By – Aditya Katayan
In The Supreme Court of India
|Name of the Case
|Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Union of India & Ors
|(1993) INSC 209
|Date of the Case
|April 8, 1993
|Tarun Bharat Sangh
|Union of India
|Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy & Justice N. Venkatachala
|Indian Constitution, Forest Act, Rajasthan Forest Act, Environment Act
|Important Sections/ Articles
|Article 32 of Indian Constitution; Sec 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act; Sec 29 of Rajasthan Forest Act; Sec 3 of Environment (Protection) Act
Tarun Bharat Sangh, Alwar v. Association of India and Ors case managed unlawful mining action in a space pronounced as Tiger Reserve in Alwar District in the State of Rajasthan. It asked that in light of a legitimate concern for nature, climate and law and order, the action should stop.
Tarun Bharat Sangh is an intentional association intrigued in addition to other things in the insurance of the climate, recorded a writ request under Article 32 of the Constitution of India concerning the illicit mining action that was occurring in a space announced as a tiger save under Rajasthan Wild Animals and Birds Protection Act, 1951 and as a secured backwoods under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953.
The Petitioners presented that the Rajasthan government had conceded licenses to consider mining marble, dolomite, and different minerals in the concerned region, which was in opposition to the law. The Court gave notification to the Government of Rajasthan and the mine-proprietors who were the respondents for the situation. On October 11, 1991, the Court gave an interlocutory bearing such that “no mining activity of whatever nature will be carried on in the secured region.”
BACKGROUND OF CASE
The Petitioners affirm that despite these notices and the reasonable order against carrying on of mining activities in this Protected Area the two units centre and cushion zones, Government of Rajasthan has, unlawfully and self-assertively, gave around 400 mining advantages to different people empowering them to continue mining tasks of lime and dolomite stones inside the ensured region and that subsequently profound cast mines are worked to remove a marble by impacting, boring, etching and so on, which in the actual interaction of their execution and the profound scars on the scene they leave behind will in general debase and decrease the biology of the space, other than comprising a danger to the environment of natural life. The candidates depend upon the reports of natural specialists of the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi for this sake. Applicants, likewise, look for an interlocutory prohibition of the mining tasks in the secured region during the pendency of this writ appeal.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Court designated a Committee under the Chairmanship of a Former Judge of the State High Court to ensure due recognition of the different Acts and Notifications that had been given regarding the secured region. The Committee was mentioned specifically to delineate the region pronounced as ensured timberland under the notice dated January 1, 1975, given by the Rajasthan Government under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Forest Act.
The Committee submitted its Report dated September 28, 1992, Stating that the committee had verified and cross-checked the tracing maps furnished by the Forest Department with the maps furnished by the Revenue Department and found that both of them matched and that after looking into the Khasra numbers mentioned in the notification dated January 1, 1975, and the other material placed before it by the parties, the Committee identified the areas declared as protected forest.
- Whether the area where mining activity was carried on, was a ‘protected forest’?
- Whether the application filed by the State of Rajasthan to delete an extent of 5.02 Sq. Km. from the protected forest was valid?
- Whether the map produced by the Rajasthan Government concerning the tiger reserve was valid?
- Whether the mining activity within the tiger reserve but outside the protected forest areas was illegal?
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER
- Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, who addressed the Petitioners, presented, “All the mining exercises in the spaces which were proclaimed as a secured woodland should stop forthwith keeping taking into account the previous orders of this Court and the report put together by the Committee”.
- The Petitioners called attention to that the mining lease which were conceded by the Rajasthan Government were ex facie illicit since no earlier consent was acquired from the Central government as ordered under the Forest (Conservation) Act and rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules.
- The Petitioners further contended that continuation of such mining movement was in the idea of scorn of court as it unmistakably abused the Court’s structure.
- The Petitioners likewise presented that the Government of Rajasthan was similarly blameworthy of hatred of court, as they didn’t make tough moves against the mine-proprietors.
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT
- On sake of the State of Rajasthan, Shri. Aruneshwar Gupta presented that as indicated by the testament gave by the timberland division, the said region didn’t fall inside the secured backwoods region.
- The respondents contended that the secured regions were not obviously known, as there was no outline on the spot.
- The respondents further brought up that the Government of Rajasthan had effectively closed down 54 mines and along these lines, it was clear that they didn’t plot with the mine-proprietors nor did they have any aim to spurn the sets of the Court.
- The respondents further mentioned the Court to reject the spaces of the mines from the secured woods in the public interest.
- Article 32 of Indian Constitution:
Remedies for enforcement of rights:
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution
- Sec 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act: This is about the restriction on the State Government for dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. It prohibits the State Government, except prior permission from central government for issuing orders directing: –
- that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved
- that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose
- that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government
- that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation.
- Sec 29 of Rajasthan Forest Act: – Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government.
- Sec 3 of Environment (Protection) Act: – The Central Government may constitute a committee consisting of such number of persons as it may deem fit to advise that Government with regard to—
(i) the grant of approval under section 2; and
(ii) any other matter connected with the conservation of forests which may be referred to it by the Central Government.
The land that was talked about for the situation is the property of the state government. The Court held that the warning that the respondents battled as a between time notice was not fundamental or temporary and consequently it was substantial and useful as segment 29 thought about that “just a single notice pronouncing a region as an ensured woodland.”
The Court saw that the primary point of the Committee was to separate and distinguish the regions announced as secured timberland under the notice gave on January 1, 1975. The Committee was made out of high authorities of the Government of Rajasthan and was going by a previous adjudicator of the Rajasthan High Court. The Court held that “the Committee has attempted an elaborative and concentrated exercise and have delineated the regions announced as ensured woods with the assistance of true guides and records.” Therefore, the Court didn’t discover any motivation not to acknowledge the said report.
The Court saw that once a region was proclaimed as an ensured backwoods, it went under the domain of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. As indicated by segment 2 of the demonstration, the region was forestland, and in this manner, no non-woodland action could be completed nearby except for “with the earlier endorsement by the Central government.” Even the state government was not permitted to continue any such action without earlier endorsement from the Central government. As indicated by Rule 4(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, “no mining lease could be allowed or reestablished without freedom from the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the principles made thereunder.” Therefore, the Court held that mining exercises after January 11, 1975, were illicit.
The Court expressed that the state government moved toward the Supreme Court with a nitty-gritty arrangement, and the guide was ready with extraordinary consideration. The Court dismissed the Counsel’s dispute that the region pronounced as a tiger hold in the Alwar area was not accurately distinguished. The Court held that both focal and the state governments had outlined the region appropriately and subsequently, there was no real question concerning the rightness of the guide.
The Court on this inquiry saw that the mining exercises outside the secured woods regions yet inside the tiger hold after May 7, 1992, was unlawful. The Court additionally added that if there was any lawlessness appended to the mines that went under the tiger save yet outside the secured woodland regions, the concerned mine-proprietors should move toward the Department of timberland and Environment, Government of India, for consent to keep mining tasks in those mines as it were.
This case can be considered as one of the milestone bodies of evidence against state organizations wherein the chiefs neglected to play out the legitimate authority of the tradition that must be adhered to, especially concerning climate security. The Court noticed, “This isn’t a situation where the court is called upon to close down an action being continued legally, for the sake of higher thought of nature and climate.” The Court, for this situation, demonstrated that “assurance and improvement” would win if the laws were disregarded.
Other than that, it was coordinated that the mining activity in the mines arranged external the secured timberland regions yet inside the tiger hold could proceed for a time of four months. If no consent to keep mining was acquired from the Central Government inside the said time of four months, the mining movement in the whole region pronounced as tiger hold needed to stop.