central empowered committee report (i) of the cec in writ petition

central empowered committee report (i) of the cec in writ petition central empowered committee report (i) of the cec in writ petition

26.11.2012 Views

iv) the lessee has been found to be involved in illegally widening the forest road without approval under the FC Act; v) the Hon’ble High Court has not directed to allow the lessee to destroy the evidence of having committed illegality and no specific direction to fill up the mining pit was given; vi) no verification was done as to whether the material removed in the garb of over burden contained saleable iron ore. The statement of the lessee has not been recorded in this regard. The compounding of the case has been further accentuated with the recommendations for approval under the FC Act for release of additional 70.41 hectares of forest land in favour of the lessee (dealt with in subsequent paragraphs); vii) the method of valuation of loss relating to the forest and environment was not approved by the senior officers of the Forest Department / Government and a view on the same should have been taken first before compounding the case; 92

viii) the case involved wilful violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The Deputy Conservator of Forest has no power to compound the violation of the FC Act; ix) the illegal mining was done in the forest area in violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 12.12.1996. The Deputy Conservator of Forest has no power to compound the violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order. 13. Another serious issue in the case relates to the fact that the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bellary Division and Conservator of Forest, Bellary Circle have recommended grant of approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for diversion of additional 70.41 hectares of forest area in which illegal mining and encroachment have been found by the Lokayukta, Karnataka and for which forest offence case was registered. 14 M/s Lakshminarayana Mining Company made an application dated 29.8.2007 to the Department of Mines and Geology on the purported advice of the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology vide letter dated 22.8.2007 requested the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to accord forest clearance for 70.41 93

iv) <strong>the</strong> lessee has been found to be <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong><br />

illegally widen<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> forest road without approval<br />

under <strong>the</strong> FC Act;<br />

v) <strong>the</strong> Hon’ble High Court has not directed to allow<br />

<strong>the</strong> lessee to destroy <strong>the</strong> evidence <strong>of</strong> hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />

committed illegality and no specific direction to fill<br />

up <strong>the</strong> m<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g pit was given;<br />

vi) no verification was done as to whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong><br />

material removed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> garb <strong>of</strong> over burden<br />

conta<strong>in</strong>ed saleable iron ore. The statement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

lessee has not been recorded <strong>in</strong> this regard. The<br />

compound<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case has been fur<strong>the</strong>r<br />

accentuated with <strong>the</strong> recommendations for<br />

approval under <strong>the</strong> FC Act for release <strong>of</strong><br />

additional 70.41 hectares <strong>of</strong> forest land <strong>in</strong> favour<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lessee (dealt with <strong>in</strong> subsequent<br />

paragraphs);<br />

vii) <strong>the</strong> method <strong>of</strong> valuation <strong>of</strong> loss relat<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong><br />

forest and environment was not approved by <strong>the</strong><br />

senior <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Forest Department /<br />

Government and a view on <strong>the</strong> same should<br />

have been taken first before compound<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />

case;<br />

92

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!