T N GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These I.As. are in essence oft shoot of a judgment of this Court in IA 670 of 2001 in Writ Petition (C) 202 of 1995 in K.M. Chinnappa (applicant in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and others (2002) 10 SCC 606). It related to the question whether functioning of Kudremukh Iron and Ore Company Ltd. (in short KIOCL) was having adverse effect on the environment and ecosystem. In paras 51 and 52 of the judgment it was inter alia directed as follows:

(2.) Unfortunately the Central Government for reasons best known to it notwithstanding the clear position indicated in the judgment construed that the expression "Committee" meant "Forest Advisory Committee" (in short FAC). There was no scope for taking the stand in view of what has been stated in para 5 of the judgment. It has been stated that FAC is also a statutory committee. By order dated 20th January, 2006 it has been observed that the constitution of the Monitoring Committee is not in consonance with the directions of this court.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for KIOCL submitted that in line with direction of this Court and keeping in view the Rule 23C of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988 (in short the Rules) which became operative with effect from 10.4.2003, an approved final Mine Closure Plan was submitted. Views of expert bodies were taken. It has been stated that in line with the statutory prescriptions, which even though became operative after the judgment various steps have been taken. Indian Bureau of Mines (in short the IBM) has also given its report. It is, therefore, stated that though IIT Delhi was asked to give its view but that has no relevance. If there would have been non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Rule 23C of the Rules, it would have exposed it to penal consequences. In essence the stand is taken that IIT Delhis report should not be accepted and the following modalities on the other hand should be adopted.