KRISHNA MINERALS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGES, whatever their own views must follow the decision of the Superior Courts to which they are judicially subordinate. It is an unwritten rule based on what is known as judicial comity. Under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court is made binding on all Courts of India. The Courts should treat a decision of the Supreme Court as an authority not only for what it declares or decides by express enunciation but also for what follows from such declarations by clear implication by way of logical deduction.

(2.) UNFORTUNATELY in all these matters before me the learned trial Judge did not take trouble to read the decision of Tarun Bharat Sangh Alwar vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court issued directions in respect of mines in question as under - (Para 21 & 22): " It is accordingly directed that all mining activities in the mines mentioned in Appendix `a' to the report of justice M. L. Jain Committee shall stop forthwith. Similarly the mining activity in the mines mentioned in Appendix `b' to the said report shall stop forthwith in so far as they fall within the protected forest areas. . . . . . . . . " ". . . . . . . . the mining activity in the mines situated outside the protected forest areas but within the tiger reserve may continue for a period of four months. Within this period it shall be open to the concerned mine owners to approach the Department of Forest and Environment Government of India for permission to continue their mining operations. They can continue the mining operations in these mines only if the Central Government permits them and subject to the orders of the Central Government in that behalf. If no permission is obtained from the Central Government within the said period of four months, the mining activity in the entire area declared as tiger reserve shall stop and cease on the expiry of four months. "

(3.) THE contention of the respondents on the other hand was that the petitioners themselves admitted in the plaint that mining activities were put to rest as back as 1993 and no interim injunction could be issued in 1998 ignoring the directions issued by the Apex Court. THE lease area of the petitioners comes in the purview of the Supreme Court's order and the mining operations were prohibited in pursuance of the order dated 8. 4. 1993 in Tarun Bharat Sangh's case (supra ). THE trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits. Reliance was placed on Board of Trustees vs. Bombay Flour Mills (7) & T. N. Goverdhan vs. U. O. I.