hence petitioner, to start shrimp business, has to approach into Kazhuveli wetland and lay a pipeline for taking brackish water from wetland—Which is in violation of orders of Supreme Court and High Courts and also of National Green Tribunal—Petitioner should not lay a pipline for taking brackish water from kazhuveli wetland and lay any pipeline in forest land—Petitioner has encroached into Kazhuveli wetland and laid pipeline—There is no illegality on part of 4th respondent to issue the impugned notice and restraining petitioner from setting up of shrimp farm., 2019 FLT (9) (Mad., H.C.) 498

Transit Challans—

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Prayer for a direction to respondent-State to issue transit chal­lans to petitioner—Sustainability of—Environmental clearance—A mining lease permits a lease holder only to mine minerals—But not in violation of statutory laws—Or in

 

contravention of stipulations in mining lease—Violation of mandatory provisions under environmen­tal laws—Would also be a breach of statutory conditions in the mining lease—Since rampant violation of mandatory envi­ronmental stipulations by petitioners—Thus, liability to pay compen­sation cannot be denied., 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 30

Transit Challans—

—Issuance of—Petition for—Sustainability of—Protection of envi­ronment—Concern for environment not a concern of citizens only—It is a matter of concern for Courts also—Though all that State wants is money—Therefore, a direction may be issued to respon­dent State—To consider issuing Transit challans—On part payment of amount reflected in demand notices—It is not that States’ only concern is money—Its avowed stand is that it should stand to protect envi­ronment—Petitioners are traders and not granted mining lease for captive usage—Transit challan issued to only those mining lease holders—Who paid demand in full—Since, petitioners not identically situated to those who were issued mining lease—However, considering the facts and judgments in “Common Cause” and “Goa Foundation”—Court declined to issue direction to issue transit challans to peti­tioners—Petitions dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Jhar., H.C.) 30

U.P. Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978—

Transit fee under—Action of realizing on the transport of coal through Railway or through Aerial Rope Way and Belt Pipe Conveyor System—Sustainability of—If statute does not provide for charging of transit fee on transportation of coal by A.W.R. and B.P.C. System or Railways and there is no statutory liability upon the petitioner to pay it—N.C.L under the contract cannot realized the same—State authorities are not competent to realize transit fea on the transportation of Coal by rail or through A.W.R. and B.P.C. System—Petition allowed—Directions issued accordingly., 2019 FLT (9) (Alld., H.C.) 375

Unauthorised Occupant—

Land is existing at the back of existing Psychiatric Centre and Mental Hospital, Sethi Colony—Earmarked in the Master plan for medical purpose for the expansion of the existing Psychiatric Centre and Mental Hospital, a premier and leading Psychiatric Centre of State—Residents of such land namely Chetan “kachchi basti” cannot insist on the regularization of their possession only for the reason that they oc­cupied the land as trespassers for quite some time, despite persis­tent efforts of the State to rehabilitate them elsewhere—Half of the residents of the kachchi basti are not even members of Scheduled Tribes—They do not have any right to occupy and insist on continuing with such occupation on such land in the face of the benevolent gesture of the State Government to rehabilitate them—Writ Court rightly issued direction for implementation of decision taken by the State Government—Appeal dismissed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Raj., H.C.-J.B.) 360

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—

Section 25—Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 21—Running of Bandsaw Machine Mill—License of the petitioner not renewed—Division Bench while dismissing the appeals, directed to the petitioner to approach Pollution Control Board—Board re­fused to revise the license—Hence the instant writ petition—Held, Conservator of Forests (Respondent No. 6) directed to take a de­cision for grant/renewal of license to the petitioner in the light of recommendation from DFO, Shopian within six weeks from the date certified copy of order made available—Petition disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (J&K., H.C.) 241

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—

—Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Environment Protection Act, 1986—Illegal and unauthorised operation of brick kiln units—Suo moto action by High Court—Held, the Courts while acting as guardian of people’s fundamental rights were to see that the enforcement agencies, be it the State or any other authority, would take effective steps for the enforcement of the laws—Direction to each one of the respondents (263 in number represented by learned Counsels) to pay costs of R 1 lakh each to be deposited in the Registry of the Court—State Pollution Control Board allowed such brick kiln units to operate il­legally and unauthorizedly for a long period—As such they would deposit R 10 lakhs in the registry of the Court within two weeks from the date of order—Matter would be listed on date fixed for further action—Petition ordered accordingly., 2019 FLT (9) (Tri., H.C.) 871

Water Pollution—

Allegation of violation of Environmental Clearance condition with regard to water quality in River Kanchan and at overburden dumping site—River Kanchan flows through min­ing lease—While a water body (river) could not be part of any mining lease—No mining lease can be allowed within 100 mt. of any water body as per M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996—But in present case, safe distance of 60 mt. from river has been provided—Report of Joint Inspection Team clearly brings out the fact that debris from dumps are flowing into river thereby causing its pollution—Collected water samples reveal increase in concentration of COD, BOD and solids—Confirming contamination of water reservoir by mining ac­tivity—Ambient air quality found to be unsatisfactory—Even gar­land drains and gabson failed to cheek mining waste from flowing into river—No area found conforming to EC norms of 2500 plants per hectare over mining dumps—Even overburden allowed to be dumped within mining lease area close to river—Thus, total disre­gard of environmental norms by respondent Nos. 11 and 12—Direction issued., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 755

Water Pollution—

—Water supply to the public—P.I.L. filed ques­tioning the monitoring of supply of pure water—Report of Deputy Commissioner that District Monitoring Committee was extra-vigi­lant and was monitoring it—P.I.L. disposed of with direction to ap­proach before the Court if any slackness found on the part of District Monitoring Committee—P.I.L. disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (Megh., H.C.) 695

Water Supply—

To the inhabitants of island—Letter petition by petitioner registered as original application—Allegation of excessive pumping of ground water—Held, direction to the U.T. of Lakshadweep Administration to implement the action plan sug­gested by C.G.W. B. as well as of the Amicus Curiae in a time bound manner—Application disposed of., 2019 FLT (9) (N.G.T.-P.B.-N.D.) 557

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—

Sections 2 (16)/2 (35)/6, 27/39/50/51 read with (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009—Poaching of Rhino—Appellant was convicted under section 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Hence the present appeal—Held, the inci­dent took place in the deep forest area at dead hours of night—No possibility of any eye-witness to corroborate the same—Statement recorded by the Officer with the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forest could not be discarded unless some serious discrepancy was brought to the notice of Court—No illegality found in the order impugned—No interference with the conviction—However considering all facts and circumstances, the sentence reduced to 3 (three) years—Appeal partly allowed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Gau., H.C.) 781

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—

—Sections 9 and 11—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21—Right of vocation of snake charming—Claimed by petitioner belonging to Nath/Sapera Community—Constitutional validity of sections 9 and 11 of the Act, 1972 challenged by means of present writ petition —Held, the petitioner was not able to establish that his community inher­ited fundamental right conferred under Article 19 (1) (g) of Consti­tution to practice the profession of snake charming—Right con­ferred under Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution is not an absolute right—Regarding hardship the petitioner had not adverted to any empirical study as would establish the only vocation of the Sapera Community was snake charming—No merit in the petition—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (M.P.-G.B.) 808

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—

—Sections 11 (1) (a), 12 (bb) and 38-O—Public Interest Litigation—Direction to shift/ reallocate the Tiger T-91 back to Ramgarh Vishdhari’ Wild Life Sanctuary from ‘Mukundra Hills Tiger Reserve’—Held, this Court cannot act as a Court of Appeal over the decision of the re­spondents—No advice could be given for the shifting or otherwise of the tigers—Only the manner in which the decision had been taken, could be examined—Only the experts in the field of forest and wild life would decide the shifting—No merits in the petition—Dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Raj., H.C.-J.B.) 675

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—

—Section 18—Protection of Turtle Wildlife Sanctuary at Kashi (Varansi)—State Government declared and notified the area spread within 7 kms. near mid­stream of Ganga River at Varansi as Tortoise Wildlife Sanctuary—Submission of petitioner that respondent be directed not to shift the T.W.S. upstream and to protect and stop plying of motor boats, inland waterways vessels and ships and human activities in the protected sanctuary area—S.B.W.L., an expert body recommended for deno­tification of T.W.S. along with compensatory measures—State Government resolved to proceed with process of notification of proposed wildlife

 

sanctuary and denotification of T.W.S.—Proposed decision based on opinion of experts and after follow­ing due procedure under law—No material irregularity in the same—No interference warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution—Writ petition dismissed., 2019 FLT (9) (Alld., H.C.) 297

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—

—Sections 27, 29, 39 (D) and 51—Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 2, 41 and 52—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 4 and 27—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 379, 414 and 120-B—Seizure of truck—Application to get interim custody of truck—Rejected by learned J.M.F.C.—Revisional Court affirmed the or­der—Hence the present petition under section 482, Cr. P.C.—Held, truck was seized which was loaded with sand from bank of river ‘Sone’ situated at protected area—Since as per impugned order, the information with respect to initiation of proceeding for confis­cation was already received by the Judicial Magistrate—He had no jurisdiction to release the truck—No illegality with order im­pugned—Petition dismissed. , 2019 FLT (9) (M.P., H.C.) 453

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—

—Sections 50 and 51—Kerala Forest Act, 1961—Sections 19, 27 (1), (e), (iv)—Offence under—On the ground of confession—Revision against—Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 25, 26 and 78—Forest Range Officer brought complaint in Court against the three accused simply on the basis of the mahazars prepared by the Forester and the statements al­legedly given by the accused—No forest official had seen accused in the forest—There is no direct or circumstantial evidence against any of the accused—The Exts. P3 and P4 statements were marked through PW 1 (Forest Guard)—Proving a confession statement is entirely different from making a confession statement—This is not a confession statement as such—Held, Exts, P3 to P5 statements stand not proved as confession statements—Government Notification required under section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act can be produced either in original or as a certified copy, certified by the competent person in terms of section 78 of the Evidence Act—Sub-section (8) of section 50 of the Wildlife Protection Act makes it clear that only the officers authorized by the law, or the Government under the Act, can conduct investigation—If at all P.W. 1 claims the statement to be an extra-judicial confession, it must be properly and legally proved—But, such a confession stands not properly proved according to law—The revi­sion petitioners are found not guilty of the offences under section 27 (1) (e) (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, and under section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, and they are acquitted of those offences in revision—Revision is allowed.

, 2019 FLT (9) (Ker., H.C.) 346