Sanghamitra Foundation (Regd) vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court

Sanghamitra Foundation (Regd) vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2009
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

FOREST ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY

VIBHANA SQUDHA, BANGALORE 1.

4 THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATQR

OF FQRESTS:
G€)VER¥\iMENT OF KARNATAKA,

FQREST DEPARTMENT, .

ARANYA BHAVAN, MALLes§m§ieaM, . X I

EANGALQRE -- 550 093. e "
. VRESWNDENTS

(av SR1 AaA\I:m§ ':<eM;xaée':.sé e:%e;R'e»a1 e 2,

sex M.B.PRABHAi(AR, %3Q\{T..VA§)\f§>CATE'~~FQR R-3 AND 4)

'ms wan ?.?ET;'£T1Qbi'- 15; :_FILE£3~.U'NDER; ARTICLES 225 AND

227 09 THE C§{)f»¥$3TT£ff!'I'C!i§3...__G~FV I'NE3_1iA_ PRAYING TO DECLARE
THE ACTION O:'?V.T}{-_!E:*_ REEZPONDEWTS IN WITHDRAWING ma IN
PR1NCIPLE.evAPPRAC;NAL1{SEVEN-UNDER..S'EC'fIGN 2 OF THE FGREST
ccmseevzxnou 1-esees PER ANNE)-LB. an 6.12.2005 AS
ILLEGAL, vow AhID'L¥?~J.ENEGRCEABLE AND arc.

THIS {EN FOR DICTATION, THIS

DAY COL3RT_MA[§EV.,TH'E"' Fozmwme:

9_B_D__E_E

raised in this petition is is the first

n'VVII'reepond4ent.'.'_s:;'Reefer, dated 5"' December, 2695 withdrawmg the

III"T:74.i'e{j5rin;§eie'=--«epprova! given under Sectien 2 cf the Ferest

fieeeereefien Act, 1983. The petitioner has eiee seught the

':tfr'u'e»ne:amus to the respondents to approve the diversion of the

fiheeeie lend fer the pureese ef carvfine the statue of Esuddhe. 4' resaendents, That there is nething
tike Ramanagara%ii"P;6;*%§s; his further submissian' .9. Sri Ravi Verma Kama: aise
briingsitel%fij;T.fi0tité3'ti§1at this case, the responéents 2 ts at'? hgva '£3? objections, three
additienal statelv2Pi_fi'eV'4rt§ts..V_v_01f""ui§;j§%:ti§fns, one memerandum cf facts and 'eefifiitg
deitégflaii these, the respcmdents 2 tea .4-_ are their act of canine upon the in-principle appmval.
He" is bad canmzzt be made geed In support cf his submissions, has judgment cf the Hembtg
Supreme $;;¢uLrt ca:¥£:e ef Mohinder Singh Gil! nd a:1f2g;§i!::iaezf: Fa4.*, Eifiéion Cammissimmr

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/300354/ 1

 Sanghamitra Foundation (Regd) vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2009

and athers, SC 851. The reievant pertmn ef the TV ",. §ai;! ju::§gment'i$ -fiéttracted hereinbeiaw: _
.. I 'f'3§ 'fléé semrzd equaliy relevant matter is that when a . "= .5ta_:z}t§;:y functionaiy makes an
aide: based on cettain * § ;f9LiI§dS, ffi va!id:'ty must be judged by the mamas so " -uméntfoned and
Cannes: be suppkmanted by frag'; reastms in the shape of afifdavit or otherwise: Otherwise, an
order had in the beginning :72 , by the time it mines £0 ii petitign, He further submits that the
guiding factor ___whiIe granting or withdrawing the inwprincipie app_rév:alv?V'_T.'§s;L" Rthé
censematmn of ferests. The pe:!tions§§*bAmh§ s' n'c:,~_T right 1:12 demand the final apprevai as a
rfiaziér cf c§u.%rs'e. " V

14. Sr: Prabhakar has alse r-a_a;d..V_eut the rg§év:aht"";s€sst§ens* of the statement at' Qbgectigns,
"L_:add.&:_§or.{al' statémerst at ebjections, amdavit and the He submits that there was
;;>L:h}ivc4.hA':.:~.\v_.=.:_ the natural menmith to the
::v:«e§'§:i__r.§¥Q..:.~}'?7'_V$"r,$!fgj£_éz:;f *-."j'§ivg'§é§i'édu£e and is a part of the notified- at
aamanagaram Range -sf B$nga;!;'e:'£-V3 which previdgsbelter :9 the different speciéégf The
monolithic structure has hVer.i1;ageV_:e'§§§§;n::;§'ar;d tVh"a-t ittygrefere the same cannot be
disturbed, §;S_. " Sr": :"Pfat)_hakar brings :9 my mtice the {Directive
P:*i:':AcL§'p.V!_<a-'___;::cA1'" v$t§_té'.'V;'v!5o!icy cantained §n Articie 48A ef the V".;
(f9nst!tut'§':3§ €3f'E£;fiii2a, which statm that the state she?! endeavor .a':*:§ imprave the
environment and safeguard the wiid fife cf the ceuntry. Themfere the State 1VTG§varrs}nent is
empewered as well as ebiiged to ensure the 33%.

in a matter fa respect of, in our opinion, wbézrh §£«~~!2.a;.=. came to the cenclusion that no
renewal shozffd '*7 granted;

20; In that View of the matterA a§2{i~ t_'b'e SE34??? as the Act in cur opinion, the ;'esp:}:1
ciz:2g2_$ were night .an:{ V3193. appellanzs were wrong' All inte:'p!*e£§TiVf9§as mustiseibsegve
and he-ft? implementatims'_t!2e_.'i!§fe:'2L:§;-IQ'fifths Att; "This intetpretation, in our
"ag§;2it::g,.}--.':i.w§}£ sgzéxrve the predominantpumose of tl2e«A_c££'--._ "

1?. Next!y§.h;é"'v!3_rriQ:g.ht i:_§::._ m.y,z 1f1i.'§;§#§V ihé Herrble Supreme Ceurts decis_icm_ 1:.
union 91' India and others} }Tgx amu4 sc 4e15, wherein it is hate}, in the 'cqntext " _c$i'
ga:'jai'.af!hg ef a mining lease, that e7ns;§ronméAg§£ai~ prdiecfigxn has precedence over ecenomic
§rA:'?.1_-*=._Vr§s;:«,.. ¥$:§.v>:AP§'ab§V1ak_ar brings to my natice the Horfble supreme courfs
case :11' M.c.!-lehta V1 Kama! Kath and "'_avt'.§u.ers, in (199?) 1 see 383, where the consicsered .1
"vtakgn "is that certain reseurces like rivers, farests, ' '; _seasEi:;§ri:s}:aif, etc. have such a great
impeertance to the peeple weuld be whcaiiy Lmjustified ta make them a subject of .."'\.""'.Vp'fi§1ate
ewnership; the said regaurces are a gift at naturea In &B#{ 1?

for diversion 91' 6124 ha. of fora! land far Bangaiatzs <~£ Mysore Infrastmctzme Qorrsldar
Projearsl; out at' wh§cf7__ 31 '.96; .. . : ;_.v A' ha. of forest land feli in the same Hand!
sund;%kReg¢weaL% A Form; A total Ieagth of 3,2 kms of»Vsaic;! c¢;ir.fi¢{ofr--'(,vgé§ _ proposed to
pass through the middfiepf {he fivflanéi-..GuQ:§§if-.,__. .' Reserves! Forest In the relazgg profiaséé
agaéfzsr. %;':em ' 939,4 (viii) of the profonna was mentian about the gaya/endaagémgd
.,_fflom"'and faéma existing in the area, _«'9}og*§1~- 1. fngéma' ha$ been pmminently mentioned.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/300354/ 2

 Sanghamitra Foundation (Regd) vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2009

'St::%1eej':'»€§§ot{§*;ir§?r:?2é::t*.; request for appmva! in tbia cam was to, and a final approve! the
Said: Lciis}e:'S§c§:n':.'§vas_..é§ccorded vide M-9553 letter'I§ég'8¥45;?;?é99%--F?«?~ .c£a'~f
_ed.21_~1 -.2003' "

21. It may _éEs,1_5' «tevflefitract the last perticn of para 3.6 of tire Cetrtféi'I3'o§'erfi'n§}évnt"s
"counter which is as foliczws: "In §t;€:~e iasfanf the proposai submitted by Sanqéhfaixnitra
A.§;é;)ndé:tien thmugh the State . *A{;;>ire?:é*nf§1en't..i{vas ééiéégérehensiveiy examined and has
L_'_f::wfi_r2dT. !;§e"--..acccrded as 'in»p:'i:2c§p!e' (Stage-I) é;>,ézro'vé!.; ifiaxlso seen, that there
as net appear as be ény changes at the ievel sf state er Ce-Mara! A _V "'»f..§'overi2nr€ent, that bar
the divgrgian w fares: {and _ ":Lf"tz;a{¥é:fds the pmje-as sf similar nature, 0!' pmhsbit the aiversm
er fares: land in the Hand: sum: aesenze 1' -Fcsrest".

36. Far the aforesaid reasons, I ailew this ;aetit.§o:i;j««.§a-ash the impugned order and d§rect the
first resp:e:A;;:::1 e:'f::i::'V--.v1'Cérfi:§éii~.» Government to ccmslder the case cf t!_i:e..;3gt¥ti;ihér"
Vihc.a{_:gra~.r:ut' ' . ef the fine: er secend stage approvai 3:9 :fpe't:t§;5?!:é'1"'$f' Needless ta
abserve that the fi§f$£--~.V..;'esjpAorsid-eni; inte acceam: ail the materiais ggiaced
V¢:>.I:'§V'jA'»21:s"V:f,e¢:c::7.c:"«intofheaningfui consideration and take a
4d:e2;§ié:§en~'.§r:{.»thé"'?*rg§§:ter as expeditéousty as pessible and §n ar_:y
c;3's'ar,--I§5rit'h.§Af::.__és§i'. timfi: of three menths frejrrfi"t1':'e.:.:g:i§t§§§f :§:h«s:§"§ss§:' a":i¥:é
:3? the certified capy of tedaws crdéa " . V I V ' Nqgérlder as t":;«:V:, o s ts.

Sd/*9 Iudge

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/300354/ 3