LexT.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D T.N .. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MAY 1, 2000 [B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] Environmental Law : Protection and conservation of forests-High Power Committee consti- tuted by Supreme Court-Penalty for excess production on units recovering veneer from timber-Norms adopted by HPC approved-HPC entitled to im- pose penalty larger than the penalty originally imposed as long as this penalty is based on records produced-HPC entitled to look into records and pass orders in every case whose documents and material had been placed before it by 15.1.1998-Unit concerned entitled to approach HPC for recon- sideration •if penalty/additional penalty imposed by it-HPC discharging quasi- judicial functions, would briefly indicate reasons in support of order passed by it. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., [1998] 1 SCR 211, order modified. E T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., [1997) 2 SCC F G H 267, referred to. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : LA. No. 565 of 2000. IN Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995. ,(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General (AC), Mukul Rohtagi, K.N. Raval, Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor Generals, Anil B. Divan, Kapil Sibal, P. Chidambaram, Dipankar Gupta, G.L. Sanghi, M.C. Bhandare, V.A. Mohta, M.N. Rao, V.R. Reddy, K.K. Veriugopal, Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Jayant Das, U.U. Lalit, (AC), Mahendra Vyas, P.K. Manohar, A.D.N. Rao, S. Wasim A. Quadri, Hemant Shanna, S.K. Dwivedi; P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Anil Katiyar, B.V. Balram Das, (Ms. Su~hfua Suri), (NP), Rajiv Nanda, B.K. Prasad, Rajiv Tyagi, Anip Sachthey, Allupam Lal Das, Ms. Sandhya Rajpal, Arijit Prasad, ~.K. Agnihotri, Rajendra Singhvi, Mrs. Yogmaya, Vivek Tankha, Ms. Madhur Dadlani, Rakesh K. Sharma, C. Mukhopadhaya, Manish Kumar, Manoj 902 )- - - -"- - .J, T.N. GODAVARAMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. 903 Shanna, Gopal Jain. Ms. Nandini Gore, K.V. Vishwanathan, K.V. Vrjay Kumar Chauhan, Ravi Prakash Gupta, Prashant Bhushan, B .S. Banthia, T.S. Chowdhary, B.R. Atre, Himanshu Shekhar, V.J. Francis, M.L. Lahoty, P.K. Shanna, Ashok K. Gupta, Farrukh Rashid, Anil Shrivastav, (Mis. L.P. Agarwala & Co., Sakesh Kumar, Uma Nath Singh, Sanjay R. Hedge, Satya Mitra, Naresh K. Shanna, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, A Mariarputham, Ms. ArunaMathur, Anurag D. Mathur, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ashok Mathur, Mahabir Singh, S.S. Shinde, S.V. Deshpande, R.K. Mehta, Gopal Singh, R.B. Mishra, S.S. Shamshery, K.B. Rohtagi, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Mahesh Kasana, V.G. Pragasam, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms. Binu Tamta, D.S. Mehra, Y.P. Mahajan, P.S. Narsimha, K. Raghavacharyulu, P. Sridhar, K.N. Jha, Manoj Swarup, Sanjay Kapoor, Sunil K. Jain, Davinder Singh, S. Sukumaran, M.C. Bhandari, R.P. Gupta, Mukul Rohtagi, Ms. Beena Prakash and Ujjawal Banerjee for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This is an application by the learned Amicus Curiae seeking clarifi- cation in relation to the working of the High Power Committee which was constituted by this Court. The first clarification which is sought is with regard to the orders passed by the High Power Committee (HPC) imposing a penalty based on actual adjudication at the behest of the units even if it results in the imposition of penalty larger than the penalty originally imposed. The question is whether such a penalty and/or additional penalty which is imposed on the basis of the documents produced by the units is valid and permissible. A B c D E The HPC fixed normal recovery norms after obtaining data and expert advice from different sources. The norms so fixed showed as to how much F veneer etc. could be recovered from the timber and it is on that basis·that it proceeded to examine the records of the different units and then determined whether there has been excess production indicating use of illegal timber and thereby justifying imposition of penalty and/or additional penalty. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are in agreement with the norms adopted by the HPC. We also hold that on the basis of the documents and records produced by the units, the HPC was and would be entitled to impose penalty larger than the penalty originally imposed, as long as this penalty is based on the records so produced. G H 904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R. A A question has arisen with regard to cases where orders had not b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.