V SATYAM REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two practising advocates of this Court have filed this Writ Petition by way of public interest litigation, questioning the legality of the permission accorded by the 7th respondent, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests', Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to the 11th respondent herein, namely Sri Yerri Naidu (Military Naidu), M.L.A., Chodavaram, to carry out preliminary experiments, survey-cum-exploitation of the valuable precious stones in the districts right from Visakhapatnam to East Godavari including parts of Srikakulam and Khammam, vide letter Ref. No. 12806/95/F2,dated 19-4-1995 and seeking a direction to the second respondent, the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, represented by its Secretary, New Delhi, to order enquiry through the Central Bureau of Investigation to ascertain the actual quantum of mineral wealth exploited by the 11th respondent and the consequential damage to the reserved forest areas and also to fix up the responsibility on the concerned persons who violated the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to order for prosecution of the persons for the alleged violation of the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in accordance with Section 3A of the said Act and further to direct the third respondent herein i.e., the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Chief Secretary, to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the value of the minerals exploited by the 11th respondent from him as well as appropriate amounts towards the damage caused to the forest areas by virtue of the illegal mining operations conducted by him.

(2.) The petitioners allege that the said permission was accorded by the 7th respondent to the 11th respondent at the instance of Sri N. T. Rama Rao, the then Chief Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh, who is impleaded as the 4th respondent in his official capacity and as the 9th respondent in his individual capacity. The 7th respondent i.e., the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, is also impleaded in his individual capacity as the 10th respondent.

(3.) It is stated inter alia in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the tribal areas in Visakhapatnam and Srikaku-lam districts, which form part of the reserved forest, contain valuable treasure of precious stones worth over Rs.5000 crores, that the 11th respondent has been indulging in illicit mining operations in precious stones for some time past, that no action was taken against him despite complaints since he happened to be an M.L.A. belonging to the ruling party having close contacts with the Hon'ble Chief Minister, that anticipating that these illicit operations being carried by him may result in penal action under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the 11th respondent brought pressure on the 10th respondent through the 9th respondent to accord permission to him for the purpose of exploitation of the mineral wealth and that accordingly the 10th respondent issued the impugned letter dated 19-4-1995 permitting the 11th respondent to carry out preliminary experiments and survey-cum-exploitation with the assistance of the Department of Mines, Mining Corporation and also protection from the police. It is further alleged that after the grant of the said permission the 11th respondent has been indiscriminately exploiting the forest areas for the purpose of collecting precious stones worth crores of rupees without any check on his illicit mining operations, that no accounts are being furnished to the departments with regard to the quantum of the mineral exploited, that precious stones, which were exploited, are being shared by respondents 9 to 11 causing substantial loss to the exchequer and that in this process the reserved forest areas have been destroyed by felling the tree growth indiscriminately. It is also staled that the said permission accorded to the 11th respondent is illegal and is in violation of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, that the 7th respondent has no power or jurisdiction to grant such permission and that the said action is wholly arbitrary, illegal and mala fide. The petitioners have also referred to certain newspaper reports highlighting this scandal and have characterised it as the biggest scandal of this century in this Slate. The petitioners have accordingly filed this writ petition seeking the aforementioned reliefs.