Sanghamitra Foundation (Regd) vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2009

fiheeeie lend fer the pureese ef carvfine the statue of Esuddhe.

4′

resaendents, That there is nething tike Ramanagara%ii”P;6;*%§s;

his further submissian’

.9. Sri Ravi Verma Kama: aise briingsitel%fij;T.fi0tité3’ti§1at

this case, the responéents 2 ts at’? hgva ‘£3?

objections, three additienal statelv2Pi_fi’eV’4rt§ts..V_v_01f””ui§;j§%:ti§fns, one
memerandum cf facts and ‘eefifiitg deitégflaii these,
the respcmdents 2 tea .4-_ are their act of
canine upon the in-principle
appmval. He” is bad canmzzt be
made geed In support cf his
submissions, has judgment cf the Hembtg
Supreme $;;¢uLrt ca:¥£:e ef Mohinder Singh Gil! nd

a:1f2g;§i!::iaezf: Fa4.*, Eifiéion Cammissimmr and athers,

SC 851. The reievant pertmn ef the

TV “,. §ai;! ju::§gment’i$ -fiéttracted hereinbeiaw:

_ .. I ‘f’3§ ‘fléé semrzd equaliy relevant matter is that when a

. “= .5ta_:z}t§;:y functionaiy makes an aide: based on cettain

* § ;f9LiI§dS, ffi va!id:’ty must be judged by the mamas so
” -uméntfoned and Cannes: be suppkmanted by frag’; reastms
in the shape of afifdavit or otherwise: Otherwise, an
order had in the beginning :72 , by the time it mines £0

ii

petitign, He further submits that the guiding factor ___whiIe

granting or withdrawing the inwprincipie app_rév:alv?V’_T.’§s;L” Rthé

censematmn of ferests. The pe:!tions§§*bAmh§ s’ n’c:,~_T

right 1:12 demand the final apprevai as a rfiaziér cf c§u.%rs’e. ” V

14. Sr: Prabhakar has alse r-a_a;d..V_eut the rg§év:aht””;s€sst§ens*

of the statement at’ Qbgectigns, “L_:add.&:_§or.{al’ statémerst at
ebjections, amdavit and the He submits
that there was ;;>L:h}ivc4.hA’:.:~.\v_.=.:_ the natural
menmith to the ::v:«e§’§:i__r.§¥Q..:.~}’?7’_V$”r,$!fgj£_éz:;f *-.”j’§ivg’§é§i’édu£e and is a part
of the notified- at aamanagaram
Range -sf B$nga;!;’e:’£-V3 which previdgsbelter :9 the
different speciéégf The monolithic structure has

hVer.i1;ageV_:e’§§§§;n::;§’ar;d tVh”a-t ittygrefere the same cannot be disturbed,
§;S_. ” Sr”: :”Pfat)_hakar brings :9 my mtice the {Directive

P:*i:’:AcL§’p.V!_<a-'___;::cA1'" v$t§_té'.'V;'v!5o!icy cantained §n Articie 48A ef the

V".; (f9nst!tut'§':3§ €3f'E£;fiii2a, which statm that the state she?! endeavor

.a':*:§ imprave the environment and safeguard the

wiid fife cf the ceuntry. Themfere the State

1VTG§varrs}nent is empewered as well as ebiiged to ensure the

33%.

in a matter fa respect of, in our opinion, wbézrh §£«~~!2.a;.=.

came to the cenclusion that no renewal shozffd ‘*7

granted;

20; In that View of the matterA a§2{i~ t_’b’e SE34??? as
the Act in cur opinion, the ;’esp:}:1 ciz:2g2_$ were night .an:{ V3193.
appellanzs were wrong’ All inte:’p!*e£§TiVf9§as mustiseibsegve
and he-ft? implementatims’_t!2e_.’i!§fe:’2L:§;-IQ’fifths Att; “This
intetpretation, in our “ag§;2it::g,.}–.’:i.w§}£ sgzéxrve the
predominantpumose of tl2e«A_c££’–._ ”

1?. Next!y§.h;锑v!3_rriQ:g.ht i:_§::._ m.y,z 1f1i.’§;§#§V ihé Herrble Supreme
Ceurts decis_icm_ 1:. union 91’ India
and others} }Tgx amu4 sc 4e15, wherein it is
hate}, in the ‘cqntext ” _c$i’ ga:’jai’.af!hg ef a mining lease, that
e7ns;§ronméAg§£ai~ prdiecfigxn has precedence over ecenomic

§rA:’?.1_-*=._Vr§s;:«,.. ¥$:§.v>:AP§’ab§V1ak_ar brings to my natice the Horfble supreme

courfs case :11′ M.c.!-lehta V1 Kama! Kath and

“‘_avt’.§u.ers, in (199?) 1 see 383, where the consicsered

.1 “vtakgn “is that certain reseurces like rivers, farests,

‘ ‘; _seasEi:;§ri:s}:aif, etc. have such a great impeertance to the peeple

weuld be whcaiiy Lmjustified ta make them a subject of

..”‘\.””‘.Vp’fi§1ate ewnership; the said regaurces are a gift at naturea In

&B#{

1?

for diversion 91′ 6124 ha. of fora! land far Bangaiatzs <~£

Mysore Infrastmctzme Qorrsldar Projearsl; out at' wh§cf7__ 31 '.96; .. . : ;_.v A'

ha. of forest land feli in the same Hand! sund;%kReg¢weaL% A

Form; A total Ieagth of 3,2 kms of»Vsaic;! c¢;ir.fi¢{ofr–'(,vgé§ _
proposed to pass through the middfiepf {he fivflanéi-..GuQ:§§if-.,__. .'

Reserves! Forest In the relazgg profiaséé agaéfzsr. %;':em '
939,4 (viii) of the profonna was
mentian about the gaya/endaagémgd .,_fflom"'and faéma
existing in the area, _«'9}og*§1~- 1. fngéma' ha$ been
pmminently mentioned. 'St::%1eej':'»€§§ot{§*;ir§?r:?2é::t*.; request

for appmva! in tbia cam was to, and

a final approve! the Said: Lciis}e:'S§c§:n':.'§vas_..é§ccorded vide
M-9553 letter'I§ég'8¥45;?;?é99%–F?«?~ .c£a'~f _ed.21_~1 -.2003' "

21. It may _éEs,1_5′ «tevflefitract the last perticn of

para 3.6 of tire Cetrtféi’I3’o§’erfi’n§}évnt”s “counter which is as foliczws:

“In §t;€:~e iasfanf the proposai submitted by
Sanqéhfaixnitra A.§;é;)ndé:tien thmugh the State
. *A{;;>ire?:é*nf§1en’t..i{vas ééiéégérehensiveiy examined and has

L_’_f::wfi_r2dT. !;§e”–..acccrded as ‘in»p:’i:2c§p!e’ (Stage-I)
é;>,ézro’vé!.; ifiaxlso seen, that there as net appear as
be ény changes at the ievel sf state er Ce-Mara!

A _V “‘»f..§’overi2nr€ent, that bar the divgrgian w fares: {and

_ “:Lf”tz;a{¥é:fds the pmje-as sf similar nature, 0!’ pmhsbit the
aiversm er fares: land in the Hand: sum: aesenze
1′ -Fcsrest”.

26

36. Far the aforesaid reasons, I ailew this ;aetit.§o:i;j««.§a-ash

the impugned order and d§rect the first resp:e:A;;:::1 e:’f::i::’V–.v1’Cérfi:§éii~.»

Government to ccmslder the case cf t!_i:e..;3gt¥ti;ihér” Vihc.a{_:gra~.r:ut’ ‘ .

ef the fine: er secend stage approvai 3:9 :fpe’t:t§;5?!:é’1″‘$f’

Needless ta abserve that the fi§f$£–~.V..;’esjpAorsid-eni; inte

acceam: ail the materiais ggiaced V¢:>.I:’§V’jA’»21:s”V:f,e¢:c::7.c:”«intofheaningfui
consideration and take a 4d:e2;§ié:§en~’.§r:{.»th锑?*rg§§:ter as expeditéousty

as pessible and §n ar_:y c;3’s’ar,–I§5rit’h.§Af::.__és§i’. timfi: of three

menths frejrrfi”t1′:’e.:.:g:i§t§§§f :§:h«s:§”§ss§:’ a”:i¥:é :3? the certified capy of
tedaws crdéa ” . V I V ‘
Nqgérlder as t”:;«:V:, o s ts.

Sd/*9
Iudge