Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • For the Appellant: ---------- For the Respondents: ----------
Judges
  • Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
  • Justice A.K. Patnaik
  • Justice S.S. Nijjar
Acts
  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
  • Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • For the Appellant: ---------- For the Respondents: ----------
Judges
  • Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla
  • Justice A.K. Patnaik
  • Justice S.S. Nijjar
Acts
  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
  • Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Supreme Court Order Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114 of 2014 alleges that several mining lessees in the State of Odisha are operating without the clearances mandated by the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and without renewal of their mining leases. The matter was taken up along with long-pending public-interest proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 202 of 1995 and related interlocutory applications.

At this preliminary stage the Court considered objections to the maintainability of the new writ petition, dealt with applications concerning earlier directions, and examined a request by the Union of India for additional time to comply with an earlier order dated 6-1-2014 (2014 4 SCC 61) that required the appointment of a regulator. The present order records directions on these issues and fixes specific dates for further hearings.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether Writ Petition (Civil) No. 114 of 2014 is maintainable despite the preliminary objections raised.
  2. What interim directions, if any, should be issued against lessees allegedly operating mining leases without statutory environmental or forest clearances and without renewal by the Government.
  3. Whether the Union of India should be granted additional time beyond 30-4-2014 to comply with the Court’s order dated 6-1-2014 directing the appointment of a regulator.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Order dated 6-1-2014, (2014) 4 SCC 61 Directed the Union of India to appoint a mining regulator. The Court relied on this earlier order while refusing to extend the compliance deadline beyond 30-4-2014.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Maintainability: After hearing preliminary objections, the Court held that the writ petition is maintainable, finding the objections unpersuasive, and ordered that notice be issued to the remaining private respondents.

Need for interim relief: Referring to paragraph 14 of the petition, the Court observed that many lessees appear to be operating without requisite statutory approvals. This, in the Court’s view, necessitated interim directions. The matter was therefore listed for 28-4-2014 as the first item solely to consider such interim relief.

Fact-finding mechanism: To facilitate an informed interim order, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was directed to prepare, without reference to the Shah Commission Report, a list of lessees operating in violation of the law. All parties were permitted to submit documentation to the CEC, and both the State of Odisha and the Union of India were directed to cooperate.

Compliance with earlier regulator order: Concerning an application seeking more time to appoint the regulator mandated by the 6-1-2014 order, the Court stated it was “not inclined” to grant any extension beyond 30-4-2014. The matter was listed for 5-5-2014 with a direction that an affidavit of compliance be filed by that date.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition was declared maintainable; notices were issued; the CEC was tasked with identifying non-compliant lessees; and the Union of India was denied additional time beyond 30-4-2014 to appoint a regulator.

Implications: The order accelerates scrutiny of mining operations in Odisha and imposes a strict timetable for establishing a regulatory mechanism. While it reinforces earlier directives, it sets no new precedent but exerts immediate pressure on governmental authorities and lessees to comply with existing statutory and judicial mandates.

Show full summary ...

    T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others

    Order

    Item 301 — Writ Petition (C) No. 114 of 2014

    1. We have heard the preliminary objections with regard to the writ petition and we are not convinced that the writ petition is not maintainable. Issue notice.

    2. As the State of Odisha, Union of India and CEC have already been served with the notices, no further notices be issued to them. Notice, however, be issued to Respondents 4 and 5 returnable within four weeks.

    3. It appears from the averments in Para 14 of the writ petition that several lessees are operating without clearances under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and without renewal by the Government. Hence, an interim order needs to be passed in respect of these lessees who are operating the leases in violation of the law.

    4. For consideration of the interim order that should be passed, only this writ petition be listed on next Monday, 28-4-2014, as first item. It will be open for all parties and intervenors/proposed intervenors to file their respective affidavits. CEC, in the meanwhile, will make out a list of such lessees who are operating the leases in violation of the law. This list be prepared by CEC without reference to the Shah Commission's Report. Liberty is given to the parties to produce their papers before CEC. The State of Odisha and the Union of India will cooperate with CEC to prepare the list.

    IAs Nos. 3706-07 and 3737, 3740, 3745, 3755 and 3756 in Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 202 of 1995 and WP (C) No. 194 of 2014

    5. These matters need not be listed on 28-4-2014.

    Item No. 302 with IAs Nos. 1868, 2091, 2225-27, 2380, 2568 and 2937 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 with IA No. 3767 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995

    6. Application for extension of time has been filed for appointing of a regulator in compliance with the order dated 6-1-2014 (2014) 4 SCC 61. We are not inclined to grant time beyond 30-4-2014.

    7. List this matter on 5-5-2014, by which time, an affidavit of compliance will be filed on behalf of the Union of India.

    Item 311 with IAs No. 1000 with Nos. 982-84, 1026-28, 1123-24, 1197-99, 1210-11, 1250-51, 1512 and 1412 in 887 with 1992 and 2580 and 2669 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995; SLP (C) No. 9241 of 2007; SLP (C) No. 14575 of 2007; SLP (C) No. … of 2007 CC No. 6594; IAs Nos. 176-78 in WP (C) No. 460 of 2004

    8. List on 5-5-2014.

    Item 317 — IAs Nos. 2771-73 in IA No. 2079 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 and Item 318 — IA No. 3735 in IA No. 502 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 and Item 323 — IAs Nos. 3399-3401 with IAs Nos. 3338-40, 3341-43, 3403-05 and 3439-41 with IAs Nos. 3350-52, 3374-76, 3377-79, 3380-82, 3383-85, 3386-88, 3416-18, 3651-53, 3549-51 and Nos. 3578-79, 3741, 3742, 3738, 3743, 3739, 3744, 3753 and 3754 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 and Item 326 — IAs Nos. 2746-48, 2862, 2941, 3629 and 3721 in 3629 in 2746-48 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 with IA No. 8 in SLP (C) No. 6810 of 2012 and Item 327 — IAs Nos. 3277-80 and 3373 and 3662, 3749 and 3760 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995

    9. List on next Monday, 28-4-2014.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others
    (Apr 21, 2014)