- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad (69) v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The order deals with a cluster of Interlocutory Applications (IAs) arising out of earlier proceedings before the Supreme Court of India concerning forest conservation and related environmental issues. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) had filed multiple reports and recommendations, some of which had not been complied with by various State Governments. The Court:
- Noted that the State of Madhya Pradesh failed to file a response and dismissed IA No. 776 in IA No. 424.
- Directed all States, including Chhattisgarh, to abide by the Court’s previous order dated 22-9-2000 (2007 15 SCC 273).
- Required the Union of India and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to file responses in several pending IAs.
- Found non-compliance by the State of Karnataka with earlier directions to remove encroachments and called for a status report on specific reserved forests.
- Recorded the Union of India’s assurance that a notification establishing the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Agency would be issued pursuant to the Court’s order dated 30-10-2002 (2002 10 SCC 606).
- Approved, with conditions, projects such as the Lower Subansri hydro-electric project and an aerial ropeway through Sri Venkateswara Wildlife Sanctuary.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether IA No. 776 should be dismissed in light of the CEC’s recommendations and the State of Madhya Pradesh’s failure to respond.
- Whether all States are bound to implement the Court’s order dated 22-9-2000 (2007 15 SCC 273).
- What directions are necessary to secure removal of encroachments in the Sargod and Maskali Reserved Forests in Karnataka.
- Whether to permit the Lower Subansri hydro-electric project subject to conditions agreed upon by the parties and the MoEF.
- Whether to allow construction of an aerial ropeway through Sri Venkateswara Wildlife Sanctuary under conditions recommended by the CEC.
- Whether interim administrative mechanisms (e.g., committees or agencies) should be constituted pending final governmental notifications.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant in IAs Nos. 1042-45
- Feared that issuance of a notification would impose a complete ban on construction in the concerned area and requested that their objections be heard before any notification is issued.
Union of India / MoEF
- Through counsel Mr A.D.N Rao, sought additional time to file responses and informed the Court that a notification establishing the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Agency would be issued within a week, with its composition to be finalised in consultation with the amicus curiae.
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (Lower Subansri Project)
- Agreed to a comprehensive set of conditions relating to land status, environmental safeguards, funding for relocation, reforestation, and wildlife protection to secure approval of the project.
Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (Ropeway Project)
- Relied on the CEC’s report highlighting the ropeway as an eco-friendly alternative to road transport and accepted the financial and environmental conditions recommended by the CEC.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order dated 22-9-2000 (2007) 15 SCC 273 | Binding directions regarding implementation of CEC recommendations by State Governments. | The Court reiterated that all States, including Chhattisgarh, must strictly comply with this earlier order. |
| Order dated 30-10-2002 (2002) 10 SCC 606 | Establishment of mechanisms for collection and management of compensatory afforestation funds and payment of Net Present Value. | Used to direct issuance of a notification constituting the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Agency and to fix financial obligations for the ropeway project. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s analysis was primarily supervisory and administrative:
- Where a State failed to respond (Madhya Pradesh), the Court accepted the unopposed CEC recommendations and dismissed the pending IA.
- Observing widespread non-compliance, the Court invoked its earlier binding order (22-9-2000) and expressly directed all States to adhere to it.
- For Karnataka, the Court relied on the latest CEC report to conclude that encroachments persisted, thereby compelling the Chief Secretary to submit a detailed affidavit and action plan.
- Regarding the proposed Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Agency, the Court took note of the Union’s undertaking and set timelines, reflecting its continuing jurisdiction to ensure execution of earlier financial and administrative directives.
- For the Lower Subansri hydro-electric project, the Court accepted the consensus conditions placed on the record, ensuring that ecological safeguards would accompany project approval.
- On IAs Nos. 1042-45, the Court reasoned that statutory procedure already provided for objections to draft notifications; therefore, pre-notification intervention by the Court was unnecessary.
- In the ropeway matter, the Court adopted the CEC’s detailed environmental assessment, finding it persuasive that the project was eco-friendly, involved minimal forest diversion, and was in the public interest. Financial conditions for compensatory measures were imposed to internalise environmental costs.
Holding and Implications
Multiple IAs were disposed of with specific directions. Key operative outcomes include:
- Dismissal of IA No. 776 in IA No. 424 for non-prosecution by the State of Madhya Pradesh.
- Universal direction to all States to comply with the order dated 22-9-2000 (2007 15 SCC 273).
- Mandate to the Chief Secretary of Karnataka to file a status report and action plan on forest encroachments within eight weeks.
- Requirement that the Union of India issue a notification establishing the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Agency within one week.
- Conditional approval of the Lower Subansri hydro-electric project and the Sri Venkateswara ropeway project, contingent on rigorous environmental safeguards and financial contributions to the Compensatory Afforestation Fund.
Implications are immediate and case-specific: the concerned governments and agencies must meet the timelines and conditions set, but no new legal principle was articulated beyond enforcement of existing orders and statutory procedures.
Order
IA No. 1035 in IA No. 776
1. Despite the order of this Court the State of Madhya Pradesh has not filed its response. We are in agreement with the recommendations of CEC. IA No. 776 in IA No. 424 is accordingly dismissed.
2. It appears that several States are not following the recommendations of CEC and the order dated 22-9-2000 (2007) 15 SCC 273. We, therefore, direct that since the matter has already been decided all the States including the State of Chhattisgarh shall abide by the order dated 22-9-2000 (2007) 15 SCC 273. IA No. 1035 is disposed of.
IA No. 1000 with IAs Nos. 982-84, IAs Nos. 1123-24 and IAs Nos. 1026-28
3. Let response be filed by the Union of India within a week. List this matter on 3-5-2004 before a Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr Justice Y.K Sabharwal, Hon'ble Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr Justice S.H Kapadia.
IA No. 1048 in IA No. 60
4. Mr A.D.N Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the Ministry of Environment and Forests prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file response.
IA No. 990 in IAs Nos. 860 and 863
5. We have gone through the CEC report dated 28-8-2003 and find that many of the earlier directions have not been complied with by the State of Karnataka inasmuch as many encroachments have not been removed. We, therefore, direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to file status report along with an affidavit within a period of eight weeks giving details of encroachments in Sargod and Maskali Reserved Forest within Chikmanglur District along with the action plan for removal of such encroachments in a time-bound manner.
IA No. 826 in IA No. 566 with IAs Nos. 985, 1016-18 and 1046
6. Mr A.D.N Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India states that within a period of one week a notification constituting an authority known as Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Agency for the management of money towards compensatory afforestation will be issued in pursuance of the order dated 30-10-2002 (2002) 10 SCC 606 passed in IA No. 566 and WP (C) No. 202 of 1995. So far as the composition of the authority is concerned, that will be worked out with the consultation of the learned amicus curiae. This exercise may be done within a period of four weeks.
7. List this matter after summer vacation before a Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr Justice Y.K Sabharwal, Hon'ble Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr Justice S.H Kapadia.
IA No. 827
8. List after summer vacation.
IAs Nos. 896-98
9. List after summer vacation. In the meantime CEC may also submit its report.
Items 8 and 8(i), IAs Nos. 966 and 1012
10. Parties have agreed that the project proposed by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. may be permitted by MoEF subject to fulfilling the following conditions:
(i) The legal status of the sanctuary land i.e 42 ha will remain unchanged and will continue to be a part of the sanctuary.
(ii) The reserve forest area that forms part of the catchment of the Lower Subansri including the reservoir should be declared as a national park/sanctuary. NHPC will provide funds for the survey and demarcation of the same.
(iii) The extent of area to be declared, as national park/sanctuary will be decided by the State Government in consultation with the Ministry of Environment and Forests and associating reputed forestry and wildlife experts.
(iv) The national park/sanctuary will be under the control of the Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, to be managed by an officer of the rank of the Deputy Conservator of Forests and above.
(v) The National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) will provide funds for the relocation and resettlement of the people, if any, residing inside the proposed national park/sanctuary at (ii) above, at sites outside the protected area on land earmarked for the purpose by the State Government in advance.
(vi) NHPC will make adequate arrangements for supply of fuel to the staff and workers engaged in the construction. Under no circumstances, fuel wood will be removed from the sanctuary or forest area.
(vii) There would be no construction of dam upstream of Subansri river in future.
(viii) The State Government will provide dedicated field staff for the management and protection of the national park/sanctuary, which will include adequate number of ACFs, RFOs, foresters, guards, and watchmen, etc. Requisite infrastructure, communication, equipments and other facilities will be provided to the staff and the officials. The entire cost i.e recurring and non-recurring expenditure will be borne by NHPC for a period of ten years. The State Government will prepare and approve the management plan for the national park/sanctuary for a period of ten years and submit to NHPC for funding support.
(ix) NHPC will also ensure that there is no siltation down Subansri river during the construction phase. The spillage and diversion channels will be maintained as fish ladder.
(x) Under no circumstances, the excavated material will be dumped either in the river or any other part of the national park/sanctuary or the surrounding forests. NHPC will also provide complete funds for reforestation of the degraded sites with indigenous species within the national park/sanctuary and ensure that there is no siltation down Subansri river during the construction phase.
11. In this view of the matter, the IAs stand disposed of.
IA No. 972 in IA No. 757 with IAs Nos. 789-90, 962, 986 and 1038-41
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Till the notification is issued, we direct the State Government of Rajasthan to constitute a committee comprising of three members in consultation with CEC for the purpose of grant of permission for carrying out repairs or renovation of the existing structures within the municipal limit. The State Government may constitute such a committee within a period of one month.
IA No. 987
13. The Ministry of Tourism, Department of Culture is permitted to construct tourist facilities at Dilwara Jain Temple at Mount Abu. IA is disposed of.
IAs Nos. 1042-45
14. We have heard learned counsel and the learned amicus curiae. The applicant apprehends that in case the notification is issued, there would be complete ban on the raising of constructions within the area and therefore a prayer is made that before issuance of the notification the objections raised by the applicant may be considered by this Court. We do not find any merit in this submission, in view of the fact that before the final notification is issued by the Government, first a draft notification is to be issued inviting objections from the people who would be aggrieved by the notification. In that situation, the applicant may also file objections, if any, which the Government would consider. Further, if any final notification is issued, it will be open to the applicant to challenge the same in accordance with law.
IA No. 989 in IAs Nos. 857-58 with IAs Nos. 997, 998 and 1128
IA No. 1128
15. Let the reply be filed by South Eastern Coalfields Limited within a week. List this matter on 3-5-2004.
IA No. 1003 in IA No. 965
16. Ms Rachna Srivastava, the learned counsel prays for and is granted four weeks' time to obtain instructions. List this matter after summer vacation.
IA No. 976 in IA No. 727
17. List after summer vacation.
IA No. 920 in IA No. 703 with IAs Nos. 988, 1129 and 1151
18. List this matter for hearing in the month of July 2004 on the date to be given by the Registry.
IA No. 1150 in IA No. 1010
19. Learned counsel prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
IA No. 1011
20. Matter be referred to the Standing Committee of IBWL for its consideration.
WP (C) No. 498 of 2003
21. The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. has filed this petition for construction of aerial ropeway to transport pilgrims from Tirupati to Tirumala passing through Sri Venkateswara Wildlife Sanctuary. CEC has made the following recommendations:
“CEC is of the view that the ropeway is an eco-friendly mode for transportation of visitors in any eco-fragile area. It will be noiseless, pollution free, efficient, time-saving and a novel way of transporting pilgrims to the Holy Shrine. On the other hand transportation by road involves vehicular emissions and pollution and wastage of fuel/energy. It also disturbs the habitat and wildlife and also causes accidental death of wild animals. The location of 32 of 39 pillars of the ropeway is at the edge of Sri Venkateswara Wildlife Sanctuary within a large enclosure where Tirumala Temple complex and facilities are situated. For the construction of the remaining seven pillars forest land measuring 1.44 ha would be required whereas the actual construction will take place in an area of 0.1 ha. CEC is of the view that the ropeway project is in public interest, the area required is the minimum possible and the pillars will be erected in a rocky degraded area. Besides, it will involve felling of 24 small trees. No alternative site is possible. The disturbance and the impact upon the habitat and wildlife due to the ropeway project will be minimal and will also be fully containable. In view of the reasons given above, the Committee recommends that this Hon'ble Court may consider permitting the use of 1.44 ha of forest land for the construction of seven pillars required for the ropeway project subject to the following conditions and to any other condition(s) that may be stipulated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests while according approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:
(i) before commencing the work, five per cent of the project cost of that part of the project which falls within Sri Venkateswara Wildlife Sanctuary will have to be deposited by the project proponents in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund to be used for the protection and better management of the Sanctuary;
(ii) the net present value of the forest land diverted for the project will have to be deposited in the Compensatory Afforestation Fund as per this Hon'ble Court's order dated 30-10-2002 (2002) 10 SCC 606 passed in IA No. 566.”
22. We are in agreement with the recommendations made by CEC. We accordingly accord permission to the applicant for construction of ropeway subject to fulfilling the conditions as pointed out by CEC in its letter dated 7-4-2004. The amount may be deposited in two equal instalments. First instalment shall be deposited within one month and the other within six months thereafter. After the first instalment is deposited, the permission would be operative.
23. The matters to be listed before a Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice Y.K Sabharwal, Hon'ble Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr Justice S.H Kapadia.
Court Masters
Alert