STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus JANTHAKAL ENTERPRISES AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 287 · Decided: 15-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN, A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 7 S.C.R. 287 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
v. 
JANTHAKAL ENTERPRISES AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.3293-3294 of 2011) 
APRIL 15, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ petitions 
involving disputed questions of fact in regard to forest/mining! 
environment,matters - Duty of the Court - Held: The courts 
C 
should share 'the legislative concern to conserve the forests 
and the mineral wealth of the country - Courts should be 
vigilant in issuing final or interim orders in forest/mining/ 
Environment matters so that unscrupulous operators do not 
abuse the process of courts to indulge in 1arge scale D 
violations or rob the country of its mineral wealth or secure 
orders by misrepresentation to circumvent the procedural 
safeguards under the relevant statutes - Central Government 
and the State Government are huge and complex 
organizatioris and many a time require considerable time to 
E 
secure information and provide them to court, in matters 
requiring enquiry, investigation or probe - Where writ petitions 
involving disputed questions of fact in regard to forest/mining/ 
environment matters, come up for consideration, courts 
should give sufficient time and latitude to the concerned F 
ministries/departments to file their objections/counters after 
thoroughly verifying the facts - ff there is undue hurry, the 
concerned ministries/departments will not be able to make 
proper or thorough verifications and place the correct facts -
A wrong decision in such matters may lead to disastrous 
G 
results - in regard to public interest - financially and 
ecologically - Therefore, writ petitions involving mineral 
wealth, forest conservation or environmental protection should 
not be disposed of without giving due opportunity to the 
287 
H 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 
A concerned departments to verify the facts and fife their 
counters/objections in writing - The instant case is a typical 
example where a writ petition requiring decision of disputed 
and unascertained factual allegations filed on 30.3.2009 was 
disposed of on 2. 7.2009 without giving due opportunity to the 
B mining and forest departments of the State Governments and 
the MoEF, to file their counter-affidavits - When there was 
delay of nearly a quarter century on the part of the writ 
petitioner in approaching the court, the writ petition ought not 
to have been disposed of in hardly three months, without 
c counter-affidavits from the concerned respondents - Even 
though there were no counter affidavits, nor any opportunity 
to the respondents in the writ petition to file counter-affidavits, 
the High court assumed that the State and the Central 
Governments had conceded the claims of the first respondent 
0 in the writ petition and allowed _the writ petition on 2. 7.2009 -
Again, the High Court without calling for objections from 
MoEF or the state government, on an application by the writ 
petitioner, amended the final order - Anxiety to render speedy 
justice should not result in sacrifice of the public interest - The 
High Court committed a serious error in hurriedly deciding 
E seriously disputed questions of fact without calling for a counter 
and without there being any proper verification of the claim of 
the first respondent by the authorities concerned - The order 
of the High Court cannot be sustained -Costs of Rs.50,0001-
imposed upon the first respondent payable to the State 
F Government- Environment - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 
- s. 2 - Environment Protection Act, 1986. 
. G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
3293-3294 of 2011 . 
From the Judgment & Order dated 2.7.2009 & 27.8.2009 
of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.P. No. 8094 
of 2009. 
Anitha Shenoy for the Appellants. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. JANTHAKAL 289 
ENTERPRISES AND ANR. 
Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi, V. Giri, Rohit M. Alex, P.S. 
A 
Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari, Haris Beeran, Amer Mushtaq, 
Radha Shyam Jena for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
B 
1. Leave granted. Heard. 
2. The first respondent was the holder of a mining lease 
(No.593/993) for the period 6.7.1965 to 5.7.1985 under C 
registered lease dated 6. 7.1965 in respect of an area of 80.94 
hectares in Survey No. 35(Part) of Tanigehalli and Survey 
No.107(Part) of Hirekandawadi villages, Holalkere Taluk, 
Chitradurga District, Karnataka. The first respondent fi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.