SELUR MINES SALEM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein challenges a letter dated 20-4-1995, sent by the Secretary to the Government, Environment and Forest Department to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Madras. In pursuance of this letter, the Section Officer has requested as under :

(2.) It seems that after he sent the application, certain details were asked from him, which is apparent from the plea raised by the respondents in their counter. It is pointed out in the counter even the area was inspected by the District Forest Officer on 3-8-1992 and the petitioner's application was forwarded to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests vide Reference No. 10110/92 dated 12-10-1992 and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests had sent the said application to the Government. It is then pointed out in the counter that thereafter the Advisory Group which was constituted for examining the proposals for diversion of forest area for non-forest activities, held its meeting on 17-5-1993 and in that meeting the lease proposals were considered. The counter goes on to show that some particulars were sought from the petitioner which were required by the Advisory group vide communication dated 2-8-1993 bearing Ref. No. 10110/92. It is pointed out that thereafter the petitioner instead of sending these particulars has chosen to challenge the aforementioned communication dated 20-4-1995 by which the concerned officers were required to take immediate steps in respect of the lease proposals and then to send the matters to the Central Government for their prior approval before grant of the leases.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not for the State Government to consider any of the proposals on its own as under Sec. 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, prior approval of the Central Government is a must. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, points out that even in the Apex Court ruling reported in 1997 (2) SCC 267 : AIR 1997 SC 1228 (T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others it becomes clear that any non-forest activity such as mining, etc. is totally banned and cannot be continued unless a prior approval by the Central Government is obtained. Learned counsel, therefore, urges that instead of the State Government wasting its time on asking for the various details from the petitioner, first the application should be sent to the Central Government for their prior approval and it is only then that the State Government would be in a position to decide upon the grant or refusal of the lease. Learned counsel further says that because of the impugned communication, the State Government feels itself bound for collecting the various particulars from the persons like the petitioner and, therefore, that communication should be quashed and instead the State Government should be directed to straight away send the application to the Central Government.