DURGA CEMENT COMPANYLTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed writ petition (CWJC No. 2370 of 1997/R) challenging the orders dated 9.6.1997 and 30.6.1997 (Annexure 7 and 9 respectively) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh, and East Division. By the 1st order the appellants have been directed to stop transportation of minerals through the forest area. By the 2nd order, they have been directed to stop forthwith the mining and ancillary activities in all sort of forest area. The 2nd order is re -produced herein below: Please refer to the aforesaid references. The judgment/order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to already communicated to you. Out of 88.00 acres of your lease hold area, the lease comprises 13.60 acre of forest land for which there is no prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. At the same time, you are trampling forest flora and land of village Kurkutta and Religara for playing of vehicles loaded with mineral. There is no notified or demarcated road as such in the documents of the Division. This is non -forest use of 'forest land' without approval from the Central Government and thereby attracts Sections 2, 3, 3 -A and 3 -B of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment, 1989). In the circumstances depicted you are requested to: (1) Stop forthwith the mining and ancillary activities in all sort of forest area, and; (2) Apply in proper pro -forma (enclosed herewith) for diversion of 'forest land' for non -forest purpose under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. (3) Deposit NPV for forest land referred above. (4) Offer equivalent amount of non -forest land, for compensatory a forestation, free of encroachment and encumbrances. The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 24.4.1998 holding that all mining activities which will include transportation of minerals in the forest area are prohibited, except with the permission of the Central Government. Reliance in this connection was placed in T.N. Godauarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India . Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners -appellants have filed this appeal.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants has made two submissions, namely, (i) transportation of minerals through road which passes through forest area does not amount to mining operation is the forest area and (ii) the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra), is merely an interim order binding on the parties thereto and not binding on others. His contention is what is binding is the ratio of a judgment and not the interim order passed by the Apex Court.