CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 907

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: G.T. NANAVATI, S.N. PHUKAN

Judgment text

CONSUMER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 16, 20CO [G. T. NANAVATI AND S. N. PHUKAN, JJ. j Wild Life Protection Act, 1972: Sections 18(1) and 26A(3). Forest Area-Declaration of as "Wildlife Sanctuary-Reduction in area of sanctuary limit subsequently-Legality of.

State of Gujarat-Notification declaring forest area as a wildlife sanctuary-Cancellation of notification and issue of another notification whereunder only a party of the said reserved forest declared as wild/ife sanctu~elimitation to the area of sanctuary successfully challenged before High Co~Thereafter State Legislature passed a Resolution reducing the sanctuary limit-Rest of the area made available for development of backward area of District--Consequential notification by Government-Writ challenging Resolution and Notification dismissed by High Court-Appeal before this Court--lnterim order by Supreme Court permitting mining of limestone for meeting the requirements of a cement plant-Held the power to take a decision for reduction of the notified area is not given to the State Government but to the State Legislature--lf an attempt is made by the State Legislature and the State Government to balance the need ofthe environment and the need of economic development it would not be proper to apply the principles ofProhibition in such a case--lt would be proper and safer to apply the 'Principle of Protection' and the 'Principle of Polluter Pays' keeping in mind the principle of 'sustainable development' and the 'principle of intergeneration equity'-The impugned resolution and the notification do not deserve to be quashed-Proper course is to permit restricted and regulated exploitation of mineral wealth--Direction by Supreme Court-The interim order passed by this Court shall continue for a period of one year-if a need arises to carry out mining operation in a larger area that may be permitted only after obtaining an order to that effect from this Court-The State Government shall constitute a Committee to make a comprehensive study of the relevant environmental aspects and also to study the effects of the present limited mining operation permitted by this Court-It shall also study the effect of rnnning of the cement plant set up outside the old sanctuary area-The State Government is restrained from giving permission to others to cany on any mining operation or to put up a cement plant within the area of JO kms.

from the periphery of the old sanctuary area without obtaining an order from this court-State Government shall also take steps to monitor air and water pollution in this area every three months through its officers and submit its report in that behalf-The State Government shall also submit ayearly report to this Court as regards the action taken by it. State Legislature-Resolution to reduce the limit of wild/ife sanctuary-Validity of-Power of court to interfere with decision of State Legislature in such a matter-Held it is not proper to question the decision of the State Legislature in a matter of this type unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13658 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 11. 10. 95 of the Gujarat High Court in S. C. A. No. 6507 of 1995. Ashok Desai, Attorney General, K. N. Rawal, Altaf Ahmad, Mukul Rohatagi, Additional Solicitor Generals, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, N. N. Goswami, Dr.

Abhished Manu Singhvi, R. P. Bhatt, P. Chidambaram, Harish N. Salve, Arun Jaitley, Naresh Mathur, S. K. Dholakia, Ashok Desai, G. Ramaswamy, Bhaskar Tanna, Raju Ramachandran, Soli J. Sorabjee, Naresh Mathur, N. K. Sahool, Ms. Indoo P. Verma, Samecr Parekh, P. H. Parekh, N. Singh Rohit Mammen Alex, Ms. Hemantika Wahl, Ms. M. Kaur, Anupam Lal Das, Ms. Sandhya Rajpal, T. C. Sharma, Hemant Sharma, S. K. Dwivedi, P. Parmeswaran, Narcsh Bakshi, B. V. Bairam Das, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, \is. Sunita Sharma, Anip Sachthey, Ms. Anu Sawhney, Anupam Lal, AL. Das, Ms. Shweta Shalini, B. V. Balaram Das, H. Munshi, J. P. Pathak, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Krishna Venugopal, C. D. Singh, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Anil Katiyar, M. N. Shroff, Mihar Joshi, Ms. Mahrook Karawala, S. R. Hegde, Ms. Tanuja Sheel and Ms. Reema Bhandari for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G. T. NANAVATI, J.

ln this special leave petition the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 6707 of CO! itive steps the Government is proposing this resoluriun under the provisions of S. :ction 26A(3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. " We agree with Mr. Dhawan that aspects deserved better consideration and some other relevant aspects should also have been taken into account by the State Legislature. But it will not he proper to invalidate the resolution of the State Legislature on such a ground when we find that it took the decision after duly ddiberating upon the material which was available with it and did not think lt necessary to call for further information. The power to take a decision for reduction of the notified area is not given to the State Government but to the State Legislature.

The State Legislature consists of representatives of the people and it can be presumed that those repn:sentatives know the local areas well and are also well aware of the requirements of that area. It will not be proper to question the decision of the State Legislature in a matter of this type unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so. Even when it is found by the Court that the decision was taken by the State Legislature hastily and without considering all the relevant aspects it will not be prudent to invalidate its decision unless there is material to show that it will have irreversible adverse effect on the wild life and the environment. The forest in the notified and de-notified areas is an edaphi e headed by & r::tir. ;;<l J,iJ;sc cJf we Gu.

fatal High Court and consisting of experts in the fields of hydrology, soil erosion and other related disciplines to make a comprehensive study of the rdevant environmental aspects and also to study the effects of the present limited mining operation permitted by this Court. It shall also study the effect of running of the cement plant set up outside the old sanctuary area. The Committee shall, for this purpose, visit the area twice in a year, once before the monsoon and thereafter sometime after the monsoon, and submits its report to the State Government and to this Court, (3) the State Govern· ment is restrained from giving permission to others to carry on any mining operation or to put up a cement plant within the area of 10 Krns. from the periphery of the old sanctuary area without obtaining an order from this Court.

The State Government shall also take steps to monitor air and water pollution in this area every three months through its officers and submit its A report in that behalf. After considering the reports the State Government • ~ shall take appropriate steps for controlling and improving the same. The State Government shall also submit a yearly report to this Court as regards the action taken by it. This S. L. P. is ordered to be listed after one year for further orders. It will be open to the parties to approach this Court earlier B if any clarification or modification of this order is required. T. N. A. Petition is still pending