Elephant G. Rajendran v. The District Collector Ooty, The Nilgiris District & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 18 Nov 2009
- Bench
- S MUKHOPADHAYA, M DURAISWAMY
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaidobservations and directions
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1111. So far as illegal mining is concerned, the authorities like the Administrative Officer, Tahsildar, officer in-charge of the Department of Ecology and Mining at the District Level and the police officer in-charge of the area concerned are directed to be vigilant and to ensure…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 18.11.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYW.P. NO.9860 OF 2008ANDM.P. NO. 5 OF 2008In Defence of Environment and Animalsby its Managing TrusteeElephant G.RajendranNo.24/51, South Usman RoadT.Nagar, Chennai 600 017... Petitioner- Vs -1. The District Collector Ooty, The Nilgiris District.
The District Forest Officer Ooty, The Nilgiris District.
Deputy Director Geology and Mines Appleby Road, Coonoor Nilgiris District.
The Regional Transport Officer Ooty, The Nilgiris District.
The Superintendent of Police Ooty, The Nilgiris District... RespondentsWrit petition filed for the issuance of a writ of mandamusdirecting the respondents not to allow any mining and quarry operations anywhere in the hills of Nilgiris. For Petitioner : Mr. Elephant G.RajendranFor Respondents: Mr.P.S.Raman, AG, assisted by Mr. D.Sreenivasan, AGP for RR-1, 3, 4 & 5 Mr. S.N.Kirubanandam, Spl. G.P. (Forest) for R-2 Ms. AL.Gandhimathi in impleading petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)The petitioner preferred the writ petition in public interest for direction on the respondents not to allow any mining and quarrying operations anywhere in the Hills of The Nilgiris for the present and in future. Such prayer has been made with a view to protect the environment and pollution in the Nilgiris. 2. It is stated that the Nilgiris, which is known as the“Queen of Hills” is totally going to lose its importance andaesthetic beauty of evergreen thick cloud of nature because of the activities of some unscrupulous anti-social elements.
Illegalmining and quarrying being done, has been found. In number of areas mining and other non-forestry activities are going on which will affect the environment and ecology.3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to one or other Supreme Court decision and submitted that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check deforestation, which ultimately results in ecological imbalance. No forest in any of the State throughout the country can be allowed for going ahead with the activity of deforestation or illegal mining and, in fact, mining can be permitted only with the prior approval of the Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced photographs showing illegal mining. The report of the Deputy Director, Geologyand Mining, Coonoor was also produced before this Court. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the present case, the 3rd respondent, Deputy Director, Geology and Mining, TheNilgiris, inspected the hill area, including the area specified by the petitioner, i.e., 6 in Ullathi Panchayat, 6 near HalkadnagarVillage, 2 quarries in Neethi area and Solur area and one at Hakkada Estate, about the illegal quarrying/mining activities and the extent of damage caused by such illegal activities in terms with the area and cubic meters.
In the said report, the list containing the areas of Ullathi, Halkadnagar and Solur area inspected in January, 2008, has been enclosed showing the illegal quarry made in such area. It is informed that besides the above, during 2003-2008 due to frequent patrol of officials, about 45vehicles have been seized for illicit transportation of minerals and about Rs.11,82,762/= has been levied as penalty and collected from the offenders. From the detection of illicit quarrying, aboutRs.5,69,175/= has been collected out of penalty of Rs.36,91,405/=.The illicit quarry as mentioned were inspected and following fact has come to the notice :From the areas, in total about 36221.91 m3 i.e., https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6394 lorry loads have been excavated the extent of3.61.8 Hect. areas illicitly. If the above areas, the Ebbanadu S.F. No.514 was inspected during July, 2007, that time about 70lorry loads of rough stone have been quarried.
Forthat penalty proposal has been sent to the RevenueDivisional Officer, Coonoor, and penalty amount ofRs.2,06,500 has been levied to Thiru. SubramaniUthagai. Now, again he has quarried in the above areas and it was also measured. Further, the S.F. No.894/3 & 895/1 of GandhiNagar areas were inspected on dt.14.3.08 and illicitly quarried portions were measured and penalty proposal has been sent to the RevenueDivisional Officer, Coonoor for levying penalty. The S.F. No.504 of Sholur was inspected on28.1.07 and quarried areas are measured penalty ofRs.33000/- has been levied. For the remaining cases, proposals are being sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coonoor, to take necessary action for levying penalty as per Rule36A (1) and (3) of Tamil Nadu Minor MineralConcession Rules, 1959 and along with the Revenueofficials the above areas are sealed by placing warning board and the entries are blocked concernedVillage Administrative Officers are instructed to have vigil over all the above vulnerable areas.” 5.
Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Statesubmitted that the State Government and its officials having found illicit quarry, have already taken steps to stop such illegal quarry. It was accepted that 35 officials were involved in such scandal, whose names have been shown in the affidavit. LearnedAdvocate General brought to the notice of the Court the report filed by the Addl. Director General of Police, Crime Branch – CID,Chennai, wherein it is stated that in deference to the orders of this Court, Crime Branch – CID has been authorised to initiate any further case, if necessary. The Inspector of Police, Crime Branch– CID, Nilgiris Unit has received the complaint from Tr.KalibullahSherif, Tahsildar, Udhakai on 18th Oct., 2008 at 14.00 hrs. and registered a case in CB-CID, The Nilgiris Unit, Cr. No.02/2008under various sections of the IPC and the same has been taken up for investigation.
During the course of investigation of the above case, the Inspector of Police, CB-CID had arrested Madhu and Thammannan on 18th Oct., 2008 and recovered one tipper lorry bearingRegn. No.TN-43-B-7609 and 20 lorry loads of blue metal stones pursuant to the confession of the accused. Similarly in anotherCr. No.128/2008 of Pudumund Police Station, the Inspector of Policehad zeroed in on the accused with proper evidence and arrested Babu@ Solaiman Babu on 18th Oct., 2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Before this Court, on behalf of the State, learned AdvocateGeneral shown concern over the illegal mining. The DistrictCollector, Nilgiris, who was present in the Court also made certain suggestions. Certain suggestions were also made by learned counselfor the petitioner and this Court observed to fix the responsibility on lower level functionaries of the Government so asto ensure that no illegal mining is made by any person. The matter was left to the State to decide as to how they will check the illegal mining. Pursuant to such discussion and observation, the StateGovernment has come out with G.O. Ms. No.135 dated 13th Nov., 2009,from its Industries (MMA.1) Department, wherein the following statement has been made and decision taken :-Industries (MMA.1) DepartmentG.O.(Ms.) No.135Dated : 13.11.2009********ORDER :The District Collector, Nilgiris has stated that the Hon'ble High Court, Madras in its order dated5.11.2009 in W.P. No.9860/08 filed by Thiru.
Elephant G.Rajendran regarding illegal quarrying in Nilgiris has directed the StateGovernment to issue circular to prevent illegal quarry in the in the State and to form a special cell at District level to review the matter on monthly basis. The Court has also asked to fix the responsibility on various lower level functionaries of the Government viz., Revenue (i.e., VAO), Police(Sub Inspector of Police) and Forest (Ranger)Department officials.2. As the District Level Task Forces have already been constituted to prevent illegalmining/transportation, the District Collector, Nilgiris has requested the Government to form committees to check illegal quarrying at DistrictLevel and Taluk Level with a composition of various categories of officials for prevention ofmining/transportation effectively.3. In Letter No.20008/MMA1/2004, dated 19.9.2005,the Government have directed all the DistrictCollectors to constitute District Level Task Forcesconsisting of the following officialsi.
District Collector – Chairmanii. Superintendent of Policeiii. Deputy Collector looking after Revenue and Mining https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iv. District Mining Officer or District LevelOfficial of the Department of Geology and Mining, Member Secretary/Convenor.v.District Forest Officervi. State Pollution Control Board Officialvii. District Transport OfficialAccordingly, the District Collectors have constituted District Level Task Forces and they are conducting monthly review meetings.4. However, it is felt that the composition of officials in the existing District Level Task Forceis inadequate to curtail the menace of illicitmining/quarrying when compared with the proposal of the District Collector, Nilgiris regarding constitution of district Level Committee. Hence, for effective monitoring at root level/curtailingof illicit quarrying/mining/transportation of minerals and to minimize loss of Revenue to the State exchequer, the Government direct the Collectors of all Districts to reconstitute the existing District Level Task Forces with composition of following officials.
1. District Collector – Chairman2.Superintendent of Police3.District Forest Officer4.District Revenue Officer5.Regional Transport Officer6.Revenue Divisional Officers7.Deputy Superintendent of Police8.Assistant Director (Panchayat)9.Assistant Director (Town Panchayat)10.Commissioners of Municipalities11.District Level Official from Tamil NaduPollution Control Board. 12. Deputy Director (Mines) / Assistant Director(Mines) – Member Secretary/Convenor. 13. The EE (PWD-WRO).5. The functions of the District Level TaskForces shall be as follows:a) to collect/review theinformation/cases/issues to the illegalmining/quarrying within their jurisdictions.b) to monitor the functions of the Taluk LevelTask Forces. The District Level Task Force shall meet once ina month without fail to discuss the illegalquarrying/mining/transportation/damage caused to the environment and to send report to State LevelTask Force. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
6. The Government also direct all the DistrictCollectors to constitute Taluk Level Task Forceswith the composition of following officials. 1. Tahsildar – Convenor. 2. Inspector3.Forest Officer (Forest Range Officer)4.A Representative of Department of Geology and Mining in the concerned District.5.A Representation of Regional TransportOfficer. 6. Village Administrative Officers7.Sub Inspector of Police8.AE (PWD-WRO).
The Taluk Level Task Force shall make frequent surprise checks in the mining/quarrying field andon vehicles transporting minerals so as to arrest illicit quarrying/mining/transportation of mineral by forming flying squads and submit its report to District Level Task Force and it shall meet fortnightly.
In the event of illegal mining, the VillageAdministrative Officer, Tahsildar, Officer-in-Charge of Department of Geology and Mining at District Level and the Police Officer-in-Charge of the area shall be held responsible for not taking proper action against the offenders and the concerned District Collector is requested to takeDepartmental action against them and send a report to Government.
The Collectors of all Districts are requested to take immediate action and send report to Government.” 7. The Addl. Director General of Police, Crime Branch – CID,Chennai, has submitted a list showing the names of 35 persons against whom CB-CID ordered for action. Out of the same, government servants numbering 33 against whom departmental action has been recommended for failure to prevent illicit quarrying in the District of Nilgiris. In total, 33 government servants have been recommended to be dealt with on 35 counts. In an affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, while detailed steps as to action taken have been shown against one or other employee posted under the District Collector, Ooty, it is informed that 14 officials have already retired or suspended from service of whom details have been given.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made prayer to direct the respondents to punish those erring officers and to recover the loss from them. But in absence of such officers and as such issue https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is not involved in the present case, this Court is not making any observation with regard to dereliction of duty or involvement of one or other officer/employee. It is the State Government or the competent authority, who are supposed to take action in view of the recommendation of the CB-CID and in case anyone is found guilty, is required to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the parties.9. An impleading petition has been filed on behalf of the Nilgiris District JCB and Pocline Owners Association in M.P.No.5/08. It has taken plea that its members having JCB, tipper lorries, Pocline are using the same only for carrying on construction and agricultural activities. It is alleged that in view of one or other observation of this Court made in the present case, respondents 2 to 6 herein are disturbing the members of thepetitioner's association and are interfering with their day-to-dayoperations.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. We may only mention that this Court was of the view that no illegal quarry should be made in the Nilgirisarea. In fact, for the purpose of maintaining its forest and ecology, it is desirable that no mining is made in the area, much less illegal mining. This Court has not made any observations against one or other individual, either officer or organisation, but it cannot be accepted that JCB, tipper lorries or Pocline areused for agricultural activities, that too in a hilly region likeNilgiris. The buildings may be constructed or demolition may bemade, but it should be done only with the permission of the competent authority like Corporation or local Panchayat or Collector. If permission is granted for construction of a building or demolition of a building, in such case, one may use heavy vehicle like JCB, tipper lorries or Pocline on permission, but otherwise we find no ground made out as to why JCB, tipper lorries and Pocline should be used for agriculture or any other purpose. If the respondents intends to check illegal mining activities and for that if they intend to regulate the movement of JCB, tipper lorries, Pocline and other heavy vehicles, we leave it open for the competent authorities, who may do so in the interest of administration and protection of ecology.
Operative part
So far as illegal mining is concerned, the authorities like the Administrative Officer, Tahsildar, officer in-charge of the Department of Ecology and Mining at the District Level and the police officer in-charge of the area concerned are directed to be vigilant and to ensure that the Government guideline contained inG.O. Ms. No.135 dated 13th Nov., 2009, issued from the Industries(MMA.1) Department is followed and no illegal quarry be made in the Nilgiris; in case such illegal quarry is found in one or other area, the competent authority may hold such officer responsible fornot taking proper action against the offenders and the District https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Collector, Nilgiris, will initiate departmental action against such erring officers in view of the Government decision as referred to above. So far as the Government officials against whom CB-CID has already ordered to take disciplinary action, whose names have already been brought to the notice of this Court, if no such action has been taken against any of such officer/employee by one or other department or the State Government, then in that case, they will take appropriate disciplinary action against such officer/employeewithin a period of one month from the date of receipt/production ofa copy of this order. The petitioner is also given liberty to bring to the notice of the District Collector any illegal quarrying, if any made at present or also in future in the Nilgiris. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. But there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarGLNTo1. The District Collector Ooty, The Nilgiris District.2. The District Forest Officer Ooty, The Nilgiris District.3. Deputy Director Geology and Mines Appleby Road, Coonoor Nilgiris District.4. The Regional Transport Officer Ooty, The Nilgiris District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. The Superintendent of Police Ooty, The Nilgiris District.+1cc to Spl. Govt. Pleader Sr 62472+2ccs Elephant G.Rajendran, Advocate Sr 62099+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 62077+1cc to Mr.AL.Gandhimathi, Advocate Sr 62205+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 59257KJ(CO)km/9.
W.P. NO. 9860 OF 2008
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaidobservations and directions
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Forest Conservation Act, 1980; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 18 Nov 2009. The bench was S MUKHOPADHAYA, M DURAISWAMY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.