Arm; . TV The Sfate o§'KaI#§1é1taka " I' "De"pt. of Forest, Ecology &. Environment '*-13f.Ain,b¢£:1kar Road --Banga1ore 560 001 ' ..':I'uhe15rincipal Chief Conservator of Forests V' v. ._4Aranya Bhavan IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24?" DAY or: JUNE 2009 PRESENT _ " _ TI-IE I-ION'BLE MR. p.13. DINAKARAN, CHIEF V' % AND ' A THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcE " " V' WRIT PETITION No.174Z01'~i:G08 BETWEEN: _ M /s.Ramghad Minerals and Mining':PTfI--. (Ily Gurunath Mines) _ V Baldota Enclave -- f ' Abheraj Baldota Hospet 583 202 I ' ' " Rep. by its Authorized Seigxzgatory " Sri KRM Reddy, Aged 51 'years = _ ' M V I ...Petitioner ($33 M._ I$}I. Advocate) Rep. by its Secretary A 1\/I';'S.}:3'[ui1dir1g riitiay, the Court delivered the following:« 1831 Cross, Malleshwaram }3angatore--03 3. The Conservator of Forest Bellary Circle ._ Bellary. I 4. The Deputy Conservator of Forests. Bellary Division " _ Bellary. 5. The Range Forest Officer Sandur Range, Sandur Bellary District. 6. The Forester _ .4 Dept. of Forest it RMB Section _ " T V » Sandur Range,"S_an:d'ur Bellary District. " " ~_ V; _ ..Respondents
(By Sri Basavara}Karrer1:iy,”GA}-._ ._ ‘
This writ petition pis’._file-cl {Hider Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution’ oflndia praying to issue a writ or order or direction in
th.e’.nature”‘«:of __pcertiorari” ‘ecn.<f£«'quash the first information report
d't,8.12.20'D8 filediby R6 on 8.12.2008 in the Court of JMFC,
SarIripur_Vid.e Ar_1n~-tG,_ _
This-writ 'petitionscoming up for preliminary hearing on this
b} to quash the seizure order dated 7'
confiscating machinery, equipment
vehicles; and
c) by Way of an amendment’eafirgiiicatioli
I.A.No.II/O8, the petitiior1:et’~._bhas
quash the Order dated
M i /MNG/BA/ RM15i/Q13.iiG1.,i[i\Téiti2ii./’2.906-O7
of the fourthireispoiidegntig: it it it it it
4.2. In so to the competency of
the investigating _ofI”icer__(f?ores:ter) tojregister FIR is concerned,
the learned counsel petitioner submits that
admittedly; the Fo.res_t_er,ii ariofiicer who is much lower in rank
iiiorest Oiiicer has filed the complaint and on
thatibasils, jFné*’;e% registered before the Court ofJ1\/IFC, Sandur
therefore’; entire proceedings initiated by the sixth
Hi4ii_’resporident without jurisdiction and contrary to the
of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and
corisequently, the confiscation and seizure of machinery,
/,……e%’
if -.
equipment and vehicies by the sixth respondent is beyond.’
p0Wers conferred on him under the Act and Ruies.
4.2. The learned counsei appearing for _thev~–:petitioner it
also contends that the in1pugned1__ pr’oc;eedingis”‘ ‘d.’:€’::’t¢C’I*:iV’_”
22.12.2008 is without any basisw’:inasmue.hd as
passed without notice to the petitioners affording
an opportunity of hearing. 2 Aecording impugned
viotation of condition:Nos.1e5’*-.aifrdV*23__ Forest Lease
Agreement a joint survey
involving :air3.d.Geo£ogy, Forest and also
Revenue gwas on 15.12.2008, alleging
He submits that the petitioner is
preparedto. islibstantipate that it has not encroached outside
Wthe 1eased”out_are’a;:;if an opportunity is given to it.
Sriit’ Basavaraj Karreddy, learned Government
7.,4:’=Advocate, gappearing for the respondents, submits that
“re'”spopndents are prepared to substantiate that the petitioner
: M__’__W_M.s_…MM..w
R’;
has encroached outside the leased out area, after
opportunity to the petitioner. He also submits i’
cannot be any objection to permit they.-petitioner
the mining operation in the undisput’eci7..’area
prejudice to the right of the forestiaiiiti3iiorities_p actionijto
seize and confiscate the tools, _ it iniachineries
subject to the findings of that further
investigation into the presence of the
petitioner ControIle’i=._V _.Bureau of Mines,
Bangalore along Director, Survey of
India, who the Deputy Director, after
giving notice to
ai=1y.yViiev.ent, the learned Government Advocate
the FIR cannot be quashed mgrely on
‘.averri1entii.; rnade by the petitioner that it had not
iip§ii¢£gé(¢hed,po{its:de the leased out area and that the same is
the investigating officer (Forester) who is not
i’jg’–..ern’povvered to do so as such an allegation has to be
it Jalleged “violation of condition Nos. 15 and 23 of the
substantiated and proved by the respondents
appropriate proceedings before the competent V’
6. We have given our careful
submissions of both sides. I T 1 p A L
7.1. In View of rival contentio:ns.>reIievrred tine
following questions, which are’ similar.’ those Writ
Petition No.3812 of 2009 disipeseci’ arise for
our consideration it i V 2 it i
this Court to
exercisetfie review under Article
226 or the’ ‘oflndia to quash the First
< _Infc)iina_tion_ Reportv—-d.ate_d 8*}? December, 2008?
the fourth respondent is
ernpowered. to suspend the mining licence for the
Lease Agreement dated 4"? August 2005 by
E {:'°°:
” Piefifibin N0.3812 of 2009 disposed of on 13.4.2009, we
i T. “held as hereunder:
the impugned proceedings dated 22″ December
2008 ?
(111) Whether the sixth:–0″respondentm
empowered to seize the V’
vehicles belonging to the
committed illegal mining tl’1e”1″0~re’S§t
area? and
. . ‘ . ‘I W
8..}.. Issfi€«.§Q.(I|:~».iV it
(if _W’het?1e’r” broper for this Court to
“it-..’i:exe.rcis.e theijfiotizer under Article 226 of the
of India to quash the First
Report dated 8”! December,
v.2008?3
.8;2i.o deciding the above mentioned Issue No.(I), in
-31-
conditions of agreement thereunder which
empowers the competent authority to take_.§’_:W’ C
appropriate action against the law breakersifigv’ix’
and those who violate the c(5ndition_.s-, of
agreement.
7.3) In any event, suolitpowers
not be exercised to.’ stifle illegitimate…
prosecution and therefore_th_e should
refrain from giving a prfi1na«faoie fde’éisionjVvi:’V1 a
case where the’:-?nti’re and
hazy, more ‘ has not
been collected.VMa’:id. the Court.
case, the learned
Government’ ” Adivgcate ,:’i”‘.eomes forward to
substantiate’ ihegdcomplaint made against the
“Jv”‘vpetit.ioner as to “the'”illegal mining operation
‘car”ried”v._on_kAloutside the lease out area.
the evidence is yet to be
collected’ produced before the Court and
Hthe respondents are prepared to substantiate
A vifthvelviolation of conditions by the petitioner, it
— mzaiyflinot be proper for this Court to use the
~»vinh»erent power to stifle the legitimate
V prosecution nor to give a primafacie decision
-12-
hastily. Hence, we are convinced that it may
not be proper for this Court to quash the F.I.R._. ‘
at this stage.
7.5) Issue No.1
accordingly. ”
8.3. Following the ratio i”n_V_ Vihifehtition
No.3812 of 2009 disposed on above,
Issue Noll) is answered accordifi§§3?_’,<'_V:y it
9.1. Issue Noe_{_fl):;_'V1'.
(ii) respondent is
the mining licence for
the athiegede violation of the condition Nos.15
V of”‘the….agreement dated 4th August
‘A impugned proceedings dated’ 22nd
it VDe}ieznioeg=.f2008?
I_9.2. hwlsiflevdeciding the above Issue No.(1I), in Writ
4ie§’pe:1eiee_Ne.L,6o023 of 2009 disposed on 1.4.2009, this Court
‘ ‘heid as hereunder:
-13,
“7.5. Issue No. II.
Whether the fourth respondent is
empowered to suspend the mining
licence invoking condition No..2.3_of
agreement for the allegedfggviolatiorfi
the condition Nos.8, 9, 13 and__18_of the i’ ”
agreement dated 19.–<.'}l2'0–Q.7? A l A
Parliament enacted the.__l§orest=.._{Conservation}'§
Act, 1980 in order' prevent. deforestation which
causes ecological ir}i:5azqr.–cé and to
environmental ' deterio;'ation['yThe .deforestati£::n' causes
widespread "'s,;;oi';ceni.._ Section" …..the Forest
(Consezfvationjo-'!c4t,_' .1 the restriction on
dereservation ilofforestr forest land for non-
per Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) '}§ct,vhno"VhState Govemment or authority
shall make,' prior approval of the
CentrallaC}overnment,v_ order directing {i} that the
.. «reserved forest. shall be ceased to be reserved,' {ii} that
V.any"foresty_land or any portion thereof may be used
V * 'fora_ny,4izon'forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land
.._rnay assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any
privategaerson or to any authority, corporation,
agency or any other organization not owned,
V as : 'managed or controlled by State Government, and (iv)
* that any forest land may be cleared of trees which
have grown naturally.
-37-
10.1. Issue No.]III|:
(III) Whether the sixth respondentifl i”
empowered to seize them machi’:1«2i?”:J;’V”.
equipment, and vehicles belonging
petitioner, for having committed itiegal mining 2 it 3
operation in the forest area
10.2. In the similar faets_z:ar1Adi_v_ciricwainsteiisces of the case,
while considering the very same:hquestion,iithiszfilourt, by order
dated 13.4.2009 piisseitii_,_iI1,v:’W1iitrPetitioti “M3812 of 2009,
held thus:
“8*._1
Whethaert V the respondent is
it ’empoivered * to .”;sei..éie the machinery,
Requipment, Vironore and vehicles belonging
to ‘the,:”petitioner, by an order dated
for having committed an illegal
miningpperation in the forest area?
A, ? Parliament enacted The Forest
{Conservation} Act, 1980 in order to prevent
‘deforestation which causes ecotogical imbalance and
….£eads to environmental deterioration. The deforestation
causes widespread concern. Section 2 of the FC Act
-13-
imposes the restriction on de-reservation of forest or .
use of forest land for non–forest purposes and asper ‘T V
the said Section, no State Government or aizthortityiif S”
shall make, except with the prior -<app-roval of S
Central Government, any order dire'ctin:g'e{i) thatzthe
reserved forest shall be ceasedgto be reserved; (iifthctt 2
any forest land or any portion therebfmay be fused b
any non forest purpose; (iii) that__ai':y forest la'nd_rnafir
be assigned by way of_Q_"teaseA or Vothenjxise to any
private person or to any authority,'jbcorgzzoratiovn,'_;agency
or any other or_g:anizatioVn"V'not 3 rnanaged or
controlled by any forest
land may be have grown
naturally; . V'
8.u3_l :After.the.’FC’l’Acti’—came into force, no mining
lease/ licence’ can grrtarzted in the forest area without
the prior eapprovalV_Vof’the’ Central Government, which is
if V’ _a condition precedentfbecause Section 2 of the FC Act
starts non-obstante clause viz.,
anything contained in any
other Iaw,fo’3″‘the time being in force in a State…”
Therefore,v._no non–forest activity can be carried on in the
area, except with the prior approval of the
S’ Cen._tral Government, which means, even the State
Govemment cannot carry on any such non~forest
if “activity in the forest area without the prior approval of
-20-
I 1.1. Issue No.(i’V):
(IV) To what relief the petitioner is entitlediiot?’ l ” l
1 1.2. It is not in dispute that theV’»decisiotns’terendered’-esin’ise;;ve at
Writ Petition No.60023 of 2009 disposedof. oi:p1.:{.’20o_9iV
Writ Petition No.3812 of 2009 di_s__p’c.sed_»_ oil’oo_vpi3.4.2009
squarely apply to the facts Following the
said decisions and for_’i.h_e reasonspstated We pass the
following:
nnnn
(i) the :v’v..Pra1Yeriiii’llt’5:’the First Information
Reporlt’ro1.atedl” is rejected, giving.
to tiievivlumrespondents to proceed in
‘ ilaccordancei with law subject to the orders
* A hereuniierlg’ it
4 {ii} the ivrnptigned order dated 22.12.2008 of the
‘it’o.u.rtl1 respondent – Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Bellary Division, Bellary directing
(iii)
-31-
stopping of mining activities and suspending
the impugned licence, stands quashed;
The Deputy Conservator of Forests, ii”.
Division, Bellary–fourth Responden.-ti, 4′
inspect and survey the iIx1pug,;=§’neC{_’_’areaii’le’ased:
out to the petitioner viz.,’i reference to
alleged encroachment of in.
presence and in the’ of
Mines, Indian ‘Bureauii and
to the survey
recolrdsl’ material available
docu«:.ne’n.ts by the petitioner as to
alleged violation of the condition Nos. 15
C orest Lease Agreement dated 4th
ii A
C A. subject to the finding arrived at by the fourth
fespondent–Deputy Conservator of Forests,
‘C Bellary Division, and the Controller of Mines,
(via
-22-
Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore,
petitioner shall rectify the violation, whatsc-eiIer4:,:i
within two weeks from the date'”o–f.
passed by the fourth respondent”
Controller of Mines, lndiiani’~VBureaL1__ ofu
Bangalore; and
subject to such _ fourth
respondent” the: Indian
Bureau of Vétgirespondent
– Forest liorests, Sandur,
is atilibierty enquiry, strictly
in V accordance
giichy (-3I1CA11V;li1’_”y’*,**’ifit is ultimately found that
“‘–v;_5et.itioner has encroached, the lease
i’granting:’i.Vauthority is at liberty to order for
stopping of mining activity in its entirety and
,:l3″ased on such decision, the lease granting
authority is reserved liberty to cancel the very
lease itself.
-23-
(vii) If any machinery or vehicies are seized,
respondents are directed to reiease the
which shall be subject to the undertaking
given by the petitioner that theyii’she&–.’lA._1i , ” A
the same subject to the reisu,it”‘~of the
the 601 respondent ‘fir:/”gld tfiiie -iifI’tihe_rnatte1’.–e
Writ petition is accordingly _disp-osed” ‘or. V “No hosts.
Se/~
Chiei iustiee
Sd/Q”
Judge
_. .i.i’_£ndeX.:, Yes / No
4: ~.i_:Web’ iYes/ No
i °!
.
