Disposed

G.Subramani v. The Principal Chief

Madras HC13 Apr 2017WP/8656/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This public interest writ petition challenged license grants for Saw Mills allegedly causing deforestation. The petitioner claimed a representation was ignored. The court directed the District Forest Officer to consider the representation in light of specific Tamil Nadu rules and Supreme Court orders within a fortnight.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation in accordance with law within a fortnight.

G.Subramani Vs The Principal Chief — Environment and Pollution | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 13.04.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

The HON'BLE MS.INDIRA BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

The HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶6

W.P.No.8656 of 2017
G.Subramani .. Petitioner
vs.
1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Maaligai (Head Office)
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2. The District Forest Officer,
Dharmapuri Division,
(Near District Collector's Office)
Dharmapuri District – 636 705. .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to issue of license to a certain extent for not more than necessary so as to curb the menace of deforestation in the Dharmapuri District in view of the representation dated 23.08.2016.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Arivazhagan For Respondents : Mr.M.K.Subramanian Government Pleader

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶12

This writ petition filed in public interest relates to the grant of licenses to the Saw Mills, which according to the petitioner, would result in deforestation and consequential environmental degradation.

¶13

The petitioner has made a representation dated 23.08.2016 to respondent Nos.1 and 2, which according to the petitioner, is yet to be considered.

¶14

Mr.M.K.Subramanian, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that Central Empowered Committee has been constituted by the Supreme Court of India by its order dated 09.05.2002 in W.P.(Civil) No.202 of 1995 [Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and others] to monitor the grant of licenses. Grant of licenses will be monitored by the Central Empowered Committee. Further more, the authorities shall be granting license in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules, 2010.

¶15

The learned Government Pleader submits that the representation of the petitioner, a copy whereof has been enclosed at page No.8 of the typed set of papers, will be considered by respondent No.2 before any licenses are granted.

¶16

The writ petition is thus disposed of with a direction on respondent No.2 to consider the said representation of the petitioner in accordance with law in the light of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Wood Based Industries Rules, 2010 and the orders of the Supreme Court of India in this regard within a fortnight from the date of communication of this order. No costs.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VIII)

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

bbr
To:
1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest,
Panagal Maaligai (Head Office)
Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
2. The District Forest Officer,
Dharmapuri Division,
(Near District Collector's Office)
Dharmapuri District – 636 705.
+1cc to the Special Government Pleader Sr.22667
+1cc to M/S.S.Arivazhagan, Advocate Sr.22424
W.P.No.8656 of 2017
vd[co]
srg 21/04/2017

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

G.Subramani v. The Principal Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Subramani v. The Principal Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Balu Vs The State of Tamilnadu

MukeshKumar Jain Vs The Corporation of Chennai

Kumar Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Mr.Koshy Thomas Vs The Member Secretary

Mr.P.Arun Prabhu Vs The Commissioner

K.Muthuramalingam Vs The Registrar General