T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad (93) v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The order concerns multiple Interlocutory Applications (IAs) filed in the long-running writ petition WP (C) No. 897 of 1996, a public-interest matter dealing with forest conservation and mining activities across several Indian States. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) have been reporting to the Court on compliance with earlier directions. In the present order the Court:

• Considers CEC recommendations restricting tree-felling in different altitude zones of forest areas.
• Addresses State requests for permission to collect boulders and sand from river beds inside wildlife sanctuaries.
• Directs defaulting State authorities to furnish outstanding information sought by the CEC.
• Reviews the legality of a Monitoring Committee set up by MoEF pursuant to the Court’s judgment dated 30-10-2002 and orders its re-constitution.
• Calls for an expert body on slope stability issues relating to the closure of the Kudremukh iron-ore mine.
• Issues compliance directions to the State of Rajasthan regarding mining leases.
• Lists several applications for further hearing or disposal on specified future dates.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the CEC’s recommendations dated 25-11-2005 on prohibiting or regulating tree-felling at varying altitude zones should be adopted by the Court.
2. Whether the State Government’s request to collect boulders and sand from river beds inside wildlife sanctuaries should be allowed and, if so, to what geographical extent.
3. How to secure State compliance with the Court-ordered information requirements identified by the CEC.
4. Whether MoEF’s constitution of a Monitoring Committee complies with the Court’s judgment dated 30-10-2002, and what corrective action is necessary.
5. What mechanism should be instituted to examine slope stability and other closure issues at the Kudremukh mine.
6. Why the State of Rajasthan failed to submit a compliance report for one leaseholder when it had done so for nineteen others.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant in IA 704

• Through counsel, expressed no objection to the CEC recommendations on tree-felling restrictions.

State Government (IA 740)

• Requested that permission for collection of boulders and sand inside sanctuaries extend beyond District Darjeeling to District Jalpaiguri.

Union of India / MoEF (IA 1458)

• The Learned Solicitor General, Mr G.E. Vahanvati, stated that the State Government had granted approval as contemplated in the Court’s earlier order dated 16-12-2005 (2006 5 SCC 23), and that the said order should continue until further directions.

Applicant in IA 1374

• Sought and obtained leave to withdraw the application.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court adopted a segmented approach, addressing each IA separately:

• IA 704 (CEC recommendations on felling): Because the applicant raised no objections, the Court accepted the CEC’s four-part recommendation, thereby imposing altitude-based restrictions on tree-felling and permitting only limited experimental replacement of exotic species.
• IA 740 (Collection of boulders and sand): The Court accepted the State’s application subject to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the CEC report dated 25-11-2005, expressly extending permission to District Jalpaiguri as well as Darjeeling.
• IAs 1117-18 (Non-submission of information): Observing continued non-compliance, the Court ordered the State Government to furnish outstanding data within two weeks, after which CEC is to examine the matter and report back.
• IA 1471: Granted MoEF and CEC two weeks to file responses; matter adjourned for three weeks.
• IA 1458: The Court took note of the Solicitor General’s statement that requisite State approval under the 16-12-2005 order had been granted, and ordered continuation of that earlier directive.
• IAs 1010 & 1150 (Monitoring Committee and Kudremukh mine): After hearing amicus curiae and counsel, the Court held MoEF’s Monitoring Committee ultra vires the 2002 judgment and ordered its re-constitution within a week. It also asked the CEC to recommend an expert body to study slope stability and related issues for Kudremukh mine closure.
• IA 1374: Dismissed as withdrawn at the applicant’s request.
• IA 1177: Directed the State of Rajasthan to file an affidavit within ten days explaining the omission of a compliance report for a particular leaseholder.
• IAs 1235-37: Directed the applicant to first approach the CEC, disposing of the applications.

Holding and Implications

Applications DISPOSED OF or DIRECTIONS ISSUED as per above.

Direct effects include:

• Immediate operational restrictions on tree-felling based on altitude, enforceable across specified forest areas.
• Conditional approval for extraction of minor minerals from river beds inside sanctuaries, now applicable to two districts in West Bengal.
• Mandated re-constitution of MoEF’s Monitoring Committee within one week, ensuring alignment with earlier Supreme Court directions.
• Acceleration of compliance reporting by defaulting States, with timelines laid down by the Court.
• Initiation of an expert-led assessment of slope stability issues prior to Kudremukh mine closure.

No new legal precedent was set; the order primarily enforces and clarifies existing directives within the ongoing public-interest litigation.