STATE OF MEGHALAYA versus ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION, DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 8 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 03-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
297
STATE OF MEGHALAYA
v.
ALL DIMASA STUDENTS UNION,
DIMA-HASAO DISTRICT COMMITTEE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.10720 of 2018)
JULY 03, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: ss.14, 15 and 16 –
Jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal (NGT) – Orders by NGT
imposing ban on mining – Whether orders passed by NGT were
without jurisdiction being beyond the purview of ss.14, 15 and 16
of the NGT Act, 2010 – Held: Cognizance was taken by NGT when
application O.A.73 of 2014 on 17.4.2014 was admitted and order
was issued – There were clear allegation in the application that
inspite of various remedial measures set out in the report of expert,
no proper and effective remedial measures were taken by the
concerned authorities of the State – The pleadings in the
application clearly alleged environmental degradation due to
illegal coal mining – It was further stated that inaction of
authorities had resulted in violation of various enactments
mentioned in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010 including the Water
(Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and  the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 – The allegations made in the application
were sufficient for NGT to exercise its jurisdiction as conferred by
s.14 – Both the  component as appearing in sub-section 1 of s.14,
that is (i)  substantial question relating to environment and (ii) such
question arises out of the implementation of the enactments
specified in  Schedule I, were involved – NGT after adverting to
O.A.No.73 of 2014 on 17.04.2014 had called for various reports
from  different committees including State Pollution Control Board
– It was not a case of mere allegation of environmental
degradation by illegal and unregulated coal mining rather there
were materials on the record including the report of the experts, the
Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board published in the month
of September, 1992, the report of Katakey committee appointed by
                                                297
[2019]  8 S.C.R. 297
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 8  S.C.R.
NGT by which environmental degradation of water, air and surface
of the land was proved – Therefore, there was sufficient allegation
regarding substantial questions relating to environment and
violation of  enactments in Schedule I – There was no substance in
the appellant’s submission that NGT has no jurisdiction to
entertain the case and pass orders – In cases pertaining to
environmental matter, the State has to act as facilitator and not as
obstructionist – The submission for the State that NGT exceeded its
jurisdiction under ss.14 and 15 in entertaining O.A.No.73 of 2014
is rejected – Constitution of  India – Art.48A – Water (Prevention
and Control Pollution) Act, 1974 – Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 –  Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: s.19(1) – Under Or.26
r.10A CPC, a Court can appoint commission for scientific
investigation – This power can very well be exercised by the NGT
also – NGT while asking expert to give a report is not confined to
the four corners of r.10A and its jurisdiction is not shackled by
strict terms of Or.21 r.10A by virtue of s.19(1) of the NGT Act – r.24
of National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011
empowers the Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions
as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to
secure the ends of justice – There is no lack of jurisdiction in NGT
in directing for appointment of a committee and to obtain a report
from a Committee – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.26 r.10A –
Commission/Committee – National Green Tribunal (Practice and
Procedure) Rules, 2011 – r.24.
Land  Laws: Land tenure system – Nature of land tenure in
the Hills Districts of State of Meghalaya – In the Hills Districts of
State of Meghalaya, the most of the lands are either privately or
community owned in which State does not claim any right – The,
private owners of the land as well as community owners have both
the surface right as well as sub-soil right – Thus, the tribals owned
the land and also owned the minerals – Constitution of India –
Art.244, sub-clause (2) – Mines and Minerals.
Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act, 1957:
Applicability of the provisions of Act of 1957 in Tribal areas within
the State of Meghalaya, included in Schedule VI of the Constitution
– Sch

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