LexK.M. CHINNAPPA IN T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
K.M. CHINNAPPA IN T.N. GODA YARMAN THIRUMALPAD A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. OCTOBER 30, 2002 [B.N. KI RP AL, Y .K. SABHARWAL AND ARIJIT PASAYA T, JJ .] B Environment Law: Forest (Conservation) Act 1980-Section 2(ii): Wildlife Protection, Act 1972-Section 35(1): Environment (Protection) Act, 1986-Section 3: C Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964-Section 349: Mineral Concession Rules, 1960-Rule 24B: Forest-Conservation of-Kudremukh National Park-Preservation of-A Company continuing to carry out mining operation in the National D Park in violation of the order of Supreme Court-Interlocutory application by Wildlife trustee-Seeking directions to stop mining activities by the Company-Mining lease of the company expiring on 24. 7.99-Forest Advisory Committee while examining renewal recommending that mining be allowed upto year 2005 by which time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area should be exhausted-However formal decision deferred E as matter pending-Matter referred to Central empowered Committee- Committee per majority of the view that the company be asked to wind up its operation within the period of jive years or on the exhaustion of the oxidized weathend secondary ore, whichever is earlier in the already broken up area and the period of jive years would commence from the date when lease expired-Plea of company that land under mining outside the purview F of the operation of the Acts-Held: there is no reason to vary the view since the findings and the conclusion of Committee, a statutory one, based on assessment of factual aspects and materials and reports placed by the parties- Time period fixed by Forest Advisory Committee that mining should be allowed till the end of 2005 is accepted. G Mining activities were carried out in the area of Western Ghat Region by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. (Company) under lease which was declared to be National Park in terms of Section 35(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. This Court passed an order whereby operation of any order 541 H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A permitting removal of certain trees from national parks, Game sanctuaries_ and forest was injucted. It is i;lleged that the Company continued mining , operations notwithstanding the order. Applicant-trustee of Wildlife organization filed the instant interlocutory application seeking directions to stop mining activities by the B company, to stop polluting the Bhadra river, to take action against illegal encroachment and destruction of forest in the Kudremukh National Park. As the mining lease was to expire on 24. 7.99 application was made for renewal of lease for 20 years and for grant of temporary work permission in already broken up area. Forest Advisory Committee examined the renewal and allowed C mining upto year 2005 by which time the weather secondary ore available in the already broken up area should be exhausted. However, the Ministry deferred its decision on the said recommendation as the matter was pending before this Court. Also there was no Environment Impact Assessment Report either before State Government or Central Government. The matter was referred to the Central empowered Committee. The Committee per majority D was of the view that the company be 'l!sked to wind up its operation within a peri·od of five years or on the exhaustion of the oxidized weathered secondary ore, whichever is earlier in the already broken up area and the period of five years would commence from the date when lease expired. It was contended on behalf of the Company that notwithstanding anything E provided under the Wildlife Act, Conservation Act or Environment Act, on an application being made the lease was to be renewed for twenty years and therefore, the recommendations made at a point of time for such period were in order; that the notification under Section 35(4) of the Wildlife Protection Act, specifically excluded land under mining; that under the notification dated F 29.5.1982 issued under Section 349 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act the concerned area cannot be a treated to be a forest land; that since there was an existing legal right to get a renewal, which had already accrued, there was no question of any embargo on the renewal of the mining lease; that in case of a renewal there was no requirement of compliance of Section 2 of the Conservation Act; that the State and Central Governments at earlier poi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.