T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
- SCC(2000) 10 SCC 579
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A court may direct the personal presence of senior government officers before it where there is evidence of systemic inaction, negligence, or casual approach by subordinate officials toward addressing serious breaches of court orders, in order to fix responsibility and ensure effective compliance with the court's directions. A court may issue a show cause notice for contempt of court against a public officer whose conduct, as detailed in a court-constituted committee's report, demonstrates non-compliance with or obstruction of the court's orders. A court may direct law enforcement authorities to provide protection and security to citizens and witnesses who have assisted the court in investigations or fact-finding exercises and who have been threatened as a result of providing such assistance.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. We have perused the report of the Committee constituted by this Court's order dated 7-1-1998, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, . The report given after visiting the site discloses an alarming situation of lawlessness requiring urgent drastic action to stop the illegal activities in the area in question. Shri I.K. Dalela, Director of Geology and Mining, Government of Uttar Pradesh, is present in the Court. In response to our query as to when he came to know for the first time of the illegal mining activities in that area, he told us that it was only on Saturday, 10-1-1998 that he came to know of this fact for the first time when the Committee constituted by the Court visited the site. He also tells us that he has been in this office for the last 5 years. These facts to be taken into account while fixing the responsibility of the persons responsible for commission of the illegalities and for conniving with the same. In view of the magnitude of the problem and the inaction of the authorities so far, the fact that the Director of Geology and Mining is even now most casual in his approach towards the problem, as is evident from his demeanour in court before us, we have no option except to require the personal presence of some of the seniormost officers of the State Government before we issue further directions in the matter.
2. In these circumstances, we direct that the Chief Secretary of the Government of U.P. should remain personally present in the Court tomorrow (14-1-1998). The counsel for the State of U.P. would ensure the presence of the Chief Secretary by taking such steps as are necessary to inform him of this order.
3. The Director, Geology and Mining would also remain personally present in court.
4. In view of the contents of the report of the Committee, particularly paras 9 and 10 thereof, we also issue notice to Shri V.L. Das, Mining Officer of the area to show cause why proceedings to punish him for contempt of court should not be initiated against him. The reply be filed within 2 weeks.
5. The learned amicus curiae submitted that this morning Shri A.M. Khanwilkar, a member of the Committee has been informed on telephone that after the office-bearers and other members of the Vindhya Kisan Sabha had met the committee members and apprised them of the facts, they had been threatened by some miscreants for having given information to the Committee. Amicus curiae submitted that in these circumstances an appropriate order may be made to ensure proper protection and security to these persons and members of their families who have assisted the Committee since they have been threatened on account of assistance they have rendered to the Committee at the time of the spot inspection under the orders of this Court. We are of the opinion that the said direction is required to be made immediately.
6. Accordingly, we direct that the Director General of Police of U.P. and the IGP concerned of the zone will ensure proper protection and security being given to the office-bearers of the Vindhya Kisan Sabha and Narsingh Singh, @ Netaji, Pushpraj Singh, Anand Shekhar and Secretary of Vindhya Kisan Sabha who have assisted the Committee in the performance of its task under the orders of this Court. The learned counsel for the Government of U.P. will take immediate steps to apprise the authorities concerned of this direction to enable them to take immediate steps for this purpose.
7. The Conservator of Forests, Shri V.K. Thakur is present. We are informed that he has assisted the Committee in the spot inspection. He reiterates the facts stated in the report of the Committee. Shri Thakur further informs us that ever since he assumed this office about a year back he had been protesting against the illegal mining activities and for this purpose he had also informed the Mining Department as well as the District Magistrate, but to no effect. We appreciate the work of the Conservator Shri V.K. Thakur in this direction and hope that he and other such officers would be able to do the needful hereafter.
8. List the matter tomorrow (14-1-1998).
IA No. ... 0/1998 (filed by Mr P.K. Manohar, Advocate) in WP No. 202 of 1995
9. Issue notice to the Government of Karnataka through Standing Counsel. Reply be filed within 2 weeks.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free