AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
At the request and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and with reference to the order dated 04.05.2017 as passed in [MC
(Review Pet.) No.7 of 2015], we have heard this review petition finally at this stage itself.
The petitioner had filed a Public Interest Litigation [''PIL''] petition that was registered as PIL No.40 of 2007 in the then jurisdictional High
Court; and after the establishment of this High Court, was re-registered as PIL No.2 of 2013. The said PIL was disposed of by a Division Bench
of this Court by way of a short order dated 05.03.2014 that reads, in its entirety, as under:-
05.03.2014
Shri BMR Chyne, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
Shri. VGK Kynta, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri R. Thangkhiew, Advocate, present for the respondents No.7, 8 and 9.
Shri ND Chullai, Sr. Govt. Advocate, assisted by Shri KP Bhattacharjee, Govt. Advocate, present for the respondents No.1 to 5.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue raised in the present PIL No.2 of 2013 (Old PIL No.40 of 2007)
stands already answered in the case of Larfarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. vrs Union of India and ors (2011) 7 SCC page 338.
Having gone through the above mentioned case of Larfarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd (Supra) decided on 6-7-2011 by the Apex
Court, we are of the view that no more directions are required to be passed in the present PIL pending since 2007.
Therefore, this PIL No.2 of 2013 is hereby closed.
Against the order aforesaid, the petitioner approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal [No.23685 of
2014] but, on 27.10.2014, sought permission to withdraw so as to file a review petition in this Court because, according to the petitioner, the
issues involved in its petition were not similar to those involved in the case of Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India: (2011) 7 SCC
The Hon''ble Supreme Court granted the prayer so made by the petitioner and disposed of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal with the
following order:-
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition so as to enable the petitioner to file a review application because
according to the petitioner, the issues involved in this petition and the issue involved in the case of Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India
[(2011) 7 SCC 338], are not similar.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
In the event of rejection of the review application filed by the petitioners, it would be open to him to approach this Court again for challenging the
validity of the impugned order.
In view of the above, this review petition has been filed by the petitioner. In this matter, earlier, certain questions were raised regarding
applicability of the law of limitation to the State of Meghalaya and for condonation of delay. After dealing with such issues by the Larger Bench and
then by the Division Bench of this Court, ultimately, the delay in filing the review petition was condoned by the order dated 04.05.2017 and hence,
this review petition has been taken up for final hearing.
The sum and substance of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid decision in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt.
Ltd. [(2011) 7 SCC 338] was rendered in relation to the IAs filed in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad and therein, essentially, the issues
relating to the environment and forest were examined by the Supreme Court whereas, the petitioner had raised the issues concerning the transfer of
land of tribal people in the PIL filed in this Court; and the questions relating validity of the transfer of land of tribal people with reference to the
operation of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India were neither involved in the IAs nor decided in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd.
(supra).
Learned counsel further submitted that contrary to the reasons on which the proceedings in PIL were closed, in fact, the Supreme Court had
made it clear in the order dated 21.11.2008 as passed in Civil Appeal No.6752 of 2008 that no such proceedings were pending before it where
any question on the validity of the transfer of land in question on the anvil of the provisions contained in the Meghalaya Transfer of Land
(Regulation) Act, 1971, were involved and hence, the then jurisdictional High Court was directed to proceed with the PIL filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submitted that while the aforesaid decision reported in (2011) 7 SCC 338 was rendered on 06.07.2011 in IAs filed in
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad''s case but, at the same time, by a separate order, the Honble Supreme Court dismissed as not pressed a Transfer
Petition [No.227 of 2010] that was filed by the present contesting respondent i.e., respondents No.7 to 9; and the High Court was requested to
proceed with the hearing of the PIL [No.40 of 2007] filed by the present petitioner.
Thus, according to the learned counsel, the cumulative effect of the pronouncement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court is that the matter in Lafarge
Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. [(2011) 7 SCC 338] does not cover the subjectmatter of the PIL filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.7 to 9 has duly opposed the review application filed by the petitioner with the submissions
that even if this Court has not passed an elaborate order on 05.03.2014, the substance of the matter makes it clear that the Court was not inclined
to continue with the PIL after the above referred elaborate decision in Lafarge''s case: (2011) 7 SCC 338 and hence, there is no ground for
review. Learned counsel appearing for the other parties have preferred not to advance any arguments in relation to the present review petition with
the submissions that essentially, the matter is of a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents No.7 to 9.
Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the record, we are inclined to allow this review petition
and to restore the PIL for re-consideration.
It appears that on 05.03.2014, this Court took a view that in view of the said decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Lafarge Umiam
Mining Pvt. Ltd., no more directions were required to be issued in the PIL filed by the present petitioner and pending since the year 2007.
However, the fact of the matter remains that on the earlier occasion, the then jurisdictional High Court, by an order dated 17.06.2008, put the
proceedings in this PIL in abeyance because of pendency of the matter in the Supreme Court but the said order was not approved by the Hon''ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6752 of 2008, which was disposed of on 21.11.2008 with the following order:-
Leave granted.
Application for deletion of proforma respondent nos.12 to 18 is allowed.
The appellant herein, has filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court alleging that the Government had sanctioned transfer of 100 ha. of
land to respondent No.7 and 8. The appellant contended that this transfer is violative of the provisions of Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation)
Act, 1971, which prohibits transfer of land to private parties. The High Court, by the impugned interim order, deferred hearing of the writ petition
on the ground that the issues are pending before this Court. We make it clear that there is no such proceedings pending before this Court regarding
alleged violation of the provisions of the Meghalaya Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1971 and the High Court is at liberty to proceed with the
writ petition filed by the appellant and pass appropriate orders.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
So far the order dated 06.07.2011 in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. [(2011) 7 SCC 338] is concerned, evident it is that the said order was
passed in different IAs moved in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad''s case [WP(C) No.202 of 1995]; and the matters in issue in those IAs related to
the ex post facto forest and environmental clearances granted for the purpose of limestone mining project in the State of Meghalaya. It is, of
course, noticed that in the elaborate decision, the Hon''ble Supreme Court took note of some of the background aspects indicating that the use and
occupation of the land in question was dealt with by the Village Durbar (vide paragraphs 102 to 107, 113 and 117 of the report) but then, the
Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the impugned decision to grant Stage 1 forest clearance and revised environmental clearance was not vitiated
and that the MoEF had taken requisite care and caution to protect the environment. The Hon''ble Supreme Court also made it clear (paragraph
118 of the report), that none of the observations in the order as regards the nature of the land shall be taken into account by the competent Court
in which title dispute is pending. It is informed that at least one title suit is even at present pending in the Court of Assistant to Deputy
Commissioner at Sohra.
Thus, it is noticed from the aforesaid order passed on IAs [(2011) 7 SCC 338] that certain observations do occur therein as regards the
dealings with Village Durbar in relation to the mining activity in question but, it is difficult to conclude that the issues as raised in PIL filed by the
petitioner were also directly involved in the said IAs or stand conclusively decided by the Supreme Court. On the contrary, it is noticed that on
06.07.2011 itself, on one hand, the IAs were decided by the order reported in (2011) 7 SCC 338 but on the other, a petition seeking transfer of
PIL No. 40 of 2007, being Transfer Petition (C) No.227 of 2010, was dismissed as not pressed and the PIL was left open for consideration by
the High Court.
In an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the issues involved in PIL No. 40 of 2007 [New No.2 of 2013] were neither directly
involved in the said IAs nor the said order [(2011) 7 SCC 338] could be considered conclusively deciding all the issues involved in PIL No.40 of
2007 [New No.2 of 2013].
For what has been discussed hereinabove, the order dated 05.03.2014 appears suffering from errors apparent on the face of the record when
the proceedings in PIL No.2 of 2013 were closed by this Court only on the basis of the said order passed by the Supreme Court in Lafarge
Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. [(2011) 7 SCC 338]; and it appears necessary and in the interest of justice that the PIL be restored for consideration on
its merit. We would hasten to observe that consideration of the PIL on merits would, obviously, include all the objections of the respondents too;
and, for that matter, even if the subject-matter of the PIL is otherwise not squarely covered by the aforesaid order in Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt.
Ltd., the effect of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court therein shall also be taken into consideration, to the extent applicable and
relevant for the purpose of this PIL.
With the observations foregoing, this review petition is allowed; the order dated 05.03.2014 is recalled; PIL No.2 of 2013 (Old No.40 of
2007) is restored for re-consideration.
In the interest of justice, it is also provided that before the said PIL is taken up for consideration, it shall be permissible for the parties to file
additional/supplementary affidavits as may be advised. The PIL be restored to its original number and be placed before the Court for orders after
six weeks. Review petition stands disposed of accordingly.