CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 16-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.T. NANAVATI
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 16, 20CO 
[G.T. NANAVATI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.j 
Wild Life Protection Act, 1972: Sections 18(1) and 26A(3). 
Forest Area-Declaration of as "Wildlife Sanctuary-Reduction in area 
of sanctuary limit subsequently-Legality of. 
B 
c 
State of Gujarat-Notification declaring forest area as a wildlife 
sanctuary-Cancellation of notification and issue of another notification 
whereunder only a party of the said reserved forest declared as wild/if e 
sanctu~elimitation to the area of sanctuary successfully challenged D 
before High Co~Thereafter State Legislature passed a Resolution reducing 
the sanctuary limit-Rest of the area made available for development of 
backward area of District--Consequential notification by Government-Writ 
challenging Resolution and Notification dismissed by High Court-Appeal 
before this Court--lnterim order by Supreme Court permitting mining of 
limestone for meeting the requirements of a cement plant-Held the power to E 
take a decision for reduction of the notified area is not given to the State 
Government but to the State Legislature--lf an attempt is made by the State 
Legislature and the State Government to balance the need of the environment 
and the need of economic development it would not be proper to apply the 
principles of Prohibition in such a case--lt would be proper and safer to apply 
F 
the 'Principle of Protection' and the 'Principle of Polluter Pays' keeping in 
mind the principle of 'sustainable development' and the 'principle of inter-
generation equity'-The impugned resolution and the notification do not 
deserve to be quashed-Proper course is to permit restricted and regulated 
exploitation of mineral wealth--Direction by Supreme Court-The interim 
order passed by this Court shall continue for a period of one year-if a need G 
arises to carry out mining operation in a larger area that may be permitted 
only after obtaining an order to that effect from this Court-The State Govern-
ment shall constitute a Committee to make a comprehensive study of the 
relevant environmental aspects and also to study the effects of the present 
limited mining operation permitted by this Court-It shall also study the effect H 
907 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 1 S.C.R. 
A of rnnning of the cement plant set up outside the old sanctuary area-The 
State Government is restrained from giving permission to others to cany on 
any mining operation or to put up a cement plant within the area of JO kms. 
from the periphery of the old sanctuary area without obtaining an order from 
this court-State Government shall also take steps to monitor air and water 
B pollution in this area every three months through its officers and submit its 
report in that behalf-The State Government shall also submit a yearly report 
to this Court as regards the action taken by it. 
State Legislature-Resolution to reduce the limit of wild/if e 
sanctuary-Validity of-Power of court to interfere with decision of State 
C Legislature in such a matter-Held it is not proper to question the decision 
of the State Legislature in a matter of this type unless there are substantial 
and compelling reasons to do so. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 13658 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.95 of the Gujarat High 
Court in S.C.A. No. 6507 of 1995. 
Ashok Desai, Attorney General, K.N. Rawal, Altaf Ahmad, Mukul 
Rohatagi, Additional Solicitor Generals, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, N.N. Gos-
E wami, Dr. Abhished Manu Singhvi, R.P. Bhatt, P. Chidambaram, Harish 
N. Salve, Arun Jaitley, Naresh Mathur, S.K. Dholakia, Ashok Desai, G. 
Ramaswamy, Bhaskar Tanna, Raju Ramachandran, Soli J. Sorabjee, 
Naresh Mathur, N.K. Sahool, Ms. Indoo P. Verma, Samecr Parekh, P.H. 
Parekh, N. Singh Rohit Mammen Alex, Ms. Hemantika Wahl, Ms. M. 
F Kaur, Anupam Lal Das, Ms. Sandhya Rajpal, T.C. Sharma, Hemant Shar-
ma, S.K. Dwivedi, P. Parmeswaran, Narcsh Bakshi, B.V. Bairam Das, Ms. 
Sumita Hazarika, \is. Sunita Sharma, Anip Sachthey, Ms. Anu Sawhney, 
Anupam Lal, AL. Das, Ms. Shweta Shalini, B.V. Balaram Das, H. Munshi, 
J.P. Pathak, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Krishna Venugopal, C.D. Singh, Ms. Bina 
Madhavan, Ms. Anil Katiyar, M.N. Shroff, Mihar Joshi, Ms. Mahrook 
G Karawala, S.R. Hegde, Ms. Tanuja Sheel and Ms. Reema Bhandari for the 
appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G.T. NANAVATI, J. ln this special leave petit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.