Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1576 - HC - Indian LawsImport of Sand - applicability of provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder - Whether the impleading party is entitled to be impleaded? - HELD THAT:- The impleading party claims to be a purchaser of sand from the writ petitioner. In view of the impugned actions, he is unable to receive the sand. Therefore, under the circumstances, this court finding force in the contentions of the Learned Senior Counsel for the proposed party, allows C.M.P.No.11317/2017 impleading the proposed party as the 7th respondent in the Writ Appeal. Whether the writ petitioner is liable to register and seek permits forstorage, transportation and sale of imported sand from outside india as per the MMDR Act, 1957, TNMMR 1959 and Tamil Nadu Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and storage of Minerals and Mineral Dealers Rules 2011? - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the existing Act and Rules are applicable only to sand and minerals quarried in India and the Learned Single Judge had rightly rejected the contentions of the appellants and held that the appellants cannot rely upon the existing provisions to insist the respondents / writ petitioners to obtain permits for storage and transportation of Imported Sands and the appeal on this question fails. Whether the directions issued by the writ court exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India needs interference? - HELD THAT:- When the directions issued by the Learned Single Judge are examined, this Court is of the view that the directions are not legislative directions but only directions issued for non-compliance of statutory provisions and for failure to safeguard the environment and the ecology, which in the opinion of this Court, is duty enshrined on the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Further, when there is an alternate source of sand, which is permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the directions cannot be termed as beyond the scope of the writ petition. Insofar as the contention that the directions can be issued only by the Division Bench, this Court is not in consonance with same. The directions were issued by the Learned Single Judge in exercise of his power under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is wider even than the power of the Apex Court under Article 32. The law on this point is settled in many cases. This High Court under Article 226 of the constitution has wide powers to issue directions to not only protect the fundamental rights but also the constitutional rights. The directions issued are relating to and connected with the subject matter of lis before the court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge was well within the powers of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the second question is answered in negative against the appellants. Another ground that was raised is that the directions have been issued without giving opportunity to the State and lessees. This statement is fallacious for the simple reason that the Collectors on behalf of different Districts represented the State in this Writ Appeal and the learned Advocate General of the State has argued their case, not only before the Division Bench and also before the learned Single Judge. Further, the State has now issued a Government order permitting import by individuals with certain conditions. Therefore, the contention also fails. Whether this Court has a legal obligation/mandate to preserve ecology, i.e Sand, Forests, Water, Air, etc for the present and for future generations as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by issuing appropriate directions? - HELD THAT:- The courts have stepped in to protect the environment by curbing mining activity, whenever the state has failed in its duty under Article 48 A and 51 A. Also, from the various reports referred above, it is evident that the directions and the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court referred above have been violated and the illegal mining activity has not been curbed and the mining has been continued beyond permissible limits, resultantly, causing irreparable damage to the ecology - The scope of judicial review is not limited to validity of enactments alone but would also be applicable to policy decisions when the decisions either directly or indirectly violate the fundamental rights, more so in cases where the interest of the public is at stake.If the ecology is not protected, there is no doubt that it will endanger the very existence of human life and we might not even have a future generation.Therefore, as a custodian of the fundamental rights and the constitutional rights, it is the duty of this court to ensure that environment is protected and is not subjected to degradation, when the authorities have failed. Hence, the third question is answered in affirmative. This Court is of the view that the appellants have not made out any case for interference with the order of the Learned Single Judge - Appeal dismissed.
|