Order
Item 301: IAs Nos. 2530-31 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
1. Await report of CEC. List in the first week of February 2012.
Item 302: IAs Nos. 3118-20 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
2. Post in February 2012.
Item 303: IAs Nos. 2902-03 and 3208 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995, IA No. 3330 in IAs Nos. 2902-03 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 304: IAs Nos. 2904-05 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995, IA No. 3331 in IAs Nos. 2904-05 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 305: IAs Nos. 2906-07 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995, IA No. 3332 in IAs Nos. 2906-07 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 306: IAs Nos. 2908-09 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995, IA No. 3333 in IAs Nos. 2908-09 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 307: IAs Nos. 2910-11 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995, IA No. 3334 in IAs Nos. 2910-11 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 308: IAs Nos. 2935-36 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995, IA No. 3335 in IAs Nos. 2935-36 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
3. Interim order dated 14-10-2011 (2012) 12 SCC 236 would stand extended by another three months from today. Await the affidavit of the State of Orissa.
4. The learned counsel appearing for MoEF states that MoEF has not received the proposal from the State. The State of Orissa to forward the proposal within three weeks. MoEF will file its response within one month after receiving the proposal.
5. List after two months.
Item 309: IAs Nos. 2, 9, 11-13, 16-20, 23-24, 28-29, 33-34 of 2005 and No. 37 of 2001 in WP (C) No. 171 of 1996 with Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 290-92 of 1998
6. Vide order dated 11-11-2011 IA No. 139 in WP (C) No. 337 of 1995, the State of Jammu and Kashmir was to file response to the report of CEC but the State has not filed the response so far. As a last chance, one month's time is granted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir to file response to the report of CEC.
7. CEC makes available their report forthwith. Post after one month.
Item 310: SLP (C) No. 7031 of 2010
8. Post after Christmas holidays.
Item 311: Mount Abu Part-heard
IA No. 972 in IAs Nos. 757, 1042-45, 2949 in IA No. 757 and IA No. … in IA No. 757 and IA No. … of 2011 in IAs Nos. 1042-45 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
9. Abovementioned application was filed by the amicus curiae seeking appropriate orders from this Court to prevent indiscriminate cutting of forest trees from Mount Abu situated in the State of Rajasthan and also for a declaration that Mount Abu is an eco-sensitive zone in Aravalli Range.
10. Following are the reliefs sought for:
“(a) Direct the Union of India to take steps to declare Mount Abu as an ‘eco-fragile’ area, and to set up a Committee under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 so as to do all that is necessary to protect the environment of this area.
(b) Direct the State of Rajasthan and its officers and in particular the Deputy Conservator of Forests or any other officer in charge of the forest in the area to immediately conduct a survey and report on the forest cover in the area of Mount Abu irrespective of whether the land is classified as forest or non-forest.
(c) Direct the State of Rajasthan and its officers particularly to the Collector in charge of the area not to grant or renew any lease of the property in Mount Abu till the survey is conducted and orders therein passed by this Hon'ble Court.
(d) Direct the State of Rajasthan including the Conservator of Forests in charge of the area to ensure that there is no felling of trees whatsoever in Mount Abu without further order of this Hon'ble Court.
(e) Pending consideration of this matter relating to declaration of Mount Abu as an eco-fragile area, restrain the State of Rajasthan, its officers, servants and agents from sanctioning any building or construction activity.
(f) Pass any other further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
11. The counsel for the Union of India submitted, when the IA came up for hearing on 9-5-2002, that the application would be placed before an Expert Committee for its consideration and, in the meanwhile, no further building permits be sanctioned by any authority. An interim order was passed by this Court to that effect. Subsequently, various orders were passed by this Court. CEC also filed their report dated 8-9-2003.
12. Later, one Jan Sewa Samiti, through its General Secretary, filed IA No. 1045 of 2003 on 21-11-2003 for impleadment in the proceedings, an Application No. 1042 of 2010 for appropriate directions and IA No. 1044 was also filed for vacating the stay. Several orders were passed by this Court on various occasions in connection with IA No. 757, however, it is not necessary to refer to all those orders.
13. The Government of India issued a draft notification under sub-section (1) read with clause (v) and clause (xiv) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986) which was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide Notification dated 22-10-2008, following the requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.
14. The Government of India later came up with a final Notification dated 25-6-2009, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) read with clause (v) and clause (xiv) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 declaring Mount Abu as an eco-sensitive zone and by which various activities were sought to be regulated.
15. Challenging the abovementioned Notification dated 25-6-2009, Jan Sewa Samiti filed Writ Petition (C) No. 240 of 2010 seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Notification dated 25-6-2009 (Annexure P);
(b) issue appropriate writ, orders or directions setting aside the ‘monitoring committee’ appointed under the Notification dated 25-6-2009 and further directing the regulation of construction and buildings to be done by the municipality in accordance with the bye-laws in force;
(c) issue appropriate writ, orders or directions to prepare a proper scheme for the protection of the environment taking into consideration the real reasons for the depletion of forest cover around Mount Abu;
(d) issue appropriate writ, orders or directions directing the Forest Department to account for the monies advanced to it by the municipal authorities and further direct CBI to investigate the usage of funds by the forest officials in relation to the Mount Abu region;
(e) pass further or other order or offers as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
16. Notification dated 25-6-2009, it was contended, had infringed the power of the Municipal Board duly constituted under Part IX-A of the Constitution of India read with Schedule XII of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act enacted by the State Legislature. Specific reference was made to Article 243-W and it was submitted that the Municipal Bodies would carry out the functions as set out in Schedule XII of the Constitution. Further, it was also pointed out that the powers under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 should not be used for creating extra-constitutional authorities so as to denude the constitutional authorities of the powers vested on them. Several other grounds were taken challenging the constitutional validity of the notification. When the writ petition came up for admission before a three-Judge Bench of this Court on 19-7-2010 (2012) 12 SCC 254, the Court passed the following order:
“In our view, it would be in the fitness of things that this writ petition is considered by the competent High Court.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.”
Jan Sewa Samiti has, however, through the impleading petitions reiterated the same grounds on the constitutional validity of the notification.
17. Arguments went on for few days on the constitutional validity of the Notification dated 25-6-2009 and both the sides were heard at length, but the order of the three-Judge Bench passed on 19-7-2010 (2012) 12 SCC 254 was placed before us only today. We then called for the records in Writ Petition (C) No. 240 of 2010 and we are convinced that identical grounds were already raised by Jan Sewa Samiti in Writ Petition (C) No. 240 of 2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn, giving liberty to approach the competent High Court.
18. We are bound by the order of this Court dated 19-7-2010 (2012) 12 SCC 254. The contentions raised before us on the constitutional validity of the Notification dated 25-6-2009 therefore, cannot be gone into in these proceedings. Consequently, all the contentions raised by the counsel of either side on the constitutional validity of the above notification are left open, to be raised before the appropriate court, if the parties are so advised. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the various contentions raised by the counsel on either side.
19. The counsel appearing for MoEF submitted that, on the basis of the notification, various steps have already been taken for its implementation, may be, since the notification has already been issued, IA No. 757 has become infructuous and disposed of accordingly.
Item 312: IA No. 100 in WP (C) No. 337 of 1995
Item 313: IAs Nos. 1308, 1323, 1455, 1468, 1478 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 314: Askot Musk Deer Sanctuary
IAs Nos. 1791-92 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 315: IA No. 2716 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
20. Not taken up.
Item 316: IA No. 2469 with IAs Nos. 2782, 2939-40 and IAs Nos. 3023-24 in IAs Nos. 2782, 3030 and 3032 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 with WP (C) No. 130 of 2011
21. Post on 27-1-2012 at the top of the final disposal matters.
Item 317: SLPs (C) Nos. 24627-28 of 2011
Item 318: SLP (C) No. 3941 of 2010
Item 319: SLP (C) No. 28519 of 2008
Item 320: IA No. 2642 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 321: IA No. 2717 in IAs Nos. 1135-36
Item 322: IAs Nos. 2785 and 3025 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 323: Panchmarhi Matters (Tiger Reserve, etc.)
IAs Nos. 2202-03, IAs Nos. 2601 and 2915-17 in IAs Nos. 2202-03, 2602, 2929-31 with Nos. 1606, 2002-04, 2011, 2062-63 in IA No. 1220 in IAs Nos. 548, 3308-10 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 with IA No. 1697 in 548 and 2595-96 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 324: IAs Nos. 2155-56 and 2680 in IAs Nos. 2156, 3275 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 325: IA No. 3117 in IA No. 1991 and 1991 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 326: IAs Nos. 2710 and 2730 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 327: IA No. 925 with Contempt Petition (C) No. 193 of 2001, IA No. 1127 in 925 and IA No. 4 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 193 of 2001 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
22. Not taken up.
Item 328: IAs Nos. 128-29 and 144 in WP (C) No. 337 of 1995
23. The learned counsel appearing for MoEF submitted that MoEF has not received any response from the State of U.P The learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P submitted that they have already sent their proposal on 28-7-2011. If any further information is passed on by the State of U.P, MoEF would consider that also within two weeks, including the proposal dated 28-7-2011. The State of U.P would make available all those proposals.
24. The learned counsel appearing for MoEF states that the next meeting of the National Board for Wildlife may be held in the month of February 2012, before that entire formalities be completed and the relevant materials be placed before the Committee to take a decision in the matter.
25. Post in the second week of March 2012.
Item 329: IAs Nos. 3283-84 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
26. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out the conditions referred to in the minutes of the meeting held by the National Board for Wildlife dated 25-4-2011, which are as follows:
“(i) Adequate number of speed breakers at suitable distance for safety of wildlife shall be provided on all the roads.
(ii) 5% of the project cost corresponding to the project area falling within the protected area would be paid by the user agency for the development of the sanctuary.
(iii) The road development shall be carried out with utmost care so as to cause lease impact on wildlife.
(iv) It shall be ensured that no damage is caused to the wildlife and its habitats.
(v) No realignment shall be permissible.
(vi) For movement of run off water and wildlife, minimum of one subway per 3 km and culverts at appropriate locations for maintaining continuity in flow of water shall be constructed.
(vii) Speed limit on stretch of road passing through the sanctuary should be restricted to 20 km/hr.
(viii) All construction materials and other materials will be brought from outside the sanctuary and no digging for extraction of any kind of material will be done within the protected area.
(ix) All the conditions laid down by the Government of Madhya Pradesh or any agency shall be binding on the user agency.
(x) No further works would be approved on the above roads.
(xi) All vehicles will enter the sanctuary area after sunrise and shall exit the sanctuary before sunset.
(xii) Heavy vehicular traffic should be avoided as it may cause permanent disturbance inside the sanctuary.
(xiii) NPV and compensatory afforestation fund charges will be paid by the user agency to the Chief Wildlife Warden as per norms.
(xiv) The user agency should also abide by any other conditions that may be prescribed by the Chief Wildlife Warden.
(xv) The Chief Wildlife Warden would submit a compliance report on the implementation of the conditions specified to the Standing Committee of NBWL after completion of the project.”
27. MoEF to get instructions. Post after three weeks.
Item 330: IAs Nos. 3302-04 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
Item 331: IAs Nos. 3311-13 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
28. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has already given a copy of the application. Mr Kamlendra Mishra, learned counsel will get instructions in the matter.
29. Issue notice to the State of U.P through their Standing Counsel. Post after one month.
MM-1: IAs Nos. 3297-99 of 2011 in IAs Nos. 2077-78 of 2007 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
30. Post after Christmas holidays.
MM-2: IA No. 16 of 2009 in WP (C) No. 47 of 1998
31. Post after Christmas holidays.
MM-3: IA No. 334 of 2011 and IA No. 319 of 2010
32. Post after Christmas holidays.
Court Masters