Month: August 2022

National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam is making a call for essays.

ABOUT

On the occasion of the auspicious Kargil Diwas, the NSS Unit of Assam is elated to host an essay writing competition in order to foster and acquaint the students with the glorious past of its brave men. Every year the 26th of July is marked as the Kargil Divas to commemorate the Indian victory over the Pakistani forces in the fatal battle of Kargil, in 1999. This day observes the heroism and the patriotism with which our soldiers fought and sacrificed their lives for their motherland.

To celebrate the bravery of our soldiers, on the occasion of the 23rd Kargil divas, the theme which the Unit has proposed this year stands at Honouring the honoured.

TOPICS

• To trace the developments which led to the Kargil War, 1999.
• A critical analysis of the relationship between India and Pakistan post-1999.
• Kargil Saga: From Bus to Bofors.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

• The competition is open to all students across various institutions in the country.
• The word limit for the essay stands at 750-800. Students are required to any one out of the three topics and limit themselves to the word limit, failing which they would be disqualified.
• Participants are kindly requested to refrain from malpractice such as plagiarism.
• There must be an inch gap on both the borders and the line spacing of 1.5 inch. The font for the essay should be Times New Roman with font size 12.
• Last date to submit the essay- 26th July, 11:59 pm.

DEADLINE

JULY 26, 2022

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSci2Vm_AuGVqUBvfNaLdcNXuhfGEP-Q73rREeH8wMV33n7kRw/viewform

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

-Report by Sanju Agarwal

The Delhi High Court has stated in the case of GHULAM SARWAR vs SMT. NILOFAR KHAN & ORS. that the High Court should respect the exercise of discretionary powers by the District judiciary and not act in a manner that conveys an impression that the court is playing the role of a headmaster.

The parties to the suit occupy different areas of the same property. The respondents (originally the plaintiff) had complained that the petitioner had installed a locked iron on the terrace of the fourth floor which restrained the access of the respondents. A decree of mandatory and permanent injunction had been sought in the suit by the respondents restraining the petitioner from interfering with the right of access to the terrace of the respondents. It was also accompanied by an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking an ad interim injunction that would restrain the petitioners from fixing iron grills on the passage to the rooftop. The learned SCJ upheld the respondents’ rights to access the terrace only for common amenities such as installing an antenna, water connection, etc., between 9 am to 5 pm. The respondents had to ask for the keys an hour in advance.

An appeal was preferred before the learned ADJ wherein it was held that since the parties were locked in litigation, providing limited access after recognizing the respondents’ rights was unreasonable. The learned ADJ modified the decision of the SCJ and directed the petitioners to give a set of keys to the locked terrace gate to the respondents to give them independent access at all times during the pendency of the suit.

The petitioner aggrieved by the above decisions had filed the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court held that this was not a case that invoked the jurisdiction of the court under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution. It was stated that it was a discretionary order and free from any perversity, therefore immune from any challenge under Article 227. Such a challenge to order can only be justified when the exercise of such discretionary power is perverse in nature.

It was also observed:

“I am constrained to observe that, if the High Court were to start interfering with such orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is bound to shake the confidence of the district judiciary and seriously impede the dispassionate exercise, by them, of the discretion that the law vests in them. In my considered opinion, it is only as a matter of chance hierarchal circumstance that this Court is “above” the district judiciary. Else, the district judiciary, and the learned Courts of which it is comprised, exercise jurisdiction which, subjectively, is co-equal to the jurisdiction exercised by this Court.”

The court held that the order passed is well reasoned, however, the access has been granted to the respondents for a limited purpose and availing of the facility shall not be abused.

-Report by Zainab Khan

A single bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath hearing the matter of criminal appeal in the case of CHANDRAKUMAR vs State of Kerala reduced the sentence of the appellant from 7 years of imprisonment to 5 years and also reduced the fine from Rs.50,000 to 5000.

FACTS

The appellant was charged u/s -304 of IPC for killing his mother-in-law named Santhamma. On 4th March 2012, the appellant beat Santhamma by grabbing her hair and beating her head with a torch, and on the next morning, she died because of the injuries. On 22nd September 2017, an additional district and session Judge found the appellant guilty u/s 304 of IPC on the basis of facts, evidence, and witnesses. He sentenced him to 7 years of imprisonment and
imposed a fine of Rs.50,000. The appellant thus filed an appeal against his conviction in the Kerala High court.

Petitioner contentions

The learned counsel Adv. Reji R appeared for the appellant. He contended that the appellant has undergone a Substantive period of his imprisonment and the remaining period should be reduced to the sentence already undergone. He also argues that the appellant is the only earning member in his family and his family depends upon him and he also can’t afford to pay the whole amount of the fine. He can only afford up to Rs 5000.

COURT’S DECISION

Justice Kauser Edappagath while disposing of this criminal appeal upheld the decision of the district and session Judge-IV with a modification that imprisonment reduces to the period already undergone ( i.e 5 years 6 months and 1 day as on 16th July 2022) by the appellant. The amount of the fine was reduced to Rs.5000. The appellant shall be released as and when he pays the fine.

About Mr. Ratan K. Singh

With 25 years of experience, senior advocate and arbitrator headquartered in New Delhi with expertise in construction, engineering, infrastructure, mining, and general civil and commercial issues Mr. Ratan K. Singh have held multiple arbitral assignments as chair and wing arbitrators, and Mr. Ratan K. Singh have acted as counsel for parties in difficult, expensive domestic and international arbitrations conducted in accordance with widely used arbitration rules. Through my roles as chairman of the Society of Construction Law in India and director of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in India, he have also interacted with players and stakeholders in the industry.

About the Responsibility 

Mr. Ratan K. Singh searching for a top-tier arbitration lawyer in Delhi who can work with him exclusively on construction-related disputes and handle/lead construction arbitrations.

Eligibility

• PQE of 4-6 years (flexible)
• Have prior experience serving as the counsel of record in second chairing, briefing, and directing arbitration proceedings, particularly those involving construction.
• Possess solid drafting abilities.

Deadline for Applying

31 August 2022

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: –

SeniorAdvocate@RatanKSingh.com and RatanAdv@gmail.com.

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

-Report by Riddhi Ray

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal in the case of K. S. SAHU vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS., wherein an order of withdrawal of navy officer was delivered, as he was in possession of objectionable material.

FACTS

The Appellant joined the Navy as a sailor on 31st July 2002. His Initial training started on 7th July 2002 for 2 years at INS Mandovi, Goa. On 21st June 2009, he was sent to INA EZHIMALA for the completion of the 5th and 6th terms of training. On 1st December 2010 integrated headquarters of the ministry of defense notified that the competent authority approved his withdrawal from INA and reverted him back to the sailor position.

Appellant’s contention:

Learned counsel raised three questions in front of the court:

a. Whether the appellant who was a service cadet could be withdrawn from the course in INA without following the principles of natural justice
b. Whether Regulation 216 of the Navy and Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations, 1965 (for short ‘the said Regulations’) could be invoked against a service cadet.
c. After completion of the course and receipt of the certificates, the applicant could be withdrawn.

He contended that this withdrawal was contrary to the rules in Enclosure–1 of Naval Headquarters’ letter dated 11th November 1988 as it has been fixed by a subordinate authority instead of the government. And even after the withdrawal he was not sent back home and allowed to continue the course. The naval authority pointed out that the withdrawal was done on disciplinary grounds, later it was stated that the withdrawal was for lacking basic character and officer-like qualities in reality. It was contended that the officers victimized the appellant just because he was from a poor family. The appellant was influenced to sign the documents accepting his mistake under the threat of disciplinary action. Further, his parents were invited to the valedictory ceremony but they were unaware of such withdrawal of their son.

Respondent’s contention:

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India stated that Regulation 216 has not been invoked upon the appellant so the question of following principles of natural justice does not arise. The withdrawal has been made as per ground ‘c’ mentioned in the rules issued by the Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy), New Delhi vide letter dated 11th November 1988. The ground is of basic character deficit and lacks officer-like qualities.

She further contended that written warnings on 16th July 2009 and 11th May 2010 and a chance was given to the appellant for giving an explanation. Although a proposal for withdrawal was submitted on 24th August 2009, he was appellant was relegated on 6th November 2009. It was only after 26th June 2010 that the action of withdrawal was taken.

Consideration of submission:

As per regulation 216, two things must be done for the withdrawal of an officer from a post. As per clause a., a show cause notice must be given to the appellant and as per clause b., the appellant must have given some time to file his defence against the allegations and to improve his conduct. In this case, he has been withdrawn only after two subsequent notices from authority and after a reasonable time has also been given to improve his conduct.

After an investigation, a report had been filed against the appellant on 19th April 2010 by Lt. Praveen Kumar. On 9th July 2009, a notice has been issued against him on the basis of the investigation of 5th July. During the investigation, he was found in the possession of pornographic magazines, cigarettes, a lighter and a mobile phone, a Garuda Pay office stamp and a large number of seamens’ knives, a stabilizer, a multimeter as well as a BSNL phone. In response to the question, the appellant stated that he has committed a wrong for the first time and was ready to take any punishment.

Another show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 11th May 2010, which is based on the investigation carried out by Lt.Commodore Ashutosh Bobade for tampering with official documents.

On 14th January 2011 appellant’s father requested the authority to reconsider the decision of withdrawal. But the authority denied such a request and stated he has been awarded a B.sc degree from the University of Goa as he was fit for that.

And as the inquiry report against him clearly states his misconduct and his audacity not to change himself even after notice. And as far as the notion that the government is only able to relegate any cadet from INA, then the government has conferred power in the hand of the Chief of Personnel to do the same. So, the withdrawal was completely in
accordance with the law. And the decision was made by the tribunal consisting of experts like a lieutenant general. It was observed:

“While taking action of withdrawal of the appellant from training, the competent authority made the assessment of the performance and conduct of the cadet in INA during his training. There was material on record to come to a subjective satisfaction that the appellant was deficient in basic character and officer like qualities. Two show cause notices were served upon the appellant before taking the action of withdrawal. There was an opportunity given on two occasions to the appellant to explain his conduct and improve his conduct. His conduct as reflected from record certainly supports the conclusion that he lacked the qualities which an officer of Navy must possess.”

In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal for being void of purpose.

-report by Ojas Bhatnagar

The Supreme Court in the case of Janabai vs M/S I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance made it clear that when seeking compensation in vehicle accidents, the evidence to prove it must be decided on basis of evidence led before it and not on evidence that should have been or could have been held in a criminal trial.

FACTS

On June 1st, 2007, Dinkar Shankarrao Ghorpade was riding a motorcycle when suddenly a Maruti 800 car came dashing towards him and hit him. The car was coming from the opposite direction. Mr. Ghorpade received serious injuries and was admitted to a Government Hospital (Ghati Hospital). On 2nd June he was shifted to Kamal Nayan Bajaj Hospital but he succumbed to his injuries on 25th June 2007. An FIR was lodged on 2nd July 2007.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION

The heirs of Dinkar Shankarrao Ghorpade were not provided compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a sum of Rs.8,90,000 with an interest of @7% p.a on the orders of The High Court of Bombay. Hence the need for appeal is there at the Supreme Court. The deceased got hit by a Maruti 800 car while he was riding a bike, he was seriously injured and died in the hospital due to a head injury. In an appeal filed by the insurance company, the High Court did not accept the findings that the accident happened due to negligence occurred by the driver. The high court could not establish a link between the accident and the car that had crashed. The petitioner argued that getting help for the heavily injured husband was the first priority and filing an FIR could have been done later. The petitioner claimed compensation on the account of love and affection and compensation on account of the spousal consortium for the wife and for the parental consortium for children.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The respondent which is an insurance company did not accept the findings that the accident happened due to the car owned by the owner and negligence caused by the driver. The appellant falsely filed an FIR that had no mention of her
husband being taken to the hospital in a Maruti 800 car, the vehicle that caused the accident was also not disclosed. Another important fact to be noted is that claimant Janabai in her evidence never revealed her source of information as to how on 20th August 2007 she got knowledge about the registration number of the offending car which was disclosed to police. The investigating officer is not examined by the claimant to prove his source of information regarding the offending car. The bona fide was also doubtful. Taking all these factors the high court rightfully dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any sort of compensation.

COURT’S DECISION

The SC found the order of the high court unsustainable. The primary concern of the appellant was to take care of Mr. Ghorpade. The well-being of the appellant mattered the most at that time. The HC has wrongfully proceeded only on the basis of evidence given to the police which does not even mention the name of the driver in the FIR. The wife was in a mentally unstable state as she was brought to the hospital after the crash and did not file an FIR at that time. The owner of the vehicle had taken it on superdari and he had not filed an FIR against his driver Sanjay. According to him, there is no false implication. In its own words the Supreme Court said:

“We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial 5 cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity
of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence that should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.”

The appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation. The appellant wanted compensation on basis of love and affection but as decided in the case of United India Assurance Company Limited vs Satinder Kaur and Ors. compensation under love and affection cannot be granted, however, compensation on other grounds can be granted. The tribunal assessed the deceased monthly salary as Rs 10000 and keeping in view the age and other factors the total compensation turns out to be Rs. 11,63,000 with an interest of 7% p.a. from the date of claim. The appeal was hence allowed.

-Report by Riddhi Ray

The appeal of Buddhiyarin Bai V. State of Chhattisgarh came to the Supreme Court of India for reduction of the sentence of the lady against the judgment and order dated 26th February 2018, where she got punished with rigorous imprisonment of 15 years and a fine of 1 lakh rupees and extended imprisonment of 3 years on nonpayment of fine under section 20 (b) (ii) c of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Facts

A senior citizen lady named Budhiyarin Bai along with her two sons, Pila Ram and Rajkumar alias Raju and two other persons- Rajendra Tiwari and Idris Khan got accused of possession of commercial quantities of cannabis and delivery of them. A charge sheet had been filed against the lady and her two sons on 15th January 2011 for the joint possession of 0.5 quintals and 21.5kg cannabis under section 20 (b) (ii) c of the NDPS Act, 1985. An allegation against two co-accused i.e., Rajendra Tiwari and Idris Khan was that they had delivered the cannabis to the lady’s house in the Village Chikhali under the Police Station Dondi. It was in accordance with section 27 A of The NDPS Act, 1985.

The learned trial court under judgment dated 8th November 2012 set the four co-accused free from all charges and the lady became the main accused for the possession of such substances. Both the trial court and high court of Chhattisgarh did not consider the factor of the lady being poor, illiterate and a senior citizen, the punishment should be reduced.

Appellant’s contention

The counsel for the appellant contended that the trial was distinct but the court has given such strict punishment to the lady without examining the totality of the matter and the other salient facts into consideration.

Obiter Dicta

The court observed that-

“We are of the considered view that the offenses under the NDPS Act are very serious in nature and against the society at large and no discretion is to be exercised in favor of such accused who are indulged in such offences under the Act. It is a menace to the society; no leniency should be shown to the accused persons who are found guilty under the NDPS Act. But while upholding the same, this Court cannot be oblivious of the other facts and circumstances as projected in the present case that the old illiterate lady from rural background, who was senior citizen at the time of alleged incident, was residing in that house along with her husband and two grown up children who may be into illegal trade but that the prosecution failed to examine and taking note of the procedural compliance as contemplated under Sections 42, 50 and 55 of the NDPS Act, held the appellant guilty for the reason that she was residing in that house but at the same time, this fact was completely ignored that the other co accused were also residing in the same house and what was their trade, and who were those persons who were involved into the illegal trade providing supplies of psychotropic substances, prosecution has never cared to examine.”

Ratio Decidendi

While considering her appeal, the Apex court bench Justice Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar noted that the minimum sentence for an offense committed under section 20 (b) (ii) c of the NDPS Act, 1985 is imprisonment of 10 years which may extend to 20 years and a fine of 1 lakh which may extend to 2 lakhs. Here the punishment that has been given is much higher than the minimum one and for that matter section, 32 B of the said act must be considered. But the same
has not been performed by the trial courts prior. And while judging her case the punishment for such an old illiterate lady who has no prior history of committing a crime can be reduced to 12 years with a fine of 1 lakh and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months which shall meet the ends of justice.

About the Organization

On March 13, 2019, I was appointed as an assistant government lawyer for the Gujarati government at the High Court of Gujarat in Ahmedabad. Since then, I’ve been defending the interests of the state government and its authorities in cases involving employment and service, land disputes, including those involving tenancy and land ceiling laws, land acquisition laws, Gujarat Public Trust laws, and laws relating to mines and minerals, among other things.

About the Responsibilities  

For short- or long-term positions, my office (Office of Government Pleader) is seeking interns.

As an intern you are required to: –

• The candidate will work closely with me and be given the responsibility of supporting my representation of the State before the Honourable High Court of Gujarat.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: – sahiltrivedi.advocate@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About the Organization

A summer intern is needed for RSA Law Offices in Gurgaon, Haryana.

Stipend

No

Eligibility

• The applicant needs to be in their senior year. Gurgaon-based applicants will receive preference. The applicant must be in their senior year. basic familiarity with contract law. travelling to all Delhi NCR courts. Travel costs will be covered.

How to Apply?

Interested candidates may apply from here: – adv.rakshith.2016@gmail.com

Note: Depending on performance, the candidate may be retained OR receive a pre-placement offer.

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates, we can catchup at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/G4bxdgRGHY8GRzOPSHrVwL

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Name of the Case

Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Others v State of Uttar Pradesh

Citation

AIR 1985 S.C. 652, 1985 SCR (3) 169

Year of the Case

1985

Appellant

Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Bench

Justice P.N. Bhagwati
Justice Amerendra Nath
Justice Rangnath Mishra

Acts Involved

Constitution of India, Article 32 and 48A, The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Central Act No. 69, Acts of Parliament, 1980, The Mines Act, 1952.

Overview

This judgment is associated with a previous sentence by the Supreme Court in a similar context. The Apex Court had recognized a writ petition from Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra concerning the illicit and unauthorized working of limestone mining in the Mussoorie Hill radius, India. It said that the quarries initiated a peril to a thriving environment and affected the eternal water springs. During the unresolved of the Writ Petitions, the Bench had assigned a committee to analyze the limestone quarries expressed in the Writ Petitions. The Government had also appointed a working batch on the excavation of limestone quarries in the Dehradun-Mussoorie region. On 12th March 1985, the Apex Court consented to a comprehensive order giving several directions and discovering that the particulars of the decision would be embarked in the verdict to trail later. In this decision, although, the court opined that it was not crucial to give any additional reasons which had already been presumed in the decision held by the Bench on 12th March 1985 as the broad grounds had been adequately embarked in that direction.

Facts of the Case

Doon Valley is a division of the Mussoorie hill strings of The Himalayas. The Doon valley region was very prosperous. Various rivers have their origin in Mussoorie hills which made the valley zone ecologically flourish. However, it set off a district for limestone mining and the valley started degrading due to the operation of fulminating, cutting trees, and utmost mining in the 1950s. Limestone mining actions in the Doon valley increased between 1955 and 1965. The action of exploding, for the extraction of minerals, led to a lack of vegetation in the valley. In the 1980s, the valley saw its natural beauty vanishing and experienced floods, high temperatures, landslides, water scarcity, and cropland obliteration.

The State minister of Mines of Uttar Pradesh prohibited mining industries in 1961. However, in 1962, the state government held numerous mining and excavation leases for 20 years and hollowing was happening again. When leases approached for resurrection in 1982, the state prohibited them on the account of ecological destruction. Mining companies expanded despite the decision of the government. Allahabad High Court authorized mining in the Doon valley, evaluating economic benefit over ecological elements. In 1983, a local NGO of Dehradun and RLEK, sent a complaint letter against environmental poverty to the Apex Court. The Supreme Court recorded this complaint under Article 32 as a writ petition. The Court directed the gauging of all current mining actions in the valley. The court also concentrated on the state government-initiated database for the cultivation of the zone.

Issues

1. Whether the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 will be licit in the process of recommencement of leases or not? The leases were resolved to mining industries in 1962 and the Forest Conservation Act was sanctioned in 1980.

2. Whether the mining operations in government forests violated the Forest Conservation Act? The Act prohibited those non-forest operations in forest areas, which do not have the assistance of the central government.

3. Whether environmental conservation should be given priority over the economic help of the country?

Contentions of the Petitioner

1. Environmental demolition in Doon Valley leads to obstruction in the living of citizens, which interrupts their fundamental right to a healthy environment. The right to a healthy environment is under Article 21 of the Constitution, a portion of the Right to Life.

2. Refusal of lease restoration by the public abolished the state’s consent for mining.

3. Forests come under a concurrent list, so authorization of the central government should also be mandatory for mining operations.

Contentions of the Respondent

The Respondents resisted that-

1. The troubling matters should not be evident by the Apex Court, but the administrative constructions of the state under the Environment Protection Act. It should be the affairs of the state’s officials.

2. Respondents asserted that all techniques of mining and quarrying were being moved out by the provisos of the Mines Act of 1952.

3. Mining activities should not be terminated because they are vital in the affairs of the country and the protection of the foreign exchange position of the country.

4. The termination of mines will lead to the redundancy of mine labour.

Judgment

The Central Government had been anxious about the perilous mining activities in the Valley at the aforesaid time when the Apex Court obtained the affair. In 1983, in the Dehradun Valley Litigation file, the Government of India assigned a Working Group to analyze the limestone investigation in the Dehradun-Mussoorie region. D.N. Bhargava, governed both the government’s Working Group and the committee of the court came to aligned conclusions as to the destructive effect of the mines on the surroundings. The Working Group also laid reviews for the court on the restricted mining activities, which were authorized to abide open. In 1986, during the litigation, Parliament sanctioned the Environment Protection Act. Subsequently, the Valley was selected as an organically exquisite portion beneath the Environment Protection Act. Also, the Central Government elected a Doon Valley Board, under the chairmanship of the Minister for Environment, which was entrusted with protecting and restoring contaminated zones of the Valley.

The Supreme Court held that mining in reserved forests in the Dehradun valley violated the Forest Conservation Act. The Forest Conservation Act only prohibited non-forest operations in forest areas that do not have the authorization of the Central Government. Furthermore, regarding ecological integrity and national benefits, the Apex Court was also anxious about the welfare of mine workers and labourers left unpaid by the Dehradun Valley activities. The Court delivered the following:

Mine lessees whose activities were wound-up by the court would be stated as a preference for leases in the new region open to mining. That the eco-task force of the central government, retrieve and reforest the zone vandalized by excavation and that the workers unsettled by mine closure be given preference for jobs with the Eco-Task Force activities in the region.

Concepts Highlighted

The Constitution of India guarantees the privilege of a healthy environment as a fundamental right under Article 21. Industrialization leads to evolution which additionally leads to the deprivation of the environment. The theory of sustainable development has developed over the years that there must be a balance between evolution and ecology. Environmental dishonoring is not right on the pretext of national benefit. According to the socio-economic desires of the nation, administrative and legislative policies for compatible environmental and evolution principles should be intimated. Courts play a very important role in directing the extent of the powers and motives of administrative operations and in evident stability between the environment and evolution.

The necessity of the hour is to maintain an equilibrium between the two. Therefore, the evolution on one edge and pollution permitted environment on the other. The main emphasis should be on the evolution of sustainable living and environmental needs. However, sustainable development is the only way out and administrative measures must follow in accordance therewith.

References

1. The Mines Act, 1952, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, (1992).
2. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, No. 29, Acts of Parliament, (1986).
3. Indian Constitution, art 21.

This article is written by Ashmita Dhumas, who has completed BA LLB from Agra College and is doing a diploma in
Corporate Law from Enhelion.