VEERU DEVGAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 338 · Decided: 11-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 13 S.C.R. 338 
• " 
A 
VEERU DEVGAN 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.4448 of 2005) 
B 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, 
JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 -
Plenary 
c jurisdiction - Exercise of -
Scope - Licence granted to 
Appellant to shoot film in reserve forest area - Cancelled by 
State on allegation that he violated terms and conditions of 
agreement between the parties and caused damage to 
grasslands in the area - Appellant filed writ petition - High 
D Court came to a finding that Appellant had not caused damage 
to environment or grasslands and the action of cancellation 
of licence was illegal - However, in purported exercise of its 
plenary powers, High Court directed Appellant to deposit Rs. 50 
/akhs for protection of environment - On appeal, held: Plenary 
E 
powers must be exercised judicially and judiciously on basis 
of facts before Court and on well-settled principles - Since 
findings recorded by High Court were in favour of Appellant, 
grievance voiced by him that High Court erred in directing 
deposit of Rs. 50 /akhs is well-founded and Appellant is entitled 
F 
to refund of said amount- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 -
Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981 -
Tamil Nadu Forest 
;..... 
Department Code, 1984. 
Appellant is engaged in the production and direction 
of films. He sought permission to shoot a part of his film 
G "Raju Chacha" in the reserve forest area in Nilgiri District, 
Ooty. A formal agreement in this regard was entered into 
between Appellant and the District Forest Officer whereby 
permission was granted to Appellant to shoot the film 
.. 
and to erect temporary sets therefor. Permission/Licence 
H 
338 
l 
VEERU DEVGAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
339 
" 
·~ 
&ANR. 
granted to Appellant was however subsequently A 
cancelled by the State on the ground that he violated the 
terms and condition~ of the agreement entered into 
between the parties and caused damage to grasslands 
in the forest area. 
.., 
Appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the B 
Constitution challenging the cancellation of licence. The 
High Court held that it was not proved that the appellant-
licensee had violated terms and conditions of the licence. 
It also recorded a finding on the basis of reports submitted 
by the Forest Authorities that the Appellant had not caused c 
damage to environment or grassland and the action of 
cancellation of licence and termination of the agreement 
was, therefore, illegal and contrary to law. The High Court, 
however, in purported execise of its plenary jurisdiction, 
directed the Appellant to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs for D 
--,f 
protection of environment. The said direction is 
challenged in the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. According to the High Court, the appellant E 
had not caused damage to the grassland nor had 
committed any action which warranted cancellation of 
licence and yet it imposed an enormous condition to 
deposit Rs. 50 lakhs inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) 
.. _~ 
fixation of nominal fee by the State for the use of the site; 
F 
arid (ii) heavy budget of the film (Rs.10 crores). If after 
following proper procedure and complying with all terms 
and conditions, the appellant-writ petitioner was granted 
permission to shoot the film and all payments had been 
made as per the terms and conditions of the agreement G 
and there was no finding as to damage to environment, 
to grassland or to wildlife as alleged in the newspaper 
,. 
report and once the High Court was satisfied on the basis 
of the reports submitted by the authorities and it set aside 
the order of cancellation of licence and termination of H 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A agreement, the High Court could not have directed the 
appellant to deposit Rs.50 lakhs to be used towards 
creating greater awareness for environmental protection 
and for preservation of forests. [l'aras 18, 20] [351-C,G,H 
352-A-B] 
B 
1.2. No doubt the High Court was exercising plenary 
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, 
even plenary powers must be exercised judicially and 
judiciously on the basis of facts before the Court and on 
well-settled principles. Since the findings recorded by 
C the High Court were in favour of the appellant-writ 
petitioner, the grievance voiced by the appellant that the 
High Court was in error in directing deposit of Rs. 50 
lakhs is well-founded an

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