Swiss replica watches are crafted with all those perspectives that a watch lover appropriate in rolex replica a wristwatch. There are altered concepts about replica watches a part of the accepted public. But I just wish to ask, why you spent bags of dollars on a individual section of replica watches uk affluence cast if you could get the aforementioned actualization and address from such a watch in few dollars. Nothing bad with replica watches accurate brands but they are pricey. Swiss Replica Watches are crafted in a accurate way that provides the aforementioned actualization to the high-end accurate watches. These watches accept so rolex replica accomplished adroitness that you can accomplish the aberration amid the replica and accurate watch unless you are an able in horology.





For any queries Please
Contact :

Law Publishing House
39, Sheo Charan Lal Road
Allabahad - 211003
Ph. : 0532-2563956/3835
Email : lawpublishinghouse@gmail.com
At a Glance
About Us
Environment Minister's Words
National Green Tribunal
Sample Contents
Subscription Details
  • Only Journal of its kind
  • Contains Latest Acts, Rules and Notifications
  • Informative Articles on Environmental, Forest & Mining Laws
  • Cases relating to Environmental, Forest & Mining Laws in one convenient location

Given below are the summaries of the cases reported in Volume 2 (2012) of Environmental and Forest Law Times. These judgments deal with environmental laws in India as well as pollution laws, forest laws, wildlife laws, mining laws, etc. The full judgments are reported in the volume which is available in the market. For price details and to place orders please contact:


M/s. Law Publishing House
39, Sheo Charan Lal Road, Allahabad
Ph: (0532) 2563956; 2563835
Email: lawpublishinghouse@gmail.com


AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981—

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981- Section 17 (1) (e), (g), (j)—Exercise of powers under—West Bengal Pollution Control Board authorised to issue orders for regulating air pollution resulting from vehicular emission and vehicular pollution—Orders of closure issued by W.B.P.C.B. to petitioners who were running auto emission testing centres for petrol/diesel vehicles after obtaining licence issued by office of Public Vehicles Department challenged under these four writ petitions—Sustainability of—Appreciation of evidence—Establishments of petitioners are subject to inspection by W.B.P.C.B.—Held that powers conferred on W.B.P.C.B. and P.V.D. for withdrawing licence and suspending, the defaulting P.U.C. Centre as specified in terms of notification dated 17th July, 2008 issued by Department of Environment, Government of West Bengal found in consonance with law—No interference warranted—All petitions dismissed. (Cal., H.C.)

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 21—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 25 and 26—Rice mill unit—Situated within a distance of 200 meters of local habitation—Running without getting a no objection certificate from the Board—Notice to show cause—Not replied— Order for closure of unit—Legality of—No interference warranted—Liberty given to apply afresh for consent after observing the statutory requirements. (Pat., H.C.)

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 21 (4), proviso—Refusal of further consent—Prayer for interim relief—Before refusing further consent, reasonable opportunity of being heard ought to have given to petitioner—State Government not alleging any breach of condition of consent previously given by Board nor opportunity of being heard given to petitioner before issuing direction through Notification dated 27.7.2010—Balance of convenience in favour of petitioner—Petitioner never received any notice for breach of any of conditions—Sizable amount towards establishment of crushing unit invested by petitioner—Irreparable loss would be caused to petitioner—Implementation, operation and execution passed by Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board stayed—Petitioner to continue with iron ore crushing activities till next date of hearing. (Jhar., H.C.)

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 21 (4)—Requirements of—Breach of any conditions upon which consent was given—Open to the Pollution Control Board to refuse further consent after expiry of the earlier consent—Advance declaration of intention not to grant consent or not to renew the consent without pointing out any breach of any of the conditions—Working unit has never received any notice for breach of any of the conditions—Lack of opportunity of hearing—Prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the unit—Irreparable loss will also be caused to the unit—Operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order stayed—Unit to continue with the iron ore crushing activities till next date of hearing. (Jhar., H.C.)

Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 31—Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 31-A—Disqualification of grant of licence—As noticed that respondent-West Bengal Pollution Control Board (W.B.P.C.B.) being authorised under section 31-A of M.V. Act to give directions in exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under said Act and having found that equipments installed at Auto Emission Testing Centre (A.E.T.C.) of petitioners were not in conformity with prescribed standards—Petitioners had not preferred appeal before Appellate Authority under section 31 of Act, if they were aggrieved by impugned order, hence, petitioners approached this Court under discretionary powers of writ jurisdiction—Failed to make out case for exercise of discretionary power—Petition dismissed. (Cal., H.C.)


ANCIENT MONUMENTS AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES AND REMAINS ACT, 1958—

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 - Sections 20-A (2) and 20-C—Construction or renovation in prohibited area—No person other than Archaeological Officer shall carry on any construction in a prohibited area—He may carry on repair or renovation with approval of the Director General—Owner of a building cannot demolish an existing building or structure and raise new one in garb of renovation. (S.C.)

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958—Sections 20-A, 20-B, 20-C and 20-Q (As inserted by Amendment and Validation Act, 2010), 4 and 39—Prohibited area—Every area beginning at the limit of protected area or the protected monument and extending to a distance of 100 metres in all directions—Shall be the prohibited area—Central Government clothed with power to extend the prohibition beyond 100 metres by issuing notification in the Official Gazette in view of classification of any protected area under section 4-A of the Act. (S.C.)

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958—Sections 20-A, 20-B, 20-C, 20-Q, 4, 19 and 39—Ancient monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959—Rules 31 and 32—Notification dated 16.6.1992—Restriction against construction of a building within a protected area or carrying out any mining, quarrying, excavating, blasting or any operation of similar nature—Central Government empowered under Rules 31 and 32 to declare an area near or adjoining a protected monument to be a prohibited area—Notification issued by the Central Government notifying Jantar Mantar as one of such monuments at New Delhi—High Court not justified in directing the Central Government to review or reconsider the notification dated 16.6.1992—Direction given by the High Court for review and reconsideration of the notification set aside. (S.C.)

ANIMAL RIGHTS— Animal Rights - Cattle Trespass Act, 1871—Sections 11 and 13—Constitution of India—Article 226—Release of cattle—From cattle-pound—Detention of cattle beyond time prescribed tried to be justified on the ground that during period of important festival such cattle used to cause lot of inconvenience and nuisance to general public at large—Public nuisance should not be overlooked at the expense of animal rights but must be taken care of only in accordance with law and not otherwise—Always open for authorities to curb menace of cattle straying on roads and causing nuisance—While doing so authorities are expected and duty bound to treat cattle with compassion even while keeping them at cattle-pound—As per statement of Advocate each and every cattle were released but having regard to importance of issue certain directions were issued to concerned authorities such as to abide strictly by provisions of Act—To release cattle no sooner that owners of cattle claim cattle on payment of fines and charges incurred and not to refuse release on the ground of festival—To ensure strict compliance and abiding by provisions of Act by pound—Keepers performing their duties prescribed under Act—In case of cattle being not claimed by any one within seven days from date of their being impounded authorities concerned to comply with relevant provisions of Act to keep cattle in good condition by providing water and fodder—Writ petition in nature of P.I.L. disposed of. (Guj., H.C.)

APPEAL— Animal Rights - M.M.R.D.A. neither put appearance nor interested in the lis—S.E.I.A.A. directed to reconsider the issue regarding the comprehensiveness of the project, requirement of the environmental safeguards needed for clearance of the project—Appeal disposed of on terms. (N.G.T.)

AUCTION PROCEEDINGS— Auction Proceedings - For collection of Abhivahan Shulk from the vehicles used for transportation of the mines minerals—Bid of R 10.00 crores offered—Process of accepting the bid of R 6,02,21,000/-—Commissioner directed to look into the matter and also viewed the two videograph recording—If an offer of R 10.00 crores has been made in the auction proceedings, the pro.ceedings to be held from that stage permitting all the participants who had given their bids—Petition disposed of with observations. (Alld., H.C.)

BASAURI LAND— Basauri Land - Sale-deed for—Presented for registration—Demand of no objection certificate by Sub-Registrar—Sustainability of—Liberty given to file representation before the Deputy Commissioner—If it is found that the matter is covered by law declared in 2008 (1) JLJR 506, then he shall direct the Sub-Registrar accordingly. (Jhar., H.C.)

BHOPAL GAS LEAK DISASTER— Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster - Relief and rehabilitation of poor and destitute—Irretrievable damage to health and environment—Prayer for free and proper medical assistance from Union of India and State of Madhya Pradesh—Direction sought on respondents to provide free medicine and preparing plan of medical rehabilitation, conducting research studies and to make public the reports—Considering factual aspects of the case, suggestions made by various applicants, recommendations of expert bodies and object of Public Interest Litigation certain specific direction given—PIL transferred to jurisdictional Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for better and effective control—All applications to be disposed of by the concerned Bench of the High Court—Committees constituted to be provided proper infrastructure—Monitoring Committee to hear complaints, record statement of employees of hospitals—Monitoring Committee and Advisory Committee to be provided adequate office space—Empowered Monitoring Committee to oversee proper functioning of the hospitals—I.C.M.R. and N.I.R.E.H. to ensure that research work is carried with exactitude and expeditiousness—Union of India and State of Madhya Pradesh to ensure that there is no impediment in carrying research work by specialised institutions—Monitoring Committee to operationalise medical surveillance—Complete computerisation of medical information—Large number of vacancies in hospitals to be filled—Autonomy to B.M.H.R.C. directed to be ensured—Disposal of huge toxic material lying in and around factory of Union Carbide Corp. to be disposed of at the earliest—Petitioners/intervenors given liberty to approach the M.P. High Court in case of non-compliance/violation of these directions—Writ petition transferred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. (S.C.)

BULLOCK CART RACE— Bullock Cart Race - Notification dated 11.7.2011—Barred exhibition or training of bull as performing animal—Sustainability of—Words “exhibit”, “train” and “performing animal” used under 1960 Act and 2001 Rules—Meanings of—Explained—Notification dated 11.7.2011 not applicable to public entertainment without any sale of ticket in which people from rural India much less Punjab show their strength, endurance and skills in various events including dog race and bullock cart race as bullock cart is an integral part of rural India and is still a major means of transportation—Bull/oxen are regularly used for the purpose of ploughing and other subservient agricultural purposes—Bulls which are being used for the sports are well looked after, well nourished and are not treated with any cruelty—Impugned order dated 2.2.2012 and 10.2.2012 quashed—State of Punjab directed to allow bullock cart race in the rural Olympics which is held every year in the State. (P&H., H.C.)

CASUS OMISSUS— Casus Omissus - Rule of not supplying casus omissus—Supply of casus omissus necessary to avoid absurdity. (Bom., H.C.-N.B.)

CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES RULES, 1988—

Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988- Rules 115 and 116—Provisions under—It governs subject relating to emissions standards and sub-rule (7) of Rule 115 provides for authorised testing stations to carry out rechecking of motor vehicles for smoke emission level and carbon monoxide level of vehicles, also certifies that a motor vehicle conforms to norms prescribed by law—Explained. (Cal., H.C.)

CHARGE— Charge - Framing of under Cr. P.C.—An important step in the process of trial—Accurate framing of charge assumes relevance—Inaccurately framed, then serious adverse consequences may ensue to either the prosecution or the accused. (M.P., H.C.-G.B.)

COAL BEARING AREAS (ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1957— Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957- Section 13—Benefit of employment to land loser—Categorical contention of respondent that land was acquired for carrying on coal mining activities—Sufficient compensation paid to petitioner—One son of the petitioner was given employment under the Scheme made under section 13 of the Act—No legal or fundamental right to claim employment in lieu of acquisition of land available to the petitioner—No mandamus can be issued to respondents directing them to provide employment to the son of the petitioner. (M.P., H.C.) Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957—Section 13—Scheme to provide employment to land oustee—Only for giving some solace to the land loser—Scheme does not confer any right much less a fundamental right to the petitioner to claim employment. (M.P., H.C.)

COAL MINES (CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT, 1974— Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Act, 1974- Section 6—Coal Mines (Conservation and Development) Rules, 1975—Rule 8—Notification 29.3.1975—Neither makes any amendment to Rule 8 of the Rules nor section 6 of the Act—Central Government empowered to fix excise duty from time to time by notification—Notification makes a uniform levy not contrary to provisions of section 6—Contention that notification is ultra vires the Act and the Rules repelled—Duty may be levied on different grades or description of coal or coke—Permissible to levy higher tax on these who are economically stronger—No violation of, Article 14 or 265 of the Constitution of >India—Notification upheld. (Cal., H.C.)

COKING COAL MINES (NATIONALISATION) ACT, 1972—

Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972- Sections 25, 19 (8) and 22—Evidence Act, 1872—Statement of accounts audited under sub-section (6) of section 22 of Act 1972 are conclusive proof subject to rebuttal by another party—Claim of petitioner based on audited report rejected—Legality of—Most of entries of audit report found to be incorrect—Documents filed by petitioner in support of his claim substantially not supporting entries—Concurrent finding of fact with respect to correctness of statement of accounts alleged to have been duly audited—Lower Courts concurred that accounts produced by appellant cannot be relied on—No merit in L.P.A.—Dismissed. (Jhar., H.C.)

CONFISCATION— Confiscation - Forest Offence—Interim custody of the vehicle involved in—Jurisdiction of Magistrate to grant—Held—Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 457, Cr.P.C. and issue an order for interim release or custody of the property which is neither produced nor a report filed in lieu of production of such property by the police—Offence involved is under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961—A special and local law—Envisaging special procedure regarding the seizure, release and confiscation of the properties, the disposal of the property either by way of interim custody or by way of final disposal—Magistrate gets jurisdiction to pass an interim order regarding the custody of properties, if the seizure is not effected by the police and by any other authority, only when such properties are produced before the Court or on a report in lieu of production of properties—Such order can be passed only under section 451, Cr.P.C. (Ker., H.C.)

Confiscation —Of vehicle loaded with green Mahua timbers—Order set aside on appeal and vehicle directed to be released as the same was not involved in commission of any forest offence—Logs seized were in conformity with the particulars given in the T.T. permit—Seizure list was subsequently tampered as is evident from the offence report—State has not come to the Court with clean hands—Discrepancy with regard to the seizure of logs—Petitions dismissed. (Ori., H.C.)

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950—

Constitution of India, 1950- List III—Article 51-A (g)—Subject ‘forest’ and ‘protection of wild animals and birds’—Fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment—State Government fully empowered to notify elephant corridor as a management strategy and also authorised by the ‘Project Elephant’. (Mad., H.C.)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973— Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- Sections 200 to 203 or 204 to 210—Procedure under explained. (S.C.) 509 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 313—Incriminating evidence appearing against accused—Not put to him during his examination under section 313, Cr.P.C.—Cannot be utilized against him. (Ori., H.C.)

CRIMINAL TRIAL— Criminal Trial - Complaint regarding commission of a cognizable offence—Options available discussed—In a complaint case, the complainant is burdened with the onus of establishing the offence— Rule of establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt is applicable to a complainant—If police report is lodged the onus to establish commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt is entirely on the prosecution. (S.C.)

DRAFT E.I.A. REPORT—

Draft E.I.A. Report - Discrepancies in—Consequences of—All deficiencies pointed out adequately addressed and included with data support in final E.I.A. report—No substantial irregularities to hold that E.I.A. report not in accordance with law or same conceals any potential environmental threat due to implementation of project. (N.G.T.)

ECOCENTRISM— Ecocentrism - Principle of—Discussed and distinguished from anthropocentrism. (S.C.)

ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, 1986—

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986- Section 3—Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986—Rule 5 (3)—Notification dated 6.1.2011 issued by the Government of India—Preparation of Integrated Islands Management Plans (IIMPs) for each Island in Lakshadweap—IIMPs to specify existing and proposed developments conservation and preseration schemes, public facilities and the likes—Constitution of an Expert Committee setting out terms of reference directed by the Court—Once IIMPs are in place—All development activities to be regulated as per such plans—Committee consisting of experts constituted—Terms of reference stated—Committee to evolve own procedure. (S.C.)

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 3—Establishment of project without final clearance and completion certificate from competent authority—Direction by the High Court issued to appellants to process applications made by respondent No. 1 for all clearance including finalisation of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and to permit it to run the resort established by if at Agatti and issue travel permits and entry passes—Respondent misused permission and constructed resort in the No Development Zone (NDZ), violated CRZ norms—Resort could not be commissioned under a judicial order in disregard of serious objections raised by the Administration—Order passed by the High Court not sustainable and set aside. (S.C.)

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Sections 3 and 5—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 33-A—Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 31—Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986—Rule 4—Environmental clearance with regard to expansion project—Notice issued to petitioner under section 5 of the 1986 Act and also show-cause notices under the 1974 and 1981 Act—Petitioner undertook expansion of it's project without obtaining prior environmental clearance—Environment Impact Assessment (E.I.A.) notification dated 14.9.2006—Fully applicable—Non-compliance of the notification by the petitioner—Appraisal Committee (Industry) visited the site and found that petitioner has undertaken substantial construction and completed about 50 to 55% of the expansion work prior to obtaining environmental clearance—Clear violation of E.I.A. notification—It never indicated start of construction work while applying for terms of reference and also in the E.I.A./E.M.P. reports—Opposite parties justified in withdrawing the terms of reference and in cancelling the public hearing proceeding in respect of proposed expansion—Opposite parties also justified in holding that process of environmental clearance be started de novo—Relief prayed by the petitioner refused. (Ori., H.C.)

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 3 (2) (v)—Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986—Rule 5 (3)—Notification No. S.O. 1533 (E) dated 14.9.2006—Grant of mining permit/lease—Minerals available in over 5 hectares or more land—Environmental clearance in terms of the notification necessary before granting lease/permit irrespective of the fact that lease/permit is for an area less than five hectares. (Alld., H.C.)

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 5—Environmental clearance—Revoking of—Right to file appeal—Impleadment as party—Applicant not aggrieved by order cancelling environmental clearance—No right to prefer an appeal—But being a party to entire proceeding culminating in order cancelling E.C. has a right to file an application to be impleaded as respondent—Members of applicants associations not stranger to lis—Application for impletion of party allowed. (N.G.T.)

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 5—G.C.Z.M.A. directed appellant to make good of Geological and Ecological loss caused at site—Appeal against—Appellant claims to be owner of disputed land and applied for permission to carry on certain developments over said land to make it suitable for its use—Averments made in appeal not controverted by filing any reply—In absence of counter submission impugned order cannot be sustained—Protection of environment being paramount duty of Tribunal while setting aside impugned order—Direction issued to petitioner to deposit R 1 lakh without prejudice to his rights—On depositing said amount respondent No. 2 authorities shall afford an opportunity of being heard and decide matter again—If contention of appellant accepted amount of R 1 lakh shall be refunded with interest—Further directions also issued. (N.G.T.)

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 19—Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 24, 43 and 49—Scope of—Explained—Social enactments—Containing penal provisions for any contravention of the provisions of the Acts—Special Judicial Magistrate is authorised for taking cognizance of the offence and trial vide Notification No. 2993 dated 31.5.1991 issued under section 11 (1) of the Cr.P.C.—Order impugned summoning the accused persons under sections 277 and 278, I.P.C. for fouling water of public spring or reservoir and making the atmosphere noxious to health is an abuse of the process of the Court—Order impugned quashed. (Pat., H.C.)

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 24—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 15 (1-A)—M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996—Rule 49 (1)—Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986—Rule 5 (3)—Environmental clearance required for quarrying of sand and bajri—Rule 49 (1) of M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996 not applicable to the provisions of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules made thereunder—Non-obstante clause contained in section 24 (1) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 not applicable to Rule 49 as it is not an ‘enactment’—Notification providing for necessity of obtaining of environmental clearance issued under Rule 5 (3) of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 will not prevail over Rule 49 (1)—No mining or quarrying operation required for removal of sand and bajri merely being surface deposits—Environmental clearance not required to be obtained for quarrying of sand and bajri. (M.P., H.C.)

ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT NOTIFICATION, 2006—

Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006- Clause 8—Public hearing, conducting of, before the grant of environmental clearance—Acquiring lands for establishing the project—Suggestion of the E.A.C. for a fresh public hearing, as the earlier public hearing was a mockery of the entire process of public hearing—No comment made by M.O.E.F.—Recommendation for grant of the E.C. without taking care of a substantive procedure—Record does not disclose regarding the following of the procedure as envisaged under Clause 8 of the 2006 Notification—A classic example of violation of the rules and the principle of natural justice to its brim—Public hearing declared nullity in the eye of law—Invalid—Appeal allowed. (N.G.T.)

Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006—Form I, Para 9—Mandatory requirement of cumulative impact assessment—Whether ignored or not—Impact assessment study was undertaken as per the T.O.R. determined by the M.O.E.F. in respect of the project—Hydrogeology Conservation Plan and Habitant Restoration Plan found to be satisfactory—Contrary arguments raised neither pleaded nor substantiated—No need to go into all the details. (N.G.T.)

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION—

Environment Protection - Hotel and resort within 500 mts. of wildlife sanctuary—Proposal for—Reports of experts for the same considered—Negative impact of such a resort—Clearly mentioned in the reports of experts appointed by the Court—Noise level, air pollution, quality of lake water, etc.—Maintenance of—Cannot be left to the proposed hotel and resort—Relying on the reports, Court of the opinion that no such activity should be permitted in the area. (Raj., H.C.)

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RULES, 1986—

Environment Protection Rules, 1986- Rule 5 (3)—E.I.A. Notification dated 14.9.2006—Environmental clearance—Allotment of quarry license for mining activities—State Mining Department required to obtain prior environmental clearance of Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Central Government in terms of the 2000 notification having statutory force—No allotment of mines can be permitted until prior environmental clearance is obtained. (Raj., H.C.)

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE—

Environmental Clearance - Granted by S.E.I.A.A.—To project of slum rehabilitation in favour of builders–Challenged in appeal—Appeal disposed of by a mutually agreed order with directions—One of the direction issued to the builders was to ensure that till all the members who have been found eligible for allotment of flats and staying in transit acommodation are provided with flats, it shall not sell any flat to outsiders—Modification of, sought—Taking into account the pros and cons of facts and circumstances narrated, permission granted to sell the flats to outsiders strictly in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered inter se between the builders and the society as well as conditions imposed by the slum rehabilitation authority—Application disposed of with calcifications/modifications. (N.G.T.)

Environmental Clearance —Grant of—For installation of steel melting shop and power plant—Legality of—Allegation does not relate to proposed expansion—Even according to C.E.C.B., no pollution caused by existing unit beyond norms fixed—Appellant trying to blow issue out of proportion—Appellant not made out any substantial grounds—Defects/deficiencies have already been ratified by project proponent through final E.I.A.—Appeal devoid of merit—Dismissed—Directions issued for certain lapses being committed by authorities and project proponent in preparation of draft E.I.A. and final E.I.A. report—Appeal against impugned order dismissed. (N.G.T.)

Environmental Clearance —Granting of to Power Project—Cumulative impact assessment—Can be worked out in absence of data from other units—Quite possible to assess likely impact from proposed coal based power plant—Direction issued—Appeal partly allowed. (N.G.T.)

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE—

Environmental Justice - Could be achieved only by drifting away from principle of anthropocentric to ecocentric—Human interest does not take automatic precedence—Humans have obligation to non-humans independently of human interest. (S.C.)

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS IN INDIA—

Environmental Laws in India - Industry being run illegally for number of years—No complaint—Even then the authorities of the P.C.B. were duty bound to make inspection and should have taken necessary action and stopped the industry from committing illegal act—Such attitude and inaction of the K.S.P.C.B. viewed seriously. (N.G.T.)

Environmental Laws in India - Activity of lighting to provide the deepam on Makara Sankranthi at the Sabarimala Temple—Mere inclusions and modulations of term “non-forest activity” cannot be utilized to derecognise the existing practice which has found recognition as part of faith and religious practice—Undoubtedly been happening without any permission from the forest authorities in the forest area—Not in any way intruding the interest of the forest, flora or the fauna—No adverse impact on the eco-system—No reason to inhibit such ritualistic activity—Forest and the police authorities to oversee such activity if needed—Being a forest area the forest officials and the police officials shall give sufficient aid and support to carry out such activities. (Ker., H.C.)

Environmental Laws in India - Environmental equilibrium—Assignment—Tank, bund and drainage channel were converted—For purpose of assignment in favour of appellant—Hence the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the question—Whether the conversion, which has the effect of causing disappearance of water bodies, is permissible—For maintenance of ecological and environmental equilibrium—Requires to be adjudged in the writ petition. (A.P., H.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —P.I.L.—Against dumping slag in the river Swarnrekha by which the bed width of the river has narrowed—Dumping the slag in the river continuing since years—Even if it is not pollution under the Act yet an encroachment over the part of the river by putting it to the use of the company—Apprehension that in fact the width of the river must have been affected because of putting of the slag—Directions issued in view of the observations made to satisfy the Court on the questions involved. (Jhar., H.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —Preservation of environment and maintenance of ecological balance—Felling/cutting of trees for the purpose of widening of national highway—Work of widening being carried by the National Highway Authority in public private partnership mode—Permission given by the State on undertaking that twice the number of trees felled shall be planted by the Forest Department—If trees not permitted to be felled—Big project of expansion of highway, which is also in public interest to get jeoparalized—Re-transplantation of the trees not feasible—Care taken by respondents to save as much trees as possible—Undertaking by respondents to plant trees three times of number of trees felled—Decision of the authorities to cut the trees to pave way for a project of another public interest—Cannot be held to be arbitrary and based on no reason—Executive authority within it's competence to frame a policy for administration of the State—No justifiable reason to interfere with the decision and entertain the petition—Relief prayed for declined. (Guj., H.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —Protection and preservation of—Apex Court directions for in various cases discussed. (Raj., H.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —Wild life management—Protection of elephants, their habitats and corridors—‘Project Elephant’ launched by the Government of India—G.O.Ms. No. 125 dated 31.8.2010—In the best interest of the wild life particularly elephants—Government of Tamil Nadu permitted to go on with the implementation of the project—Interest of forest dwellers directed to be protected strictly adhering to the provisions of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dweller (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006—In case of eviction of any forest dweller from elephant corridor—They be provided with best alternate suitable accommodation also be provided with compensation as per procedure contemplated in law. (Mad., H.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —Wildlife management—Acquisition of private lands forming the traditional movement corridors of animals—Plea of private land owners that with a view to create artificial corridor their lands are sought to be acquired which is illegal—Arguments of the private land owners rejected. (Mad., H.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —Wildlife management—Ecological restoration of existing natural habitats and migratory routes of elephants—Holiday resorts sprung-up in the area without proper approval and in total violation of provisions of the Tamil Nadu Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949 and carrying commercial activities—Cannot be permitted to take shelter under the ground that they cannot be denied the right to practice any profession ensured under Article 19 (g) of the Constitution—Resort owners directed to vacate the land and handover vacant possession of the lands falling within the notified elephant corridor to the District Collector within three months. (Mad., H.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —Wildlife management—Protection of elephants, their habitats and corridors—“Project Elephant” launched by the Government of India—Writ of mandamus sought by the petitioners to keep the elephant corridor free from encroachment and disturbances for free movement of elephants and other animals—Decision of the Government of Tamil Nadu to identify and notify “Elephant Corridor” at Nilgiris and it's consequential action—Central Government empowered to issue advisories/directions to the State/UTs from time to time to take appropriate action for conservation and protection of wildlife and its habitats—Primary duty of protection and management of wildlife and its habitat—Lies with the State Forest Department—State Government empowered to declare protected areas including sanctuaries, National Parks, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves under Chapter IV of the Wildlife Protection Act—No justification for petitioners to contend that State Government is bereft of its powers in identifying the Elephant corridor. (Mad., H.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —Public Interest Litigation—For issuance of direction to the Union of India not to allow any release of Genetically Modified Organisms into the environment by way of import, manufacture, use or any other manner—Minutes of the meeting of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Union of India dated 15.3.2011—Government prayed only for Constitution of the Committee as well as the terms of reference as proposed in its minutes—Consented order passed—Constitution of the Technical Expert Committee—To submit report before the Court within three months after hearing the concerned persons who shall help the cause of expeditious and accurate finalization of its report. (S.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —Rampant pilferage and illegal extraction of natural wealth and resources—Environment degradation and disaster due to unchecked intrusion into the forest areas—Apex Court compelled to intervene—Constitution of Central Empowered Committee to examine and monitor the activities infringing the laws protecting the environment—C.E.C. converted into a Statutory Committee—Unfortunate state of affairs which has prevailed for a considerable time in the State of A.P. and Karnataka—Investigation by C.B.I.—Need to direct—Considerations explained—Object of every investigation is to arrive at the truth by conducting fair unbiased and proper investigation—Absence of element of prejudice—Criminal offences are primarily offences against the State and secondarily against the victim—A complete failure of the State machinery highlighted in relation to controlling and protecting the environment, forest and minerals from being illegally mined and exploited—Duty of Court to ensure that Rule of Law prevails over the abuse of process of law—Court should adopt a wholistic approach and direct comprehensive and specialized investigation into such events of the past—Directions issued accordingly. (S.C.)

Environmental Laws in India —Unit engaged in engineering industry of lathes—Industry commenced without obtaining the valid consent for establishment or consent for operation from K.S.P.C.B.—Order passed directing to close industry and also for disconnection of the electricity—Appeal against before K.S.A.A.—Dismissal of—Legality—Industry is situated in a residential locality—Before the commencement of the industry, consent to operate is a condition precendent—Consent to operate from the K.S.P.C.B. is a condition under both enactments such as Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1971—Mandate of section 25 (1) of the Water Act, 1974 not fulfilled—Making an application later for consent can neither cure or make it legal—Finding of State Appellate Authority warrants no interference—Appeal dismissed. (N.G.T.)

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION—

Environmental Pollution - Caused by the industrial unit—Unit of petitioner directed by the High Court to close down immediately—With a view to have an independent assessment of present situation and condition of the industrial unit—Apex Court directed National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (N.E.E.R.I.) to make pollution and environmental impact assessment after joint inspection with officials of Central Pollution Control Board, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board and P.I.L. petitioner—Such report submitted by the N.E.E.R.I.—Chart of deficiencies and measures to be implemented by the petitioner industry filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board—Board directed by the Apex Court to issue direction to petitioner industry to carry out aforesaid measures and remove the deficiencies—Interim stay of the impugned judgment directed to continue till next hearing. (S.C.) Environmental Pollution —Running of iron ore crushers within the prohibited area of the Forest—Restrictions imposed—Issuance of notification by Central Pollution Control Board—Certain guidelines imposed for adopting safety measures subject to which the iron ore crushers could be granted permission to function—Petition disposed of with observations. (Jhar., H.C.)

FOREST—

Forest - Private plot—Removal of trees—Application of Forest Conservation Act, 1980—With an intention, to remove trees from his plot for purpose of converting the plot into agricultural land and also to plant new trees—Application given for grant of permission to remove trees from plot—Even if the father of petitioner has planted the trees on his private plot, but if the growth of trees over the plot comes within the meaning of ‘Forest’, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, shall have application and no permission to fell trees could be granted without prior concurrence of Central Government—But if trees planted do not come within the meaning of forest, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 shall have no application—Authorities have to inspect the plot in question and find out as to whether it is a part of the “reserve forest” or not—If it is not a part of reserve forest and there is no continuity—Said plot being separated by a road the nature of growth has to be examined to find out as to whether such growth can come within forest or not—If it does not come within ‘forest’—There is no bar in granting timber transit permit—Only when it comes within ‘forest’, the petitioner may be required to get approval of the Central Government. (Ori., H.C.)

FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980—

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980- Section 2—Forest land—Settlement of—Held, State Government has no power to grant lease of forest land to encroaches neither Government has any power of settlement—Petition to disposes encroaches allowed—(2009) 5 SCC 373, relied on. (M.P., H.C.-G.B.)

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—Section 2—Scope of—A limited role to play—By no stretch of imagination, deprives the State Government to impose the conditions—No conflict between the Act and M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. (M.P., H.C.-G.B.)

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—Sections 2, 3-A and 3-B—Provision of section 2—Not a penal provision—However, nature of provisions of sections 3-A and 3-B are penal—Section 3-B lays vicarious liability of persons who are directly incharge/responsible to authority committing the offence. (Jhar., H.C.)

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—Section 2 (iv)—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Removal of granite blocks already quarried—Issuance of mineral dispatch permits—Petitioner's Counsel undertaking to remove granite blocks within period of 10 days only during 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. of each day—Petitioner was bound to statement that transportation of granite blocks were to be effected through employment of light goods vehicles—Use of cranes was also permitted—Quarrying was done during period when it was permitted—But removal of granite blocks impeded because of ban placed by Government with the intention of apprehending Veerappan—Transportation of granite blocks was to be commenced from 8.00 a.m. on 23.7.2012 and to be ended on 1.8.2012 at 5.00 p.m.—Writ petition allowed. (Kar., H.C.)

FOREST LAND—

Forest Land - Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908—Section 84—Forest land recorded as “Van Vibhag Bihar Sarkar”—Found to be wrongly recorded—Suit of plaintiff claiming title on the basis of settlement made in his favour 50 years back stood established—Appeal by D.F.O.—Allowed—Legality of—Entry in the finally published survey record of right has presumption of correctness under section 84 of C.N.T. Act—Entry not rebutted by any document—Rent receipts, not document of title—Plaintiff failed to establish his title to the suit land—No interference warranted—Appeal dismissed. (Jhar., H.C.)

Forest Land —Lease of—Renewal of—Petitioner praying for renewing lease of plot in question—Sustainability of —Petitioner not a valid lessee but an unauthorised occupant having encroached forest land—Eviction proceedings initiated in 1973 dropped and effort made to regularize encroachment—Petitioner claiming certain rights from Government Order dated 25th October, 1974 and laying stress on renewal clause—Mere sanction by Government for execution of lease deed does not give any indefeasible right for demanding execution of lease or for renewal at this stage—Central Government only agreed in principle to transfer land and de-reserve forest subject to certain terms and conditions which was not duly complied with by petitioner—Petitioner also not in physical possession of land—U.P.S.R.T.C. are in possession of land as same is already transferred in their favour—Petition fails—Dismissed. (Utt., H.C.)

Forest Land —M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959—Paramount consideration—To ensure that the forest land is not misused—When it falls within the ambit of the Act—State can impose permissible premium and lease rent on such land. (M.P., H.C.-G.B.)

Forest Land —Once land allotted to Forest Department—Not open to State Government to re-allot it without permission of the Central Government. (Raj., H.C.)

HAZARDOUS WASTE—

Hazardous Waste - Banning of all imports of all hazardous/toxic wastes—Decision of the Ministry of Environment and forests permitting import of toxic wastes under cover of recycling—Important for concerned authorities to ensure that such waste is not allowed to contaminate the surrounding areas—To allow recycling of the same under strict supervision with entrusted units and thereafter to oversee it's distribution for reuse—Directions contained in B.A.S.E.L. convention have to be strictly followed by all concerned players with regard to ship breaking—Provision of Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989—Are in aid and not in derogation of provisions of Articles 21, 39 (e), 47, 48-A of the Constitution of India—Cannot be declared as unconstitutional. (S.C.)

INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927 (BIHAR AMENDMENT)—

Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment)- Section 52-C—Jurisdiction of Criminal Court—By inception of section 52-C, the jurisdiction of Criminal Court has been ousted with regard to entertaining and considering the matter of release of vehicle confiscation—Once a confiscation proceeding has been initiated—High Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction even under section 482, Cr.P.C. (Pat., H.C.)

INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1989 (BIHAR AMENDMENT)—
Indian Forest Act, 1989 (Bihar Amendment)- Section 52 (3)—Illegal transportation—Confiscation proceeding—Legality of—Provisions for confiscation have been made as a different object so that felling of trees and deforestation is not made—In instant case, consistent findings of fact relating to involvement of vehicle in question used for carrying illegal timber of wood and driver and khalasi of vehicle admittedly employed by petitioner—Not proper to interfere with consistent findings of fact arrived by three authorities—No perversity or illegality in orders—Petition dismissed. (Jhar., H.C.)
INDIAN FOREST ACT, 1927—
Indian Forest Act, 1927- Section 2 (4)—Forest produce—Finished product “Camptothecin”—Whether can be termed to be a transformed form of forest produce—On consideration of the flow chart of transformation of capmtothecin—Cannot be said to be a forest produce within the definition of forest produce under the Act—Camptothecin is produced through chemical process and change is permanent in character—Once there is change of substance from forest produce either by human labour or otherwise, character and properties of the forest produce ceases. (Cal., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 9 and 20—Reserved forest area—Declaration of—Procedure to be followed—Enumerated. (Alld., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Section 4—Notification under—In view of Division Bench of this Court—Status quo has to be maintained—Once a notification under section 4 of Act 1927 has been issued—No fresh right in land covered by section 4 notification can be created. (Alld., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Section 4—Notification under—Mere non-transfer of land—By revenue department to forest department—Will not vitiate notification under section 4 of Act 1927. (Alld., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 4 and 6—Notification under—Objection filed—Executed gift-deed of area covered by notification to Daiya Charitable Society—Objection allowed—Appeal—Dismissed—Revision—Dismissed—Present petition—Apex Court held bhumidhar, have higher rights than sirdars and asamis—They are still mere tenure-holders under State—Which is proprietor of all lands in area—To which Abolition Act applies—Bhumidhari rights are subordinate to proprietary rights of State Government—State could exercise its power under section 4 of Act 1927 in facts of the case—Grant of Bhumidhari sanad and initiation of ceiling proceedings taken place after issuance of notification under section 4 of Act—Merely because of issuance of bhumidhari sanad—Proprietary rights of State and its power under section 3/4 of Act is not diluted—Forest Settlement Officer excluded the area from notification—Over which cultivation was being done—For remaining land objection of respondents are rejected—Orders dated 22.3.1961, 28.10.1961 and 28.5.1976 are quashed—Petition allowed. (Alld., H.C.)


Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 5/26 and 41/42—Indian Wildlife Protection Act, 1972—Sections 27, 29, 50 and 51—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 332, 353 and 379—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Illegal sand mining and taking it out of forest sanctuary—Offences thereunder—Petition for quashing of F.I.R. and staying arrest—Sustainability of—Allegation of abusing Forest Inspector and forcibly taking away truck—Sand was being illegally mined and taken out from forest sanctuary—Prima facie case made out—No force in petition dismissed. (Alld., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Section 12—Conviction—Recovery of timber from truck—No permit for transportation produced—Petitioner was owner of truck in question which was released in his favour as owner—He was found present in truck when it was searched and huge amount of illicit timber was found—After due appreciation of evidence, findings of facts recorded against petitioner—Impugned judgment of conviction based on evidence on record held to be not perverse—View taken by Courts below emerged from evidence on record—No case for interference on sentence made out—Revision being devoid of merit dismissed. (H.P., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Section 20—Notification under—When to be issued—Required to be published in- dicating the limits of the area which is reserved as reserved forest land—Merely because claims preferred under section 6 of the Act stand determined will not be sufficient compliance of section 20 of the Act—No such notification has been placed on record—Unless it is notified under section 20 of the Act, it cannot be said that the right of the persons claiming over the land stands extinguished—Order impugned refusing the claim only on the ground that land already stands reserved as reserved forest is unsustainable—Set aside—Petition allowed—Forest settlement officer directed to consider the case in the light of report of Tehsildar showing cultivatory possessions of the claimant and pass appropriate orders—Parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the case. (Alld., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Section 33—Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973—Section 30 (ii)—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 414 and 120-B read with section 34—Release of coal seized—Order impugned rejecting application for release of coal seized—Truck and coal seized by police—As involvement of petitioner in the offence could not be found and documents subsequently produced found to be genuine—Hence, confiscation proceedings was dropped—Application for release of coal rejected—For which there could not be any reasonable explanation but application rejected on hyper technical grounds—Which cannot be sustained in eye of law and set aside—Court below is directed to pass order afresh in accordance with law. (Jhar., H.C.)

Indian Forest Act, 1927—Section 33—Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980—Sections 2, 3-A and 3-B—Cognizance—Of offence under—Initiation of proceedings against petitioners—In all cases, petitioners are made accused being officials of T.I.S.C.O.—Allegation made only against T.I.S.C.O. for carrying out mining operations in absence of any valid permission for—There is no specific allegation at all against these petitioners or part played by them—Nor they were alleged as in charge/or responsible to T.I.S.C.O. for conduct of business of T.I.S.C.O.—Hence, prosecution of petitioners for offence under section 3-A cannot be maintained in eye of law—Initiation of criminal proceedings against them is absolutely illegal—Cannot be sustained. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Section 33—Provision of—Is penal in nature—However, there is no provision for any vicarious liability. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 33, 41, 42 and 52—Confiscation order—Legality of—Petitioner's truck alongwith planks of semal and salai confiscated—Planks belonged to accused Nos. 8 and 9—Truck owner had no knowledge regarding commission of forest offence—Respondents failed to point out any evidence on record regarding knowledge of petitioner that his vehicle was likely to be used for carrying forest produce—Planks assessed at R 12,500/- while value of truck comes in several lacs—Petition allowed—Impugned order quashed—Release of truck directed. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 33 and 63—Trial Court took cognizance of offences under—Challenged—Sustainability of—Forest land—Petitioner ploughed forest land for purpose of cultivation—No evidence to show his title over said lands—Rule framed by State Government, preventing any person for clearing and/or breaking lands for cultivation purpose—In view of allegation made in prosecution report, prima facie an offence under section 33 of Act is made out against petitioner—Acquittal on similar charge is of no consequence—As notification showing that land in question is a protected forest had not been produced—Petitioner acquitted in earlier case on technical ground—Judgment of said case has no bearing on merits of these cases—Nothing in the prosecution reports showing petitioner tampering, counterfeiting, defacing or altering marks of any tree—Thus, offence under section 63 of the Act is not made out—Direction issued to Trial Court to keep aforesaid observation in mind at the time of explaining substance of accusation and/or framing of charge—Application disposed of. (Jhar., H.C.)

Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 33 and 63-C and 29 (3)—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Offence under Forest Act—Petitioner sought to be prosecuted by Department of Forest when they in exercise of their rights have used land claimed by department to be forest land—Quashing sough—Held, petitioners claiming right, title on basis of sale-deed executed by Raiyat—In a title suit preferred by Raiyat against forest department it was held that process of notification never completed—Purported notification never assumed characteristics of notification neither extinguish rights of Raiyat—Any act done by Raiyat or successors in interest in exercise of their right over land never found to be land of protected forest would never entail personal criminal liability—Proceedings quashed—Petition allowed. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Section 33 (1)—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Cognizance—Taken under section 33 (1) of Forest Act—As per prosecution case, while patrolling, the forest guard found some persons picking up stones lying in the forest area and collecting at instance of petitioner, a contractor—For its use in repairing road passing through forest—Moram was being taken out from forest—Hence cognizance of offence taken under section 33 (1) of Act—Prosecution laying claim of land as forest land as declared by notification of year 1955 which as per provisions lost its force after expiry of 30 years—As the land through which road was passing can never be taken as forest and no offence can be said to have been committed by petitioner—Hence entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance of offence under section 33 (1) is quashed. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 41 and 42—Bihar Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1973—Rules 3 and 8—Truck found carrying pieces of wood—Report filed against owner of truck and driver—Confiscation proceeding initiated—No direct connivance of petitioner with driver or cleaner found and he acquitted from charges—Held, petitioner acquitted of charge which was subject-matter of confiscation proceeding—Confiscation proceeding set aside—Release of truck directed—Petition allowed. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 41 and 42—Transit (Land and Route) Rules, 1978—Rules 11 and 20—Offences punishable—Acquittal—Legality of—Burden on prosecution to prove that accused persons were transporting or causing to transport ‘a forest product‘ without valid permission—Two bottles from each drum were taken as sample—Sent for chemical examination—No report of the chemical examination produced on record till date—Not established what the bottle contained—Adverse inference has to be drawn—No inference can be drawn that the drums contained a forest produce like ‘Katha’—Application for release cannot be used against the accused persons as an incriminating circumstance—Prosecution not been able to prove the material a forest produce—No interference warranted—Appeal dismissed. ..(H.P., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 52, 41 and 42—Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984—Section 20—Confiscation of truck—All accused involved in cases under sections 41 and 42 of Act, 1927 and under section 20 of Act 1984 were acquitted of the forest offences—Hence, no direct involvement of owner of truck found—Therefore, order of confiscation of truck is quashed. (Jhar., H.C.)

Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 52 and 53—Release of trucks seized in connection with confiscation—Trucks standing in open sky without any attendant or shelter—Rotting in sun and rain—Direction issued to release truck on conditions imposed—Petition disposed of. (Jhar., H.C.)
Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 52 and 72—Advocates Act, 1961—Section 30—Seizure of property—Appearance of advocate before authorised officer—Held, no provision and procedure contained for recording evidence for purpose of confiscation of vehicle—Hence, section 30 (ii) of Advocates Act has no application—Appearance of advocate rightly prohibited. (M.P., H.C.-G.B.)

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860—
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 277—Attractability of—If a person voluntarily corrupts or fouls the water to render it less fit for purpose for which it is ordinarily used, sufficient to attract provisions of section 277, I.P.C.—It need not be for drinking purpose alone. (Ker., H.C.)
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE—
Interpretation of Statute - Wide discretion given to the State in selecting persons or objects it will tax—State allowed to pick and choose districts, objects, persons, methods and even rates for taxation if it does so reasonably. (M.P., H.C.)
Interpretation of Statute —Words and expression—To find out meaning of a word or expression—Court to apply “subject and object” rule—When context makes meaning clear—Unnecessary to search and select a particular meaning out of diverse meanings. (M.P., H.C.)
RRIGATION TANK—
Irrigation Tank - Land Acquisition—For minor irrigation tank—Compensation awarded—Enhanced by Reference Court—Legality of—Enhancement of the amount of compensation as supported by the evidence in the nature of sale transaction of the year 1987—Reference Court increased the value by 10% for every year—Arrived at the rate of R 52619/- for irrigated land and R 35,000/- for the dry crop land—No interference warranted—Appeals dismissed. (Bom., H.C.-N.B.)

KERALA PROTECTION OF RIVER BANKS AND REGULATION OF REMOVAL OF SAND RULES, 2002—
Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Rules, 2002- Rule 17—Headload Workers Act, 1978—Section 39—Nature of—If the provisions of Act or scheme are in conflict with any other law or scheme, the Headload Workers provisions will hold the field and nothing comes in the way of the application of the Act—If any assistance of headload worker is required while manning boat jetties, such work has to be entrusted to the registered headload workers if the area falls within the scheme covered area—Headload workers cannot complain about the work of sand mining being entrusted to identity card-holders issued under the sand mining rules—Since activity of said mining not covered under scheme. (Ker., H.C.)
LEASE— Lease - Rates, taxes and cesses on property leased—Liability to pay—Lease silent as to who will be liable to pay—Then the lessor would be liable to bear and pay it—Where understanding is that lessee would pay—Lease deed will specifically provide for the same. (S.C.)

LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION—
Legitimate Expectation - Doctrine of—Applicability of—Explained. (Alld., H.C.)
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL—
Letters Patent Appeal - Liable to be dismissed—Not only on ground, that writ petitioner is challenging the proceedings undertaken in 1993, in 2009—After delay of about 16 years—Explanation given for delay is liable to be rejected—Because several attempts were made to serve notice upon writ petitioner.
(Jhar., H.C.)
LIMITATION ACT, 1963—
Limitation Act, 1963- Section 14—Applicability of—Explained. (N.G.T.)
Limitation Act, 1963—Section 14—Condonation of delay under—Earlier writ petition was filed by a person who hails from the same village in the capacity as President of the Aman Lift Irrigation Society—Disposed of on 24.8.2011—After dismissal of such writ petition against E.C. order dated 19.2.2011 subsequent writ petition was filed against same E.C. order—Got dismissed with liberty to approach the Tribunal—An attempt to resurrect life in the litigation which has become lifeless much earlier—Delay cannot be condoned beyond a period of 60 days after the initial period of 30 days—Application for condonation of delay alongwith appeal dismissed. (N.G.T.)

MINE—
Mine - Defined to mean a mine to which Mines Act, 1952 applies and includes the premises, or machinery situated in or adjacent to a mine and used for crushing, processing, treating and transporting the mineral—M.P. Electricity Duty Act, 1949—Section 3, Explanation (b) (as amended by M.P. Act No. 21 of 1986)—Electricity duty a tax levied on sale or consumption of electricity—Classification for purpose levy of duty based on purpose for which the electricity is consumed—Classification has clear nexus with the object sought to be achieved namely raising revenue by grouping different industries—Copper concentrate obtained by the company after certain processing activities—Is a mineral as defined in Explanation (b) to part B of section 3 of the Act—Word adjacent does not mean adjoining but has a wider connotation and would include close proximity—Differentiation justified. (M.P., H.C.)
MINES AND MINERALS—
Mines and Minerals - Royalty—Assessment and recovery of—competency of State in law—To be examined by the Civil Court—Not under any provision of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1887 by the revenue authority. (P&H., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals —Royalty—Claim of—Mere declaration of brick earth as minor mineral by way of notification, in itself, will not vest any right in the State Government to claim royalty because of the reason that ownership of the same will still continue to be vested in the land owners if there was no entry in the Sharait-Wajib-ul-arz to the contrary. (P&H., H.C.)
MINERAL CONCESSION RULES, 1960—
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960- Rule 22—Grant of mining lease—Objection to—On ground that application submitted by the respondent No. 2 did not contain affidavit of other persons forming partnership under 3rd proviso to sub-rule (3) (1) of Rule 22 and no dues certificate was not furnished—Respondent No. 2 seeking mining lease for the first time were not required to fulfil the requirement of 3rd Proviso of Rule 22 (3) (1)—No error committed by the respondent No. 2 in complying with the statutory requirements—Objection with regard to non-submission of affidavit raised for the first time in appeal cannot be entertained—Interference with the order of Single Judge declined. (M.P., H.C.)
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 22 (3) (i) and 24-A—Lease—Consent of the land owners is required to be obtained at the time of the grant of the lease and for starting mining operation—A fresh consent is required to be obtained where a lease is required to be renewed—Where consent had been obtained during the grant of the lease, no fresh consent is required to be obtained for the purpose of the renewal of the lease—For renewal a fresh consent is required to be obtained—Land belongs to the private owners, their consent is mandatory—Only when consent is given by land owners, the State Government could proceed to renew the lease. (Utt., H.C.)
Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 22 (4) and 22-D (c)—Mining plan—Submitted along with application for grant of mining lease for extraction of lime stone—Refusal to approve the mining plan in view of Rule 22-D of the Rules—Held, no person has a vested right for grant of mining lease—Application for mining lease has to be dealt with in accordance with the rules in force at the time of disposal of the application—Hence, no illegality in disposal of the application in accordance with Rule 22 (4) of the Rules—Writ petition dismissed. (M.P., H.C.)

MINES ACT, 1952—
Mines Act, 1952- Section 40—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 4 (1)—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 379, 295 and 120-B—F.I.R. under—Sustainability of—Lease for extracting china clay—Ancient monument situated in the lease hold area—Carrying mining activities within a distance of 300 meters from the monument—Prohibited under Ancient Monuments Act, 1958—Offence under section 30 (1) (iv) of the 1958 Act is made out—Maximum punishment is of two years or fine—Non-cognizable offence—No investigation permitted without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case—F.I.R. quashed. (Jhar., H.C.)
Mines Act, 1952—Section 72-C—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 190—Taking of cognizance of offence—Deceased died due to blasting operation—First Information Report lodged under sections 304, 286, 337, 338, 201 and 34, I.P.C. against petitioners—After submission of charge-sheet, Magistrate took cognizance of offence—Legality of—Deceased died due to blasting operation done by contravening provisions of Mines Act/Rules or Regulations—Allegation pertains to the provisions as contained in section 72-C (1) of the Act—Launching of prosecution for matter falling under special legislation is not permissible to be gone into under general law—Cognizance of offence taken under sections of I.P.C. by Court below set aside—Petition allowed. (Jhar., H.C.)

MINES AND MINERALS (DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) ACT, 1957—
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957- Sections 3 (d) (e), 4 and 15—Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972—Rule 26 (1) (b)—“Mining operations” and “minor minerals” meaning of words—Once it is found that the earth used for levelling or construction of roads is covered by the definition “minor mineral”, the liability to pay rent or royalty with respect to the mining operation has to be found under the Rules—Ordinary earth used for levelling purposes in construction of road is covered by Entry V of Schedule II—Earth purchased from the land owners of the adjoining land or nearby lands who are private individuals—No portion of the earth has been purchased from the Government—Earth used is covered by the expression “minor clay” occurring in section 3 (e) of the Act—A mining operation within the meaning of section 3 (d) of the Act—Petitioner shall have to pay all fees and royalties—Estimated bills of quantities have been made the basis of quantification to levy the amount of rent/royalty—Essentially a question of fact—No interference warranted—Petition dismissed. (Pat., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 4 read with section 21 (1)—Conviction and sentence—Sustainability—Revisionist found transporting sand collected from ghats prohibited under the Act—Name of the ghat not mentioned—Copy of prohibitory order not produced—What was role of the petitioner not stated—No investigation by P.W. 4 whether any permit or pass was issued by the competent authority—No presumption under the Act in favour of prosecution that the sand was being transported in violation of statutory provision—Prosecution failed to establish the offence alleged—Conviction and sentence set aside. (Ker., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 5 (2), 11, 11 (1), 11 (4) and 11 (5)—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 12 (1) and 71—Mining lease—Grant of—Recommendatory letter from Orissa Government to Government of India was not an order of State Government—Does not create an indefeasible right in L&T. (Del., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 5 (2), 11, 11 (1), 11 (4) and 11 (5)—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 12 (1) and 71—Promissory Estoppel—M.O.U. dated 20.12.1995, cannot be relied upon by L&T—To argue for any preferential right over other applicants for grant of mining lease—M.O.U. did not contain any provision requiring the Government of Orissa to accept any alternative project proposal of L&T—Hence Government of Orissa was not bound to fulfil the promise made by it in M.O.U. (Del., H.C.)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 5 (2), 11, 11 (1), 11 (4) and 11 (5)—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rules 12 (1) and 71—Prospecting operation—By L.&T. the petitioner—Does not entitle it to any preferential right under section 11 (1)—Prospecting licence in favour of any party, in respect of major mineral, made conditional on obtaining permission to undertake prospecting under the forest laws—In absence of which, prospecting work taken by L.&T. cannot be relied to claim preferential right under section 11 (1)—Proceedings dated 27.9.2001 not a review of earlier incomplete decision dated 21.10.1997. (Del., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 10 (b) and 10 (d)—Writ petition—Proceedings initiated in view of violation of sections 10 (b) and 10 (d) of Act, 1957—Show cause notice for imposing penalty—Challenged in writ petition—Proceedings initiated by notice stayed till the disposal of writ petition. (Jhar., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 11(2), 4-A and 21—Minerals Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 7-C—Grant of prospecting licence—Respondent No. 4 not eligible for benefit available under section 11(2)—He committed breach of conditions and terms of reconnaissance permit granted to it—Instead of taking action and imposing penalty under section 21 terminating his prospecting licence favoured by authorities by impugned order—Respondent No. 4 did not deposit due amount and should have been treated as defaulter—Some part of land falls within the forest land and Forest Conservation Act was applicable—Without having obtained no objection from the Forest Department no benefit was to be granted to respondent No. 4—He was in fact defaulter and not entitled to any benefit—Petitioner's application was received earlier than applications of others—Benefit of section 11 (2) with regard to preferential grant of reconnaissance permit, prospecting licence or mining lease was to be given to the petitioner—Impugned order quashed—Respondent authorities directed to refer the matter for grant of approval of the Central Government pursuant to grant of prospecting licence for mineral Laterit to petitioner. (M.P., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 12—Prospecting licence—Application for grant of—Refused—Legality of—Held, where any party has applied for a mining lease, application for prospecting licence would become superficial and otiose—If lands have previously been subject- matter of mining lease, no insistence that a prospective licence must once again be granted—If previous lessee not succeeded in locating and exploiting minerals then no takers for a mining lease—Eventually State Government would become prudent to allow a prospecting licence once again—Court cannot compel State Government to accede to such reality—Petitioner's prayer for grant of prospective licence dismissed. (Kar., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 13—Mineral Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 22 (3) (i) (h)—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14, 226 and 227—Mining lease—Interim order of injunction restraining lessee from carrying mining operation in pursuance of mining lease—Ex parte issued by Director of Mines and Geology—Order was meant to be a temporary and interim arrangement meant to remain in force only till such time the Director examined the alleged overlapping of area and passed a final order—Even if no injunction issued in suit by Civil Court—Government or Director, in event of any dispute of identity and demarcation could direct appellant to refrain from carrying on mining activity as an interim measure. (S.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 17-A (2) and 11—Approval for reservation of 16109.61 hectares land under—Request of the State Government rejected—Legality of—Order impugned does not conform to law and in fact falls into the same pit as the earlier decision—Falls foul of the judgment of Division Bench dated 18.2.2011—Interests of the persons waiting in the wings by virtue of their holding reconnaissance permits are irrelevant—Order impugned is replete with the references to the National Mineral Policy, 2008—Central Government has reiterated its previous decision—Appropriate to issue a direction to the Central Government to accord approval to the request of the State Government—Orders issued accordingly—Central Government to take fresh decision within three months. (Kar., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 19—Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972—Rules 9-A, 19, 22 and 52—Mining lease—Cancellation of before expiry of lease period by impugned order—Amendment in Rules and Rules 9-A and 52 were added—Leases were granted much after amendment of Rules—But were violative of said provision—Hence the impugned order not illegal. (Pat., H.C.)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 21—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 379, 411 and 34—Orissa Minerals (Prevention of Theft, Smuggling and Illegal Mining and Regulation of Possession, Storage, Trading and Transportation) Rules, 2007—Writ petition seeking direction to remove seal placed by the investigating agency—Existence of alternative remedy by filing application under section 457, Cr. P.C. not denied—Writ petition not filed for enforcing any fundamental rights—No allegation of violation of principles of natural justice or order under challenge to have been passed without jurisdiction—Criminal miscellaneous case under section 482, Cr. P.C. pending before the High Court—Writ petition not maintainable. (Ori., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 21 and 22—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 378 and 379—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—General Clauses Act, 1897—Section 26—Quashing of F.I.R.—Petition for—In a case under Mines and Minerals Act for alleged offence of theft—Expression “for the same offence”—If act of accused constitutes two offences under different enactments—No bar to punish him under both enactments—Prohibition attracted is that same act must constitute an offence under more than one enactments—If there are two distinct and separate offences with different ingredients under two different enactments, punishment under both enactments will not be bad—Constitution of India, 1950—Article 20 (2). (Mad., H.C.-M.B.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 21 and 22—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 378 and 379—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154, 173 and 190—Offences under both Acts—Final report and taking cognizance thereunder—Provisions of Mines and Minerals Act will not exclude provisions of I.P.C.—In respect of sand theft, lawful for police to lodge F.I.R. and investigate matter and submit final report—Then it will be well within competence of Magistrate to take cognizance—Such an F.I.R. where case registered only under provisions of I.P.C., shall not be liable to be quashed—Section 22 of Mines and Minerals Act overrides provisions of section 190, Cr.P.C.—In respect of offence under this Act, cognizance can be taken only on private complaint and not on police report. (Mad., H.C.-M.B.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Sections 21 (4) and (5)—Scope of—Order under section 21 (5) of the Act can be passed only by the State Government—Defect in the order passed by District Magistrate stood cured while deciding the revision by the State Government. (Alld., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 22—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 190—Special law and general law—Conflict between—Applicability of—Special Act will prevail over general law—Cognizance can be taken only on a private complaint in respect of offence under Mines and Minerals Act and not on police report. (Mad., H.C.-M.B.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Section 30—Power of the revisionary authority—Cannot be curtailed by an office note or a note of facts—Lease granted in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or orders made thereunder is void and cannot have any effect—Lease deed executed contrary to the terms of prior approval—Revisionary authority rightly came to conclusion that lease deed is void in terms of section 19 of the Act and conferred no right.(Del., H.C.)
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Minerals Concession Rules, 1960—Rule 24-A (6)—Relief under—Entitlement for—Renewal of lease—Application for—Pending—Area for which lease was earlier renewed falls within “reserved forest area”—Lessee was asked to stop the mining operation—Mining operations stopped—Asked to comply with the conditions for extension of lease as per agreement dated 30.3.2000—Lessee did not comply with—No reason to interfere with the notices calling upon to handover the possession of the leased area—Petition dismissed. (Kar., H.C.)

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Scope of—Requires a licence to be acquired by any person interested in carrying on the mining activity—Licence is granted subject to various rules and regulations, including a requirement of payment of royalty on the part of the licensee—Mineral essentially belongs to the State—Iron ore extracted from and shared on the decree scheduled property which is ancestral property of the coparcener—A person is not entitled as of right to a share in the iron ore by virtue of his/her being a co-sharer in the decreed scheduled property—Suit for partition on the ground of joint family property—Plaint schedule does not deal with the subsoil rights of the various items of landled property—Subsoil rights do not form part of surfacial rights of the land—Pattedar or owner of the land is entitled only for the surfacial rights and subsoil rights normally vest in the State—A coparcener is not entitled for a half share in the same on the ground that he/she is entitled for a half share of the surface of the property out of which the iron ore was extracted. (S.C.)


MINING—
Mining - Environment and Ecology—Extraction of minor minerals boulder, gravel and sand quarries of area not exceeding 4.5 hectares—E.I.A. notification dated 14.9.2006—Mining leases of less than 5 hectares not requiring environmental clearance—Auction notices issued by Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Haryana proposing to auction mining leases of less than 5 hectares—No material before the Court that removal of minor mineral would not cause environmental degradation or threat to the bio-diversity, destroy riverine vegetation, cause erosion, pollute water resources etc.—Lack of proper planing and sand management would cause disturbance of marine ecosystem—Auction notices permitting quarrying, mining and removal of sand from in-stream and up-stream of several rivers to have serious environmental impact—Auction notices issued without having conducted any study on possible environmental impact—Proper environmental assessment plan essential—Recommendation made by the Mo.E.F.—Indicates that operation of mines of minor minerals needs to be subjected to strict regulatory parameters—All State Governments/Union Territories to give due weight to such recommendation—Highly necessary to have an effective framework of mining plan taking care of environmental issues—All the States, Union Territories, Mo.E.F. and the Ministry of Mines directed to give effect to the recommendations made by the Mo.E.F. in its report of March 2010 and model guidelines framed by Ministry of Mines within 6 months and submit compliance report—Central Government to take steps to enforce the Minor Minerals Conservation and Development Rules, 2010—State Governments and U.Ts. to take immediate steps, to frame necessary rules under section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957—Leases of minor minerals including renewal for area less than 5 hectares to be granted by States/U.Ts. only, after getting environmental clearance in the meanwhile. (S.C.)
Mining —Removal of sand from river bed—Permission obtained by the O.P.-Company to take up dredging activity in the Mahanadi river bed—While giving permission to implement the project, O.P.- Company directed to take up the dredging activity in such a manner that ecosystem is not adversely affected—While according environmental clearance permission for dredging given to level the acquired land—Water Resources Department of the State allowed the dredging operation—Not correct to say that dredging activity is being carried on without prior permission of the Government in Department of Environment and Forest—Joint inspection of dredging site conducted to find the impact of the dredging activity—Location of dredging very close to mouth of the river Mahanadi—Dredging of sand beneficial from flood point of view—Certain observations made and directions given to authorities with regard to the dredging activities vis-a-vis the ecosystem, environment and ecology. (Ori., H.C.)

MINING CONCESSION RULES, 1960—
Mining Concession Rules, 1960- Rule 27 (1) (d)—Bombay Gram Panchayat Act, 1958—Section 127 (1)—Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961—Section 151—Mining lease obtained by the appellants from the Government of Maharashtra—Stipulation in the lease deed that mining lessee shall pay Z.P. cess assessable on land—Z.P. cess payable only if it is payable under the Act of 1961—Appellant not liable to pay “Z.P. cess” or “G.P. cess” to the State Government. (S.C.)
MINING LAWS—
Mining laws - Iron Ore Crushers—Running of—Within prohibited forest area—Forest department raising objection because of environmental pollution—Central Pollution Control Board issued notification whereby certain condition imposed for adopting safety measures—Enumerated—Direction issued to complete requirements within given time—Petition disposed of. (Jhar., H.C.)
Mining laws —Running of Iron ore crushers—Within prohibited area of forest—State Government imposed restriction and cancelled consent from further running of crushers—Petitioners required to file an affidavit to effect that they would take steps to fulfill conditions imposed by Central Pollution Control Board to ensure running of Iron ore crushers without causing health hazard—Direction issued to both parties to complete requirement within given time—Petition disposed of. (Jhar., H.C.)
MINING LEASE—
Mining Lease - Advertisement for—Set aside—Further direction to re-advertise—Division Bench of High Court directed the State Government to examine two points under Rule 78 of the 1963 Rules—Dismissal of revision—Legality—Finding recorded by the State Government is unsustainable in the eye of law—Further the second issue referred has not been decided—Petition allowed subject to the observations made. (Alld., H.C.)
Mining Lease —Death of lessee before the expiry of the period of lease—Substitution of legal heirs—Government decision to transfer the lease—No decision taken by the District Magistrate—Petition disposed of—District Magistrate directed to issue appropriate order with regard to the claim for grant of a fresh lease as mentioned in the G.O. dated 1.11.2001 and decision of State Government within a period of six weeks. (Alld., H.C.)
Mining Lease —For quarrying ordinary sand—Lifting could not be done due to continuous flow of water in the river—Deposit of R 23,50,000/- in pursuance of lease agreement—Application for renewal of quarry lease—Non consideration of—Lease period of one year, expired on 27-4-2010—Quarrying lease does not give any right of renewal of licence—Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction—Petition dismissed. (Kar., H.C.)

Mining Lease —Grant of—A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966—Rules 11 (2) (b) and 9 (13)—Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957—Quarry lease—Grant of—For colour granite—Director of Mines and Geology can impose any special condition—If Collector has any objection with regard to grant of quarry lease—He may file the necessary report in that regard—So that Director of Mines and Geology will take appropriate decision. (A.P., H.C.)
Mining Lease —Renewal of—West Bengal Minor Mineral Rules, 2002—Rules 11 (c), 4-A and 12—Application for renewal—Has to be made within period of validity of lease—If Royalty Clearance Certificate has been delayed—Delay in filing application has to be condoned—However a mining lease may be renewed but only once. (Cal., H.C.)
Mining Lease —Resumption of mining operations—Report submitted by the Central Empowered Committee accepted subject to compliance of statutory requirements and full satisfaction of Monitoring Committee and written undertaking by lease holders—That they would abide by comprehensive environment plan for Mining Impact Zone that may be formulated—Ban imposed on mining operations lifted—Permission for resumption of mining operations would not come in the way of any investigation inquiry or proceedings pending against any of the leases covered by this order. (S.C.)
Mining Lease —Settlement of—An applicant has no right to claim settlement of lease of a particular area in his favour. (Alld., H.C.) Mining Lease —Notices issued by Mining Officer for installments allegedly payable by petitioner under contract of extracting minor minerals, challenged—Licence period was from 1.4.1998 to 31.3.2001—Only for licence fee of R 13,32,000/- and 6,15,000/- for almost three years—Petitioner was a successful bidder in a public auction for mining of mining sand at two villages—Frustration occasioned by lack of access to property to do mining extractions—There was order of stay of Civil Court—Statute expressly interdicts through section 56 of Contract Act—Consequently the liability for petitioner shall be only for 5 and 3 months out of whole year—Total liability for both villages would, therefore, be R 7,08,750/- (5,55,000 + 153750 = 7,08,750)—Any amount paid in excess including the initial deposit and surety amount shall become liable for refund to petitioner with interest @ 7.5%. (P&H., H.C.)
Mining Lease —Applicant being a joint licensee of the mine, cannot claim exclusive right to operate the mining area—As per site report applicant was put into possession of half portion of the mining area in northern side, cannot claim that he is in possession of the entire mining area—No prima facie case made out to allow the applicant to operate the entire mining area ignoring, the entitlement of defendant for half share therein—Order passed by Trial Court is unsustainable—Set aside—Application seeking temporary injunction dismissed. (Raj., H.C.)


MINING OPERATION—
Mining Operation - Stay of—Balance of convenience between parties needs to be examined—Mining operation already commenced in month of June, 2009—Slackness on part of appellants in approaching National Environment Appellate Authority—Iron ore extracted stacked on site and would cause lot of inconvenience if not lifted before onset of monsoon—Appellants not litigant in pursuing matter—Balance of convenience in favour of respondent No. 5—Any stay granted in favour of appellants, one and half years after commencement of mining operations would cause inconvenience to respondent No. 5—Application dismissed. (N.G.T.)


MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1972 (BIHAR)—
Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 - Rule 26 (4)—Demand notice—To pay extra royalty for the mineral extracted—Quashed under writ jurisdiction—L.P.A.—Earlier memo dated 14.12.2002 has not been considered nor its effect in the matter of charging of additional amount of royalty—Neither issue relating to denial of liability for addition royalty in view of fact that the settlement of leases were for amounts in excess of the minimum reserve has been considered—Matter needs re-consideration afresh—Order impugned set aside—Appeal disposed of. (Pat., H.C.)
Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 —Rules 37 and 40—Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914—Recovery of public demand—Rule 37 clearly declares that amounts of rent, royalty or penalty payable under rules, shall be recoverable as a public demand under Act, 1914—Any extraction of mineral made under Rules, 1972 is statutorily declared as public demand and therefore recoverable—Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 covers all minerals and not only the minor mineral but includes the major mineral as well. (Jhar., H.C.)
Bihar Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1972 —Rules 40 and 41—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 414 and 120-B—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 4 and 482—Unauthorised extraction and removal of minor mineral—Case registered against petitioner on behest of Executive Magistrate under sections 414 and 120-B, I.P.C. and Rule 40 of Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules—Cognizance of offences taken after submission of charge-sheet—Quashing sought—Allegation upon which case registered under section 414, I.P.C. covered under Rule 40 of special legislation—Prosecution under general law not permissible—Cognizance of offence under Concession Rules can be taken only upon complaint lodged by Competent Officer or by officer mentioned therein—Executive Magistrate not empowered to lodge case—Cognizance of offence under Concession Rules not taken on complaint lodged by competent officer—Entire prosecution vitiated—Impugned order taking cognizance set aside—Application allowed. (Jhar. H.C.)

MINOR MINERALS (CONCESSION) RULES, 2001 (UTTARAKHAND)—
Uttarakhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2001- Rules 2 (7) and 3—Scope of—A person cannot undertake any mining operation even on his own land unless a lease or permit is granted to him by the State Government. (Utt., H.C.)
Uttarakhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2001—Rule 6—Mining lease—Once lease renewed by competent authority—It can be cancelled by adopting due process of law only—Which has not been done in the case—Hence the Hon'ble Single Judge rightly quashed the order cancelling the lease—Lease rightly restored. (Utt., H.C.)
Uttarakhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2001—Rule 72—Scope of—Advertisement under—Object of—To bring to the notice of the public at large so that an interested person could apply for grant of a mining lease—Applications from private individuals without advertising was illegal and unwarranted. (Utt., H.C.)

MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 2004 (ORISSA)—
MINOR MINERALS CONCESSION RULES, 1963 (U.P.)—

U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963- Rule 6—Mining lease—Requirements for—Application of petitioner and respondent No. 5 received by District Officer—Notice issued to petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 for removal of certain defects—By said order respondent No. 5 was required to furnish character certificate within one week of issuance of said notice—Character certificate furnished by respondent No. 5 was issued by Superintendent of Police and not by District Officer—Application of respondent No. 5 considered and approval granted by State Government and District Magistrate granted mining lease in favour of respondent No. 5 without filing character certificate issued by District Officer—Held, since law requires character certificate should be that of District Officer—Not proper to read something more than specified in Rule and accept character certificate of some other authority than that of District Officer for purpose of granting of mining lease—Respondent authorities wrongly considered and proceeded with application of respondent No. 5 for grant of mining lease without having fulfilled terms of notice—Approval of State Government as well as order of District Magistrate directing for grant of mining lease to respondent No. 5 quashed—Petition allowed—Direction issued. (Alld., H.C.)
U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 —Rule 6-A—Renewal of lease under—A person cannot claim grant of renewal if he had taken benefit of any preference, which was no longer available at the time of renewal. (Alld., H.C.)
U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963—Rule 68—Applicability of—Applicable to special cases—Discussed. (Alld., H.C.)

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988—
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Sections 110 (1) (g) and 111—West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989—Rule 258—Exercise of powers under—To frame rules regulating emission of smoke, visible vapour, sparks ashes, grit or oil—Also State Government may make rules with respect to all matters other than those specified in section 110 of M.V. Act.—Explained. (Cal., H.C.)
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES (MANAGEMENT AND HANDLING) RULES, 2000—
Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2000- Rules 4, 5, 6 and 7, Schedule II—Municipal Solid Waste Project—Setting up—Apprehension raised that it would cause pollution or nuisance at the site and the inhabitation near the site—Steps taken by the Municipal Corporation are in consonance with the specification provided in Schedule-III—There would be no problem of pollution etc.—Only motive to create unnecessary hurdles in setting of the Municipal Solid Waste Project—Petition dismissed. (P&H., H.C.) 287
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY ACT, 1997—
National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997- Section 11—Interpretation of—Expression aggrieved person used therein—Scope of—An elastic and to an extent an elusive concept and has to be given the widest operation as the language will permit—Organization working in the area in question, closely following issue of setting up of industries and the impact thereof on the environment would be a “person aggrieved”—Entitled to exercise right to appeal. (Del., H.C.)
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL ACT, 2010—
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010- Section 14 read with section 18—Application seeking direction to MoEF to desist from relying on impugned I.I.T.R. and W.I.I. studies in implementation of Forest Conservation Act and Environment Protection Act till same is done afresh by some credible institution and to direct MoEF to ensure a fresh study—Report prepared by I.I.T. Roorkee as well as the report submitted by W.I.I.—Already forwarded to MoEF for due consideration—Would be considered by the Committee consisting of 14 members of which the Member Planning Commission is Chairman—Report yet to be considered and accepted—Grant of any relief prayed for in the application declined. (N.G.T.)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Sections 14 and 26—Complaint regarding violation of directions given by Tribunal earlier, by the project proponent—Carrying on constructions unauthorisedly by violating the directions issued—Site visit report prepared on the direction of Tribunal—Stating construction work without obtaining Forest Clearance (F.C.) in violation of the terms and conditions stipulated in Clauses 12 and 30 of the environment clearance—Report further indicates that R.C.C. foundations work for boilers and turbines was in progress—Part of River Khari which belongs to the community has been illegally occupied and enclosed within the boundary of the project land—Any action or construction carried out contrary to the E.C. ipso facto amounts to violation of the terms—F.C. granted to the project proponent only on 26.4.2012—Any construction made before 26.4.2012 would be hit by the terms of E.C.—State Government directed to initiate necessary proceedings against the project proponent and complete the entire exercise within a period of four months—Application disposed of with observations and directions. (N.G.T.)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Sections 14, 15 and 18—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 7 and 9 (1)—Environment (Protection) Act, 1986—Section 5—Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986—Rule 5—In consonance with provisions of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Tribunal has no jurisdiction to sit over appeal or otherwise deal with any order passed in a civil suits arising out of Land Acquisition Act—In instant case, land belonging to applicant and/or his predecessor in interest acquired under Land Acquisition Act—Compensation received by applicant with protest—Further litigations arising out of land acquisition proceeding pending before Civil Court—Allegation that State Government acting contrary to provisions of Environment Protection Act, 1986 by handing over possession to H.S.I.I.D.C. for industrial purpose and latter trying to set-up industries obtaining prior permission—Sustainability of plea—Held, cannot be adjudicated in this application as H.S.I.I.D.C. not impleaded as party—If applicant has any grievance he has to out his remedies under said provision—Applicant has also not impleaded Ministry of Environment and Forest of concerned State Government—Without impleading both authorities no effectual adjudication can be made—However, application premature—Dismissed. (N.G.T.)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Sections 14, 29, 30 and 38 (5)—Environment and ecology—Issues relating to—Matters covered under the Act—To be instituted and litigated before the National Green Tribunal (NGT)—Such approach necessary to avoid likelihood of conflict of orders between High Courts and the Tribunal—All matters instituted after coming into force of the Act and covered under provisions of the Act—Transferred to NGT—Fresh matters to be instituted before the NGT. (S.C.)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Section 16—Appeal—Condonation of delay—Appeal filed after lapse of 30 days but then within ninety days assailing order granting E.C.—Held, where environmental impact of project on local population in terms of their environmental harm has to be assessed, approach of Tribunal should be liberal and not hyper-technical—Delay being less than ninety days—Tribunal satisfied that there were sufficient reasons and that deliberate latches cannot be attributed to appellant—Delay condoned. (N.G.T.)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Section 16—Condonation of delay in filing of appeal—Order appealed against passed on 2.6.2011—Appeal filed on 24.3.2012—Delay of more than 10 months in filing of appeal—Delay to be reckoned from date of communication—Appellant came to know about the impugned order on 8.6.2011—Tribunal can entertain appeal filed within 30 days—May condone further delay of 60 days in appropriate case—Statutory Tribunal cannot stretch meaning of provisions of law beyond their plain and express meaning—Communication in context of this case to be construed as placing the matter on website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests—Question of communication of hard copy to appellant does not arise—Delay of more than 10 months abnormal—Cannot be condoned—Condonation application dismissed. (N.G.T.)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Section 16—Scope and object of—Governs appeal—No inherent right to prefer an appeal—An appeal is creature of statute—Cannot be filed as a matter of right unless there is specific right to prefer an appeal—Period of limitation to prefer an appeal is 30 days—Extention can be given upto 60 days—Order dated 13.10.2010 impugned under appeal—Appeal cannot be filed against any order passed prior to 18.10.2010—Appeal dismissed as not maintainable. (N.G.T.)
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010—Section 19 (4)—National Green Tribunal (Practice and Procedure) Rules, 2011—Review petition—Against order disposing of the appeal whereby grant of forest clearance was challenged—Sustainability of—Review applicant failed to understand the spirit of the judgment wherein it was observed that while submitting the proposal for diversion of forest land by the proponent, guidelines available on record should be used and the cost benefits analysis should be examined with utmost care by the agencies responsible for grant of F.C.—If grievance still remains, remedy of appeal may be availed—Remedy of review is not available. (N.G.T.)


NATIONAL MINERAL POLICY, 2008—
National Mineral Policy, 2008 - Scope of—Required more scientific details and data with respect to the minerals in the mining area—For grant of any prospective license or even for mining lease, there must be evidence to show that there exist mineral in the area—This can be proved by showing that the area has already been prospected or by showing the existence of mineral otherwise than by means of prospecting of such area—Guidelines issued by the notification dated 24.6.2009 are not in contravention of the 1960 Rules or section 5 (2) (a) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. (Jhar., H.C.)
ORISSA FOREST ACT, 1972—
Orissa Forest Act, 1972 - Section 27 (3) (a)—O.T.T. Rules, 1980—Rule 21—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 197—Cognizance of offences—Petitioner was Block Development Officer—Construction work of building or extension thereto—Assigned to Junior Engineer to carry out work departmentally—In process of such assignment, certain forest produce (wooden poles) were used for construction of block office—Alleged act of accused petitioner was clearly an act which was committed by accused petitioner in due discharge of his official duties—Therefore, sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is mandatory—And in absence of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C, the order of cognizance against petitioner for offence under Rule 21 of O.T.T. Rules, 1980 and section 27 (3) (a) of O.F.A. 1972 is wholly without any authority of law—It is quashed. (Ori., H.C.)
Orissa Forest Act, 1972—Section 56—Confiscation proceeding—Legality of—Seized truck alongwith seized wood confiscated—Seized wood was dismantled parts of old wooden furniture—This fact supported by forester as well as an independent witness in their statement—Authorized Officer did not consider such evidence—Order of confiscation passed without reference to record—Order passed by appellate authority neither preverse nor unreasonable—State failed to make out any cogent reason for interference with order passed by appellate authority—Writ petition dismissed with cost. (Ori., H.C.)

ORISSA TIMBERS AND OTHER FOREST PRODUCE TRANSIT RULES, 1980—
Orissa Timbers and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 - Rules 4 and 21—Prosecution under—Prosecution failed to prove the guilt—Acquittal awarded—Legality—Two views possible—View taken by the Trial Court cannot be interfered with unless it is wholly perverse or is not based on evidence—Trial Court took reasonable view—No interference warranted—Appeal dismissed. (Ori., H.C.)
PETROLEUM AND MINERALS, PIPELINES (ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF USER IN LAND) ACT, 1962—
Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 - Sections 10, 9 and 18—Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Compensation—There is no scope for importing into section 10 of Act, provisions of Land Acquisition Act and the principles governing the award of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act—As only the right of user of land has vested in Government or Corporation under the Act—Compensation payable to the owner of land, should be within the Act 1962 and as provided under the Act—Compensation to be determined at 10% of market value payable under section 10 (4) of Act. (Ker., H.C.)
Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962—Sections 10, 10 (4) and 10 (3) (i)—Compensation—For diminution of land value—Also would be taken in by compensation at 10% of market value—Payable under section 10 (4) of Act—And no other compensation is payable. (Ker., H.C.)
Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962—Sections 10 (4) and 10 (3) (i)—Removal of rubber trees—Computation of expenditure—For compensation—As a uniform approach, 40% of income from such rubber trees—Could be considered as expenditure for rubber cultivation. (Ker., H.C.)

POLLUTION—

Pollution - P.I.L. for appropriate directions to prevent all kinds of health hazards caused by solid waste thrown by people on road sides and in public places—Directions issued to prevent pollution and save community. (Ker., H.C.)
POLLUTION CONTROL— Pollution Control - Maritime environment—Breaking/dismantling and beaching of ship—Disposal of hazardous wastes—Ship entered into Indian territorial waters—Permission sought from Gujarat Pollution Control Board and Gujarat Maritime Board to beach for dismantling—Huge demurrage charges being incurred by the ship owner—Reports submitted in the State Pollution Control Board, Sate Maritime Board and Atomic Energy Regulatory Board—Has to be presumed that ship is free from all hazardous or toxic substances—Report submitted on basis of actual inspection—Concerned authorities directed to allow the ship to beach and permit the ship owner to proceed with the dismantling after complying with all requirements—Immediate steps to be taken by the authorities in case any toxic wastes are found embeded in the ship structure. (S.C.)
Pollution Control —Parking of cars around Victoria Memorial Hall—Committee of experts observed that parking activities add to pollution load around the monument known for its beautiful architecture and green surroundings—Considering the report High Court rightly directed that parking around the Victoria Memorial Hall shall be prohibited—Interference with the direction declined. (S.C.)
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE— Practice and Procedure - Procedure for disposal of the revision petition—Adjudication and decision made by third member—Party participated in the proceeding and has taken a chance—Now not open to question the irregularity in the procedure under writ jurisdiction. (Del., H.C.)
Practice and Procedure —Time starts running from the date of order—Same cannot be arrested unless there is specific provision in the law which may permit exclusion of time spent in a bona fide litigation. (N.G.T.)
Practice and Procedure —When a specific provision for limitation is provided under special statute, the general provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are inapplicable. (N.G.T.)

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 —Purpose of—Discussed and explained. (P&H., H.C.)
PUBLIC HEARING—
Public Hearing - C.E.C.B. is appropriate authority to conduct P.H. and general rules speak of conducting of P.H. in presence of District Collector or his nominee—Simply because P.H. not conducted within 45 days from date of receipt of draft E.I.A., P.H. cannot be said to be vitiated—Merely because draft E.I.A. was not in consonance with ToR, public hearing conducted cannot be faulted with. (N.G.T.)
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION—
Public Interest Litigation - For issuance of direction to the Prism Cement Co. Ltd. not to carry out blasting operations within 500 metres of abadi area of villages and to ensure compliance of agreement and to pay compensation to the villagers whose properties have been damaged due to blasting operations—Lease granted in the year 1996 in Statutory Form ‘K’ appended to Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for extraction of lime stone—No restriction for the lessee to carry out the mining activities beyond 50 meters of abadi area—Permission to carry out the blasting operations granted under Regulation 164 (1) (d) of the 1961 Regulations—In absence of challenge to the lease deed and the statutory permission lessee cannot be prevented from carrying out blasting operations—Damages to houses and properties—Only two houses are situated within the periphery of 500 metres—Report of Mining Inspector—Blasting operations are being carried out in accordance with the statutory permission granted—So far as damages to the houses and properties of the villagers are concerned, liberty given to lodge a claim for compensation before the competent authority as per Clause 4 of Part-VII of the lease deed—Claim for compensation to be examined and dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law—Petition disposed of. (M.P., H.C.)
Public Interest Litigation —Grievance against de-notification of protected wildlife sanctuary—Admissibility of—Held, environmental clearance granted is subject to numerous conditions including final order of Hon'ble Supreme Court—Without waiting for such order petitioners filed instant petition—Both petitioners not complied with Rules regarding writ petition in public interest as framed by this Hon'ble High Court notified vide notification No. 761 dated 19.10.2011—Petitions pre-mature—Dismissed. (J&K., H.C.)

DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST—
Public Trust - Doctrine of—All humans to have equitable access to natural resources—Principle of sustainable development and inter-generational equity too pre-suppose higher needs of humans—Exploitation of natural resources must be equitably distributed between the present and future generations—Such principles have no role to play when called upon to decide fate of an endangered species. (S.C.)
RENEWABLE ENERGY—
Renewable Energy - Generation of power through non-conventional energy sources—Promissory estoppel—Sanction issued in favour of Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. for co-generation energy plant for consumption of power by Sugar Mills in accordance with Clause 10.2 of policy of 2010—Clause 10.2 of policy of 2010 purposely inserted for more production of energy cannot be termed in violation of any constitutional provision—Petitioner cannot claim any restriction upon State not to allow installation of new power plant within radial distance of petitioner’s power plant—Duty of State Government to perform sovereign functions in public interest—Principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation will not apply in this case because no sanction issued for installation of any energy generations plant at par with petitioner's plant—Sanction granted for installation of power plant with 4.9 m.w. capacity in consonance with clause 10.2 of policy—Sanction neither illegal nor unconstitutional—Petition dismissed—Case law discussed. (Raj., H.C.)
REVIEW—
Review - Power of—To be exercised sparingly that too in exceptional circumstances when order sought to be reviewed suffers from any error apparent on the face of record or permitting the error to stand will lead to failure of justice—Conclusions arrived at in the earlier judgment not contrary to the reasons recorded—Review petition dismissed. (N.G.T.)


SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER TRADITIONAL FOREST DWELLERS (REGULATION OF FOREST RIGHTS) ACT, 2006—
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Regulation of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 - Sections 2 (c) and 2 (o)—Entitlement to benefit of Forest Dwellers Act—Prayer to prevent State from carrying out any eviction of villagers and to compensate them for their illegal eviction from time to time—Villagers first came to Hazatisa near Intangki National Park in 1987 from their place of ordinary residence—Forest Dwellers Act recognizes and vests various rights on persons who are bona fide forest dwellers—Explanation to section 2 (o) of the Act defines “generation” to mean a period of 25 years—No body's case that villagers have been bona fide residents for three generations in Intagki National Park—Their presence in Hazatisa is taken from 1987, not even one generation has gone by—Villagers cannot claim benefit of definition of “other traditional forest dwellers” as defined under Act—Villagers rank encroachers in Intangki Wild Life Sanctuary and Intangki National Park—State fully entitled to evict them therefrom—Villagers cannot claim benefit of Forest Dwellers Act—Appeals dismissed. (Gau., H.C.)
TIGER CONSERVATION—
Tiger Conservation - Notification for core zone and buffer zone in Tiger Reserves—Guidelines formulated by National Tiger Conservation Authority placed before Court—States free to file comments within three weeks—Till final directions are issued by the Court, core areas of Tiger Reserves shall not be used for tourism. (S.C.)

U.P. PROTECTION OF TREES IN RURAL AND HILLS AREAS ACT, 1976—
U.P. Protection of Trees in Rural and Hills Areas Act, 1976- Section 4/10—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 409—Conviction—Revisionist in Criminal Revision No. 37 of 2003 was found guilty only for offence of section 4/10 of Act—Whereas revisionist in criminal revision Nos. 38 and 40 of 2003 was found guilty for offence under section 409, I.P.C.—All allegations in complaint found support of independent witness—Who saw by his own eyes cutting of trees by one of the accused revisionist under instigation of another—On enquiry revenue authorities found allegations true which resulted into suspension of one of the accused from his designation—Reports of Lekhpal, Naib Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Magistrate were in conformity with all allegations found to be substantial by Investigating Officer—All revisions being bereft of any merit dismissed—Judgment and orders of conviction and sentence were sustained. (Utt., H.C.)
WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974—
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sections 12 (3) and 3-A—Promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent—Board in its recommendation suggested to include the post of Computer Operators with nine years experience for promotion to the post of Superintendent —Not accepted by State—Post of Computer Operator has been deleted as a feeder cadre—Legality of—No element of arbitrariness in deleting the cadre of the Computer Operator as feeder cadre—A.C.P. Scheme is available to the Computer Operators to get up in their pay—Petition dismissed. (P&H., H.C.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 24, 43, 49 and 60—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 277—Scope of—Non-obstante clause in section 60 of the Act cannot be assumed to supersede or extinguish provisions in the general law—Wording of section 60 of the Act is not intended to exclude section 277 of I.P.C.—Act complained attracted section 277, I.P.C., the prosecution can also be launched under the provisions of the Water Act—Cognizance of the offence under section 277, I.P.C. is not excluded or expressly taken away the provisions of the Water Act. (Ker., H.C.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 25, 26, 27 and 33-A—Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981—Section 21 read with 31-A—Powers under—Exercise of—Cancellation of the consent to operate the industry with direction to immediately stop/suspend the operation of the unit and to comply with certain measures—Legality of—Business of production of fumigant-methyl bromine—Inspection of unit—Report submitted—Issuance of show cause notice—Explanation submitted—Personal hearing to the representative of the unit afforded—No copy of report served on the unit soon after the inspection—Given only alongwith the show cause notice dated 21.5.2002 alongwith the directions to stop the operation of the unit and to remain present before the Chairman—Notice served on 23.5.2012—Calling upon to appear on 25.5.2012—Defect in the show cause notice—Single day given to submit reply—Denial of further time despite of the request—Anxiety of authority to cancel the consent order to operate the unit, evident—Reply submitted too not considered—Inspection report as well as the proceeding do not indicate anything about the gas leakage or air pollution—No basis for issuance of show cause notice—Show cause notice was not only defective but also unfounded—Order impugned passed in violation of principles of natural justice and is also an outcome of non-application of mind—Unsustainable—Set aside—Appeal allowed. (N.G.T.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 25, 26, 32, 33, 33-A, 44, 49 and 45-A—Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 21, 226/227—Writ petition—Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.)—Requiring direction to Gwalior Distillers Ltd.—Not to store and flow polluted water in open—Vasts of land or in river—And to have a neutralizing plant for vitiated water in their system—And the remaining grain waste should not be sold out—It is held that in the circumstances, it is essential to ensure that industrial effluents are not allowed to be discharged into water courses without adequate treatment—It will be in public interest and in interest of public health to prevent contamination or pollution of water—Respondents are directed to see that adequate arrangements are made for protection of environment and Prevention of Pollution of Water and Air—State is directed to ensure that Environmental Protection laws are strictly enforced—And adequate provisions are made for prevention of pollution in terms of Environmental Protection Act, the Air Act and the Water Act and take immediate steps to prevent air, water and noise pollution—Municipal Corporation and other Municipalities are directed to take steps to ensure accordingly—State Pollution Control Board are directed to take rigorous steps to enforce provisions in the State—And also directed to see that no industry is established without ensuring that adequate pollution control measures are adopted. (M.P., H.C.-G.B.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 25 (c)—Scope of—Provisions of, attracted when for the first time discharge of pollutants by industry or by way of operation process or by any outlet of any nature commences—Provisions would be inapplicable to an ongoing process of pollution. (M.P., H.C.-G.B.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Sections 25 (1) and 44—Framing of charge under—When cannot be countenanced in law—Allegations and evidence disclose contravention of section 26 of the Act—Petition disposed of with directions. (M.P., H.C.-G.B.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 26—Scope of—Deals with existing discharge of sewage and trade effluents. (M.P., H.C.-G.B.) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Section 33-A—Cancellation/revocation of consent to operate—Legality of—Directions referred to a communication made by second respondent to first respondent calling upon first respondent to keep consent to operate, issued to appellant in abeyance—First respondent acted upon directions issued to him and cancelled/revoked consent to operate order originally granted to appellant valid till 20.10.2014—Not even a notice given to appellant nor an opportunity of being heard offerred to appellant before order of cancellation of consent to operate order—Cross-violation of principles of natural justice—First respondent did not act independently by following procedure envisaged in law—Both authorities acted arbitrary—Impugned directions set aside—Appeal allowed with direction to respondents to pay a cost of R 10,000/- to appellants. (N.G.T.)
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 144—Notification under—Prohibiting use of plaster of paris in making idols and banning use of toxic colours for painting them with a view to prevent pollution of water—Legality of—A permanent menace such as environmental and water pollution calls for permanent solution and not for temporary measures such as issuance of notification under section 144, Cr.P.C.—Cause is right but remedy is not correct one—Power under section 144 of Act cannot be exercised in lieu of enactment of an appropriate legislation or framing rules—Emergent situation not reflected in notification—Impugned notification merely reiterates some of the guidelines framed by Central Pollution Control Board—Power under section 144 not meant to be used for enforcement of guidelines but to deal with urgent situations—Solutions cannot be found by issuing a notification under this provision—No urgent situation reflected in impugned notification—Not sustainable in law—Impugned notification quashed—Petition allowed. (Guj., H.C.)


WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972—
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Sections 2 (27) and 61—Sandalwood (Santalum album Linn)—Sought to be declared as "specified plant"—Both in CITES and in IUCN Red list of threatened species, red sandalwood described as “threatened with extinction”, “endangered”—Red sandalwood a species of Pterocarpus native of India seen nowhere in the world—Red sanders an endemic and endangered species found only in State of A.P.—To protect it proposal given by the State of A.P. to Government of India for its inclusion in Schedule VI of the Act justified—Central Government needed to be directed to take appropriate steps under section 61 of the Act to include Red Sanders in Schedule VI of the Act—Instead of giving a positive direction to include it in Schedule VI the Central Government directed to examine issue at length with NBWL and take decision whether it is to be notified as a “specified plant” and be included in Schedule VI of the Act—Further direction given to it to formulate a policy for conservation of sandalwood and to formulate rules and regulations under sections 3 and 5 of Environmental Protection Act, 1986 for effective monitoring control and regulation of sandalwood industries. (S.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Section 5 (c)—Constitution of India—Article 51-A (g)—Notification of elephant corridor—Did not intervene or violate the function and duties of National Board or State Board. (Mad., H.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Sections 8, 9 and 18, Schedules I to IV—National Wildlife Action Plan, 2002-2016—Conservation and management of wildlife—Preservation and conservation of wild buffalo—Direction sought by petitioner to Union of India and State of Chhattisgarh—To prepare rescue plan to save wild buffalo from extinction—Wild buffalo included as Item No. 41, Part I of Schedule I of the Act—State cannot shelter under claim of lack of funds—State Board for wildlife—Has to advise the State Government in selection and management of areas to be declared as protected areas—Most important threat to wild buffalo is in- breeding with feral and domestic buffalo, habitat loss—State of Chhattisgarh directed to give effect fully to centrally sponsored scheme “The Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats” to save wild buffalo from extinction, to ensure genetic purity of the species, intensive research, training of personnel, etc. (S.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Section 39—Government Resolution dated 2.7.2010—Compensation—Loss suffered by farmers due to wild animals capable of causing destruction to crops—Provisions under section 39 of the Act declare that wild animals are property of the Government—Open to a citizen to claim compensation for the loss whether specifically referred to in any provision, Government resolution or not—Mere omission of tiger from animals mentioned in the Government resolution makes no difference—Exclusion of tiger from the Government Resolution not reasonable—State Government responsible to make good the loss caused by wild animal including tiger. (Bom., H.C.-N.B.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Section 39 (1) (d)—Provisions under—Would come into play only after a Court of competent jurisdiction found that accusations and allegations made against the accused were true and recorded finding that seized article was as a matter of fact used in commission of offence—On basis of seizure and accusations/allegations alone— Section 39 (1)(d) cannot be allowed to operate—Else it would be hit by constitutional provisions. (S.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Sections 40 and 43—Transfer of live elephant—General ban as provided under sub-section (1) of section 43 or such other provision not applicable—Case of live elephant separately dealt with under proviso to sub-sections (2-A) and (2-B) of section 40 which shall prevail over general stipulation. (Ker., H.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Sections 40 (2) and 43 (1)—Transfer of wild animal—Trading in wild animal remains banned under the statute—Transfer by way of gift been made permissible—Plea that there is total ban on transfer repelled. (Ker., H.C.)


Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Section 40-A—Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003—Rule 4 (2)—Shahtoosh Shawls—Issue of ownership certificate—Declaration—Application within 180 days—The day of commencement of period of Limitation has to be excluded—Application received on last day of 180 days on 15.10.2003 cannot be regarded as time barred. (P&H., H.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Section 49 and 49-B—Bail—Allegation of offence under sections 120-B, I.P.C. and 51 read with 49 and 49-B, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Applicant and co-accused were arrested at the time of recovery—But the bag wherefrom five skins of wild animals were recovered—Was in possession of co-accused—No evidence that applicant was in any way in possession of the recovered articles—Keeping in view the nature of offences, evidence, complicity of applicant severity of punishment—Applicant be released on bail. (Alld., H.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Sections 50, 51 and 54—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 451 and 457—Excise Act (M.P.), 1915—Section 58—Offending vehicles seized by the authorities under the Excise Act or under the Wild Life (Protection) Act—View taken by the Trial Court/Revisional Court that the Magistrate is not competent to grant interim release of the seized vehicles on supurdari to its owners under the M.P. Excise Act or the Wild Life (Protection) Act is not sustainable—Accordingly, impugned orders set aside—Appropriate orders passed—Cases disposed of. (M.P., H.C.-G.B.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Section 52—Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 147, 148 and 149—Arms Act, 1959—Section 27—Offences under—Discharge of—Whether provisions of Chapter VIII of Indian Penal Code can be applied to offences other than those affecting human body or public peace—Held, damage caused to wild life even if same cannot be evaluated or calculated in terms of money is definitely a loss to ecology and can be considered to be loss to public and society at large—By act of using fire arms for killing wildlife, accused committed offence of mischief—Provision of section 141, I.P.C. can very well be applied to an offence of mischief committed in relation to a wild animal also—Every member of unlawful assembly participating in act of hunting definitely liable for being prosecuted for offence under section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act with aid of section 149, I.P.C.—Revision petition partly allowed—Impugned order passed by Additional District Judge discharging respondent-Salman Khan from offences under section 148, I.P.C. and under section 27 of Arms Act and other accused-respondents from offences under section 147, I.P.C. affirmed but set aside to extent whereby accused respondents discharged from offence under section 52, Wild Life Protection Act read with section 149, I.P.C.—Petition disposed of. (Raj., H.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Section 54 (1)—Forfeiture of seized items—Statutory provisions do not provide explicitly for forfeiture from a person suspected to have committed offence against the 1972 Act—Specified Officer empowered under section 54 (1) of the Act—Has no power, competence or authority to order forfeiture of seized items on composition of offence by such person. (S.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—Confiscation of vehicle used in commission of forest offence—Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (as amended by Act No. 23 of 1974)—Sections 61-A, 69, 2 (e), 2 (f) and 52—Car allegedly used in transportation of tusks collected from illegally killed elephants—After enactment of 1972 Act—It cannot be said that “ivory” is a forest produce or that possession and transportation of “ivory” without valid authority is an offence punishable under the 1961 Act or rules framed thereunder—Power to confiscate confined to only those vehicles used in commission of any forest offence—Power of confiscation—Commences only when valid seizure of property is effected—In the instant case neither any property was seized from the car nor the car was seized—No forest offence shown to have been committed in respect of any forest produce—No justification for seizure and order for confiscation of the case. (S.C.)
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972—G.O. (Ms.) No. 125 Environment and Forest Department dated 31.8.2010—Constitution of Expert Committee by the High Court—Not in violation of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act, 2006. (Mad., H.C.)

WILD LIFE STOCK RULES, 2003—
Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 - Rule 3 (2)—Obligation—Of Chief Wild Life Warden or authorised officer—As per Rule 3 and 3 (2) of Rules—Once respondents have not done their duty in accordance with Rules—Then it is very strange for them to raise the bogey of period of limitation—Provisions of Rules are confiscatory in nature—Therefore principle of strict construction has to be followed. (P&H., H.C.)
WORDS AND PHRASES—
Words and Phrases - Words “forfeiture” and “seizure”—Have different connotations in law—Meaning of the words discussed. (S.C.)


Our other publications
Indian Factories & Labour Rep

All India Cases

Revenue Decision

Allahabad Criminal Cases

Allahabad Law Report

         
 Copyright © Law Publishing House, 39 Sheo Charan Lal Road, Allahabad - 211003
Ph : (0532) 2563956, 2563835 Email : lawpublishinghouse@gmail.com
 View Sitemap | Powered By:-Softera Group