NDLI: State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Janthakal Enterprises and Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India 1950 - Art. 226
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Order
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact in regard to forest/mining environment,matters - Duty of the Court - Held: The courts should share 'the legislative concern to conserve the forests and the mineral wealth of the country - Courts should be vigilant in issuing final or interim orders in forest/mining/ Environment matters so that unscrupulous operators do not abuse the process of courts to indulge in large scale violations or rob the country of its mineral wealth or secure orders by misrepresentation to circumvent the procedural safeguards under the relevant statutes - Central Government and the State Government are huge and complex organizatioris and many a time require considerable time to secure information and provide them to court, in matters requiring enquiry, investigation or probe - Where writ petitions involving disputed questions of fact in regard to forest/mining/ environment matters, come up for consideration, courts should give sufficient time and latitude to the concerned ministries/departments to file their objections/counters after thoroughly verifying the facts - ff there is undue hurry, the concerned ministries/departments will not be able to make proper or thorough verifications and place the correct facts - A wrong decision in such matters may lead to disastrous results - in regard to public interest - financially and ecologically - Therefore, writ petitions involving mineral wealth, forest conservation or environmental protection should not be disposed of without giving due opportunity to the concerned departments to verify the facts and fife their counters/objections in writing - The instant case is a typical example where a writ petition requiring decision of disputed and unascertained factual allegations filed on 30.3.2009 was disposed of on 2. 7.2009 without giving due opportunity to the mining and forest departments of the State Governments and the MoEF, to file their counter-affidavits - When there was delay of nearly a quarter century on the part of the writ petitioner in approaching the court, the writ petition ought not to have been disposed of in hardly three months, without counter-affidavits from the concerned respondents - Even though there were no counter affidavits, nor any opportunity to the respondents in the writ petition to file counter-affidavits, the High court assumed that the State and the Central Governments had conceded the claims of the first respondent in the writ petition and allowed _the writ petition on 2. 7.2009 - Again, the High Court without calling for objections from MoEF or the state government, on an application by the writ petitioner, amended the final order - Anxiety to render speedy justice should not result in sacrifice of the public interest - The High Court committed a serious error in hurriedly deciding seriously disputed questions of fact without calling for a counter and without there being any proper verification of the claim of the first respondent by the authorities concerned - The order of the High Court cannot be sustained -Costs of Rs.50,0001- imposed upon the first respondent payable to the State Government- Environment - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - s. 2 - Environment Protection Act, 1986.
Judge	N/A
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 299
Petitioner	State Of Karnataka And Ors.
Respondent	Janthakal Enterprises And Anr.
SCR	[2011] 7 S.C.R. 287
Judgement Date	2011-04-15
Case Number	3293-3294

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Janthakal Enterprises and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M.k.jose

Veeru Devgan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Ashok Kumar Dinesh Chandra and Anr. Etc. Etc.

Prem Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

B.k. Muniraju Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Abhimanyoo Ram Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

General Manager (marketing) Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Subodh Chandra Das & Ors.

Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shanti Devi Vs. State of Sikkim and Anr.

State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Janthakal Enterprises and Anr.

State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Janthakal Enterprises and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M.k.jose

Veeru Devgan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Vs. Ashok Kumar Dinesh Chandra and Anr. Etc. Etc.

Prem Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

B.k. Muniraju Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Abhimanyoo Ram Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

General Manager (marketing) Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Subodh Chandra Das & Ors.

Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shanti Devi Vs. State of Sikkim and Anr.

State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Janthakal Enterprises and Anr.