TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court ruling on environmental violations by a mining company in a national park</h1> <h3>K.M. Chinnappa, T.N. Godavarman Versus Union of India and ors.</h3> The Supreme Court addressed violations of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. in Kudremukh National Park. Despite court ... - Issues Involved:1. Violation of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.2. Continuation of mining activities despite court orders.3. Environmental impact and pollution caused by mining.4. Legal validity of lease renewal under various Acts.5. Compliance with environmental and forest conservation laws.Summary:1. Violation of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972:The case involves the alleged violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, due to mining activities by Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd. (KIOCL) in Kudremukh National Park, a biodiversity hotspot. The I.A. 670 of 2001 was filed questioning the correctness of orders issued by the States of Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, which were claimed to be in violation of the Act.2. Continuation of Mining Activities Despite Court Orders:Despite the Supreme Court's orders dated 12.12.1996 and 14.2.2000, mining activities continued in the Kudremukh National Park. The main reliefs sought included directing the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to withdraw the 'temporary working permission' and stop mining activities, pollution of the Bhadra river, illegal encroachment, and laying of new slurry pipelines.3. Environmental Impact and Pollution Caused by Mining:The Central Empowered Committee recommended that KIOCL wind up its operations within five years or upon exhaustion of the oxidized weathered secondary ore, whichever is earlier. Conditions included preparing a rehabilitation and reclamation plan, monetary compensation of Rs. 25 crores, and monitoring by a committee comprising representatives from MoEF, the State of Karnataka, and NGOs.4. Legal Validity of Lease Renewal Under Various Acts:KIOCL argued that under Rule 24(B) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the lease was to be renewed for twenty years. However, the final Notification under Section 35(4) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, excluded the land under mining. The company also cited a Notification under Section 349 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, to claim the land was outside the purview of the Act.5. Compliance with Environmental and Forest Conservation Laws:The Supreme Court noted the necessity of compliance with Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, even for lease renewals. The Forest Advisory Committee recommended allowing mining until 2005, subject to fulfilling ecological and other conditions. The Court accepted this recommendation, emphasizing the need for sustainable development and adherence to environmental laws.The judgment highlighted the importance of balancing economic development with environmental protection, emphasizing the constitutional duty to safeguard the environment for future generations. The application was disposed of with directions to implement the Committee's recommendations under the supervision of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, the State Government, and the company.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
