Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICERS AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
S.NAGESWARAMMA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/08/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises form the order of
the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated
July 7, 1995 made in Writ Appeal No.96/94. The admitted
facts are, that the respondent had a mining lease granted by
the Director of Mines on September 18 1979 to extract mines
in the forest area for five years i.e. upto September 12
1984. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 case in to force
on October 25 1980. Therefore by the date of the expiry of
the lease the authorities were denuded of the power to grant
renewal of the mining lease. Lease is right to extract
minerals and the renewals should be in accordance with the
law in operation as on the date of renewal. Renewal of lease
being not a vested right the application for renewal; must
be disposed of according to law prevailing as on that date.
On expiry of the lease period, on September 13 1989, an
application came to be made for renewal thereof. It would be
obvious that the renewal was in violation of Section 2 of
the forest Conservation Acts since admittedly the prior
approval of the Central Government was not obtained.
Consequently the Forest Department in the joint
inspection made on February 7.1990 discovered that the
respondent was extracting mines within the forest area and
therefore, they issued directions canceling the lease.
Consequently the respondent case to file writ in the High
Court. After the joint survey was conducted under the
direction of the High Court, the High Court directed the
respondent to carry on extraction of the stacked material
form the forest area, subject to the respondent’s obtaining
prior approval of the competent authorities. Thus, this
appeal by special leave.
It is contended by Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for
the respondent, that what the respondent had been denied is
not making any fresh extraction of the mines in the forest
area but only the removing of the stacked minerals form the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
surface of the earth, that too, with the permission granted
by the authorities: the direction issued by the High Court
in the impugned order, therefore, is correct in law. We find
no force in the contention. The learned judges have
proceeded on the premise that the respondent is entitled to
extract and remove minerals, said to be stacked on the
ground that the lease is a valid lease: otherwise he does
not get any right. The premise on which the Division Bench
has proceeded is obviously illegal. Section 2 of the Act
prohibits of mining operations if the mines are situated
within the forest area. It is a total prohibition, unless
the State Government grants mining lease with the prior
concurrence of the Central Government. Admittedly, the prior
concurrence of the Central Government had not been obtained.
Shri Subba Rao sought to place before us the guidelines
issued by the Department of Environment and Forest,
Government of India in relaxation of Rules/Guidelines under
Forest (conservation) Act 1980. Therein the question is of
the clearances of the project by the State Government
without obtaining the prior concurrence of the Department
of Environment and forest. In that behalf it was mentioned
that the renewal of the mining leases. if they are within
particular radius was directed to be done without any fresh
breaking up of fresh area and felling of the trees but
subject to re-forestation. It this case that situation does
not arise. This is a case of grant of renewal in routine
way. Under these circumstances, the direction issued by the
Division Bench of the High Court is clearly illegal.
The appeal is accordingly allowed but, in the
circumstances without costs.