Sri Durga Cement Company Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
(a) mining operation - ambit of--transportation of minerals through road which passes through forest area--also comes within ambit of mining operation and as such prohibited, except which require permission.(b) constitution of india, article 141 - direction of supreme court--of general nature--binding on all concerned and not merely between parties--in the instant case, directions of supreme court on prohibition of mining operations--is binding on all who carries on mining operation - - 4. the learned single judge has given good reasons for holding that the transportation of minerals through the forest area is also prohibited. on perusal of the 2nd order (annexure 9), quoted hereinabove, we are also satisfied that the petitioners-appellants cannot carry on activities of the nature mentioned therein, adversely affecting the forest area. r.a. sharma and a.k. prasad, jj.1. the appellants filed writ petition (cwjc no. 2370 of 1997/r) challenging the orders dated 9.6.1997 and 30.6.1997 (annexure 7 and 9 respectively) passed by the divisional forest officer, hazaribagh, and east division. by the 1st order the appellants have been directed to stop transportation of minerals through the forest area. by the 2nd order, they have been directed to stop forthwith the mining and ancillary activities in all sort of forest area. the 2nd order is re-produced herein below:please refer to the aforesaid references. the judgment/order of the hon'ble supreme court of india to already communicated to you. out of 88.00 acres of your lease hold area, the lease comprises 13.60 acre of forest land for which there is no prior approval of the central government under section 2 of the forest conservation act, 1980. at the same time, you are trampling forest flora and land of village kurkutta and religara for playing of vehicles loaded with mineral. there is no notified or demarcated road as such in the documents of the division. this is non-forest use of 'forest land' without approval from the central government and thereby attracts sections 2, 3, 3a and 3b of the forest conservation act, 1980 and section 33 of the indian forest act, 1927 (bihar amendment, 1989). in the circumstances depicted you are requested to:(1) stop forthwith the mining and ancillary activities in all sort of forest area, and;(2) apply in proper pro-forma (enclosed herewith) for diversion of 'forest land' for non-forest purpose under section 2 of the forest conservation act, 1980.(3) deposit npv for forest land referred above.(4) offer equivalent amount of non-forest land, for compensatory a forestation, free of encroachment and encumbrances.the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single judge on 24.4.1998 holding that all mining activities which will include transportation of minerals in the forest area are prohibited, except with the permission of the central government. reliance in this connection was placed in t.n. godauarman thirumulkpad v. union of india : air1997sc1228 . being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single judge, the petitioners-appellants have filed this appeal.2. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. learned counsel for the appellants has made two submissions, namely, (i) transportation of minerals through road which passes through forest area does not amount to mining operation is the forest area and (ii) the decision of the supreme court in t.n. godavarman (supra), is merely an interim order binding on the parties thereto and not binding on others. his contention is what is binding is the ratio of a judgment and not the interim order passed by the apex court.4. the learned single judge has given good reasons for holding that the transportation of minerals through the forest area is also prohibited. on perusal of the 2nd order (annexure 9), quoted hereinabove, we are also satisfied that the petitioners-appellants cannot carry on activities of the nature mentioned therein, adversely affecting the forest area.5. the 2nd submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is also liable to be rejected. in t.n, godavarman (supra) the supreme court has issued general directions, which are binding on all whether they are parties in that case or not. the said judgment is not merely an interim order which operates between the parties. it contains the directions which operate in rem and are binding on all those persons who carry on or want to carry on any prohibited activity in the forest area.6. for the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.

Judgment:

R.A. Sharma and A.K. Prasad, JJ.

1. The appellants filed writ petition (CWJC No. 2370 of 1997/R) challenging the orders dated 9.6.1997 and 30.6.1997 (Annexure 7 and 9 respectively) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh, and East Division. By the 1st order the appellants have been directed to stop transportation of minerals through the forest area. By the 2nd order, they have been directed to stop forthwith the mining and ancillary activities in all sort of forest area. The 2nd order is re-produced herein below:

Please refer to the aforesaid references. The judgment/order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to already communicated to you. Out of 88.00 acres of your lease hold area, the lease comprises 13.60 acre of forest land for which there is no prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. At the same time, you are trampling forest flora and land of village Kurkutta and Religara for playing of vehicles loaded with mineral. There is no notified or demarcated road as such in the documents of the Division. This is non-forest use of 'forest land' without approval from the Central Government and thereby attracts Sections 2, 3, 3A and 3B of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment, 1989). In the circumstances depicted you are requested to:

(1) Stop forthwith the mining and ancillary activities in all sort of forest area, and;

(2) Apply in proper pro-forma (enclosed herewith) for diversion of 'forest land' for non-forest purpose under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

(3) Deposit NPV for forest land referred above.

(4) Offer equivalent amount of non-forest land, for compensatory a forestation, free of encroachment and encumbrances.

The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 24.4.1998 holding that all mining activities which will include transportation of minerals in the forest area are prohibited, except with the permission of the Central Government. Reliance in this connection was placed in T.N. Godauarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India : AIR1997SC1228 . Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners-appellants have filed this appeal.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has made two submissions, namely, (i) transportation of minerals through road which passes through forest area does not amount to mining operation is the forest area and (ii) the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra), is merely an interim order binding on the parties thereto and not binding on others. His contention is what is binding is the ratio of a judgment and not the interim order passed by the Apex Court.

4. The learned Single Judge has given good reasons for holding that the transportation of minerals through the forest area is also prohibited. On perusal of the 2nd order (Annexure 9), quoted hereinabove, we are also satisfied that the petitioners-appellants cannot carry on activities of the nature mentioned therein, adversely affecting the forest area.

5. The 2nd submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is also liable to be rejected. In T.N, Godavarman (supra) the Supreme Court has issued general directions, which are binding on all whether they are parties in that case or not. The said judgment is not merely an interim order which operates between the parties. It contains the directions which operate in rem and are binding on all those persons who carry on or want to carry on any prohibited activity in the forest area.

6. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.