JUDGMENT I. IA No. ... of 1998 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
1. Taken on board
2. Learned amicus curiae states that he has been informed by Shri A. M. Khanwilkar, Advocate that he himself saw large-scale mining in forest area and reckless denuding of forests in Villages Atri, Banjari and Panwari under Police Station Halia in District Mirzapur, which is in flagrant violation of the orders made by this Court from time to time
3. Shri Anand, Secretary, Ministry of Environment, who is personally present, also informs us of the illegal mining activity continuing in Doon Valley in spite of the orders made by this Court to prevent that illegal activity. These are matters which require urgent directions after ascertaining full facts. For this purpose we appoint a Committee consisting of Shri A. M. Khanwilkar and Shri Gopal Singh, Advocates of this Court and an officer of the Ministry of Environment to be nominated by the Secretary. The Committee is requested to immediately visit those villages in Mirzapur District as well as the Doon Valley and to submit its report at the earliest. In the first instance, the expenses for the visits of the Committee would be incurred by the Government of India which will also make all the necessary arrangements. The directions to the Government of U.P. to pay the amount so spent would be made later. The District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police will render all assistance needed by this Committee for the performance of its task
4. If the above allegations be true, it is indeed surprising that the Government of U.P. has not taken preventive action so far. The Government of U.P. must report on affidavit of an officer of the rank not lower than Secretary to the Government the factual position as well as action, if any, taken by the Government of U.P. so far. This be done by 12-1-1998
5. List on 13-1-1998 II IA No. ... of 1998 in WP(C) No. 202 of 1995
6. Taken on board
7. Learned amicus curiae has moved this application wherein it is suggested that each of the States and the Union Territories furnish the information called for in the questionnaire filed along with the application. We think it is necessary that this is done. Accordingly, it is directed that each of the States and the Union Territories furnish the information as required in the questionnaire within two months III. IA No. 60 of 1997 in WP(C) No. 202 of 1995
8. Taken on board
9. Learned amicus curiae prayed for directions being issued as mentioned in the application. Shri G. L. Sanghi, learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, has no objection to grant of prayers (1) and (3) in the IA while the matter covered by prayer (2) is left by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to the discretion of this Court for making such orders as it may consider appropriate. Shri Sanghi also stated that the Government of Madhya Pradesh has been actively pursuing the matter and is doing all that is necessary in the light of the report of the Lokayukta of Madhya Pradesh, but because of certain constraints, it has not been possible for the State Government to do all that is necessary in this behalf. Shri Sanghi stated on instructions that the Government of Madhya Pradesh has no reservation in the matter and is committed to a full investigation into the matter, identification of all the culprits and necessary action including prosecution of the culprits so identified
10. We are also informed that the Board of Revenue of Madhya Pradesh is seized of the matters in which validity of the transactions of transfers by tribals is under consideration so that the question of restoration of the land to the original owner (tribal) on annulment of those transactions would depend on the outcome of those matters. Shri Sanghi stated that the appropriate procedure would be adopted to request the Board of Revenue to hear and decide all those matters at the earliest so that necessary action could be taken by the State Government as a follow-up measure in the interest of the tribal landowners who have been duped in this manner by the transferees in contravention of the statutory provisions. In view of this statement made by learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh, no order at this stage is called for on prayers (1) and (3) in the application. The same would be taken up for consideration after decision is rendered by the Board of Revenue in those matters. The Government of Madhya Pradesh will report to this Court the decision of the Board of Revenue as soon as it is rendered
11. Prayer (2) in the application is for a direction for investigation to be made by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the facts and circumstances of this case. We take note of the fact that the State Government in spite of its desire as reported to us, has been unable to deal with the matter expeditiously and have it investigated in the manner required in spite of the report of the Lokayukta of Madhya Pradesh. In these circumstances, to uphold the rule of law, it is necessary that investigation into the entire matter covered by the report of the Lokayukta of Madhya Pradesh be made by the CBI; and that the necessary follow-up action including prosecution of the persons found involved should be made by the CBI. In view of the stand taken by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and its obvious inability to complete the task expeditiously, we make this direction and require the CBI to undertake this task and complete it expeditiously
12. A copy of the report of the Lokayukta of Madhya Pradesh and the connected papers be sent to the Director, CBI with a copy of this order for prompt action
13. Liberty is granted to the Director, CBI to seek any further directions which may be found necessary IV. List on 13-1-1998 Court Masters