T N GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-10-93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
October 30,2002
T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMALPAD (THROUGH K.M. CHINNAPPA)
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF BIHAR VS. BANSHI RAM MODI [REFERRED TO]M C MEHTA SHRIRAM FOODS AND FERTILISER INDUSTRIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AMBICA QUARRY WORKS AMBALAL MANIBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA DEVAKI NANDAN PANDEY VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHS:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SACHIDANAND PANDEY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
RURAL LITIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT KENDRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
TARUN BHARAT SANGH ALWAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TARUN BHARAT SANGH ALWAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER GAUR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER VS. S NAGESWARAMMA [REFERRED TO]
T N GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M C MEHTA VS. KAMAL NATH [REFERRED TO]
T N GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
VISHAKA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
DINESH BOTHRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-8-13] [REFERRED TO]I.S.ISRANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY ANAND ARYA [LAWS(SC)-2010-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MP & ANOTHER VS. SAMBHOO SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2012-1-206] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER VS. SHIVDAYAL [LAWS(MPH)-2012-1-236] [REFERRED]
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2008-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
VADODARA SHAHERI JILLA KHEDUT MANDAL AND ORS VS. VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-205] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. B. M. CHANAKYA RAJU [LAWS(APH)-2023-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
GODAVARI POLYMER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-170] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
S KANNAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MADURAI CITY MADURAI [LAWS(MAD)-2014-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
FOREST RANGE OFFICER TAMBARAM CHENNAI 600 045 VS. V K RAGHUPATHY [LAWS(MAD)-2007-6-264] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P AND OTHERS VS. SUKHDEO PRASAD GOENKA [LAWS(MPH)-2013-10-258] [REFERRED]
TANWAR SINGH VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2015-4-168] [REFERRED TO]
IQBAL HUSSAIN BHAT VS. STATE OF J&K AND ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2013-2-64] [REFERRED]
M.RAVI VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-248] [REFERRED TO]
PLANTERS FORUM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-11-264] [REFERRED TO]
TUSHAR J. PATEL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 3 ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-224] [REFERRED TO]
FAROOK SHAIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUPUR DYEING FACTORY OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. NOYYAL RIVER AYACUTDARS PROTECTION ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2009-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
T N GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
G. SUNDARRAJAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2013-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD T. N. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2009-10-84] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF J&K AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2012-8-51] [REFERRED]
A V AMARNATHAN ADVOCATE (PARTY IN PERSON) VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA MAHASABHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2009-5-880] [REFERRED TO]
RANUBHA RAJMALJI JADEJA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2012-5-171] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAVATH HANUMA @ HANUMANTHU VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-3-62] [REFERRED TO]
S.MAHESWARI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
GOA FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF GOA, [LAWS(BOM)-2018-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT KUMAR RAJAK VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
VEDIRE VENKATA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2004-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTHERN RAILWAY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
SELVAKUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2010-11-266] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA GUPTA ETC. VS. PARGANA ADHIKARI, ALMORA AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2005-8-78] [REFERRED TO]
RESEARCH FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE POLICY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-119] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-9-62] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR KHAN VS. VAN SANRAKSHAK/KSHETRIYA NIDESHAK SAMAJIK VANIKI MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-2005-1-107] [REFERERD TO]
M/S. MEGHA MOVIES VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING [LAWS(KAR)-2017-6-154] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-287] [REFERRED TO]
KUL HIND JAMIAT-AL QURESH ACTION COMMITTEE GUJARAT REPRESENTED BY DANISH QURESHI VS. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(GJH)-2022-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
TUSHAR J PATEL VS. AHMEDABAD EDUCATION SOCEITY THRO CHAIRMAN SHRENIK AND ORS [LAWS(GJH)-2013-10-399] [REFERRED]
SARIN MEMORIAL LEGAL AID FOUNDATION VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-146] [REFERRED TO]
NITIN SINGHVI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2017-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN CHENNAI PORT TRUST VS. AVOOR MUTHIAH MAISTRY STREET RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION [LAWS(MAD)-2011-11-54] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN CHANDRA PANT AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
GAJUBHA (GAJENDRASINH) BHIMAJI JADEJA AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-202] [REFERRED TO]
UTTARSANDA GRAM PANCHAYAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
M.R. AJAYAN VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-11-105] [REFERRED TO]
NATURE LOVERS FORUM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. GOVERMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF PARK AT NOIDA NEAR OKHLA BIRD SANCTUARY VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2010-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
SALEM MAVATTA EZHPULLI MALAIVAZH MAKKAL NALA SANGAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-501] [DISTINGUISHED]
BHANWAR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU KUMAR SINGHAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR RAZDAN VS. T.SRINIVASAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-9-187] [REFERRED TO]
R. KRISHNASAMY VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2014-6-276] [REFERRED TO]
AALI-BEDINI-BAGZI BUGYAL SANRAKSHAN SAMITI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2018-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
ANAHITA PANDOTE VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
RAMGOPAL ESTATES PVT LTD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS VS. M/S. SUKHDEO PRASAD GOENKA [LAWS(MPH)-2013-10-162] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MP & ANOTHER VS. TULSI RAM [LAWS(MPH)-2012-1-207] [REFERRED TO]
JANARDAN BEZBARUA VS. OIL INDIA LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2008-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)By destroying nature, environment, man is committing matricide, having in a way killed Mother Earth. Technological excellence, growth of industries, economical gains have led to depletion of natural resources irreversibly. Indifference to the grave consequences, lack of concern and foresight have contributed in large measures to the alarming position. In the case at hand, the alleged victim is the flora and fauna in and around Kudremukh National Park, a part of the Western Ghats. The forests in the area are among 18 internationally recognized "hotspots" for biodiversity conservation in the world. IA No. 670 of 2001 was filed by Shri K. M. Chinnappa describing himself as trustee, Wildlife First.
(2.)The said IA No. 670 of 2001 is an offshoot of IA No. 548 filed by learned amicus curiae questioning the correctness of orders issued by the states of Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh respectively which according to him were in violation of the provisions contained in the Wild Life (Protection) act, 1972 (in short "the Act'). By order dated 14-2-2000, operation of any order permitting removal of certain trees from national parks, game sanctuaries and forests was injuncted. Subsequently, the word "forests" was deleted.
(3.)In the present IA learned amicus curiae has pointed out that notwithstanding orders passed by this Court on 12-12-1996 and 14-2-2000 mining activities were being conducted by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") which were in clear violation of the orders passed by this Court. The main reliefs sought are:
"(A) to direct Moef to withdraw the illegal 'temporary working permission' issued by it and stop mining activities; (b) direct KIOCL to stop polluting Bhadra river due to opencast mining; (c) take action against KIOCL for illegal encroachment in the forests and for destruction of forests in Kudremukh National Park; and (d) to stop KIOCL from laying new slurry pipeline in the forests of the national park. "
(2.)The said IA No. 670 of 2001 is an offshoot of IA No. 548 filed by learned amicus curiae questioning the correctness of orders issued by the states of Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh respectively which according to him were in violation of the provisions contained in the Wild Life (Protection) act, 1972 (in short "the Act'). By order dated 14-2-2000, operation of any order permitting removal of certain trees from national parks, game sanctuaries and forests was injuncted. Subsequently, the word "forests" was deleted.
(3.)In the present IA learned amicus curiae has pointed out that notwithstanding orders passed by this Court on 12-12-1996 and 14-2-2000 mining activities were being conducted by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") which were in clear violation of the orders passed by this Court. The main reliefs sought are:
"(A) to direct Moef to withdraw the illegal 'temporary working permission' issued by it and stop mining activities; (b) direct KIOCL to stop polluting Bhadra river due to opencast mining; (c) take action against KIOCL for illegal encroachment in the forests and for destruction of forests in Kudremukh National Park; and (d) to stop KIOCL from laying new slurry pipeline in the forests of the national park. "
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.