LexKRISHNADEVI MALCHAND KAMATHIA & ORS. versus BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 291 KRISHNADEVI MALCHAND KAMATHIA & ORS. A v. BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP & ORS. I.A. No. 23 of 201 O In Civil Appeal No. 4421 of 2010 · B JANUARY 31, 2011 [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] Contempt of Court - Allegation of damage to Mangroves C and other vegetation of wet land in CRZ-1 area, in willful disobedience of court order - Held: Under the garb of repairing the old bund, the appellants constructed a sort of pukka bund using boulders and debris a/ongwith a huge platform, violating the norms of environmental law and in p flagrant violation and utter disregard of orders passed by the courts and the District Collector - The appellants knowingly and purposely damaged the mangroves and other vegetation, which could not have been disturbed - Mangrove forests are of great ecological importance and are a/so ecologically E sensitive - No court can validate an action which is not lawful at its inception - Appellants directed to restore the height and width of the bund as it was existing prior to the order passed by the District Collector - Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 - s.21 - Forest (Conservation) Act, F 1980 - Coastal Regulatory Zone Regulations, 1991. Order - Void order- Effect of - Held: Even if an order is void, it is required to be so declared by a competent forum and it is not permissible for any person to ignore the same merely because in his opinion the order is void. G The High Court while disposing of a Writ Petition filed by the Bombay Environmental Action Group issued certain directions, in pursuance of which the Divisional 291 H .~" 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 3 S.C.R. A Commissioner issued a Notification dated 18.2.2009 on account of which the appellants were restrained from restarting manufacture of salt on the land In issue. Aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before this Court. During pendency of the appeal, the appellants B also filed an application seeking permission to repair the damaged bund alongwith the land In Issue. This Court disposed of the application granting liberty to the appellants to approach the District Collector for such relief. The appellants approached the District Collector, c who after holding inquiry passed a speaking and reasoned order dated 27-1-2010, allowing the appellants to repair the bund subject to the condition that the appellants would repair the bund without destroying the mangroves/vegetation on the said land. This Court 0 ultimately disposed of the appeal filed by the appellants vide order dated 7-5-2010. The parties in the appeal filed contempt applications alleging various violations of the orders passed by this Court, as well as by the District Collector. E F Tha District Collector and the Action Group filed contempt applications making allegations that under the garb of repairing the bund, the appellants raised the height and expanded the width of the bund and thus destroyed the mangroves to a great extent. The appellants, on the other hand, filed a Contempt application alleging that the Collector's order dated 27.1.2010 was being unnecessarily interfered with by the statutory authorities. The appellants submitted that in G pursuance of the order of this Court dated 7.5.2010, they had Instituted a civil suit before the High Court, wherein notices had been issued to the respondents/defendants and which is still pending consideration and further that the validity of the Notification dated 18.2.2009 is also H under challenge therein to the extent that the said ·- -· KRISHNADEVI MALCHAND KAMATHIA v. BOMBAY 293 ENVIRONMENTALACTION GROUP Notification is void ab initio for the reason that the A procedure prescribed in law was not followed. Disposing of the applications, the Court HELD:1. Even if an order is void, it requires to be so declared by a competent forum and it is not permissible B for any person to ignore the same merely because in his opinion the order is void. Even if the order/ notification is vo!d/voidable, the party aggrieved by the same cannot decide that the said order/notification is not binding upon it. It has to approach the court for seeking such a C declaration. The order may be hypothetically a nullity and even if its invalidity is challenged before the court in a given circumstance, the court may refuse to quash the same on various grounds including the standing of. the petitioner or o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.