Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal GST Officer Froze Business Accounts Without Any Legal Basis, Ignored Taxpayer for Three Months: Bombay High Court Imposes Personal Costs Weapon Recovered, But No Forensic Report, No Independent Witness — Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused

Unprecedented Case Demands Extraordinary Remedies: Madras High Court Ordered For Swift Action on Illegal Mining

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision by the Madras High Court, Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan called for immediate and significant action against the rampant illegal sand mining in the state. In his observation, the judge stated, “Extraordinary situations demand extraordinary remedies,” highlighting the urgent need for systemic changes to combat environmental degradation.

The court’s ruling was pronounced on October 11, 2023, after a series of criminal revision cases were presented challenging the denial of the return of vehicles seized by authorities under allegations of illegal sand mining. The vehicles were held under the scrutiny of Sections 379 of the IPC and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

Justice Ramakrishnan emphasized the constitutional and statutory duty of the government to protect the environment, as mandated by Articles 51 A and 48 A of the Constitution and the MMDR Act. He pointed out the inefficacy of the current system in dealing with illegal mining and underscored the importance of confiscation proceedings as a deterrent, stating, “The illegal mining is in fact increasing due to the lethargic attitude on the part of the law enforcing authorities.”

The court criticized the slow pace of confiscation proceedings, with data showing that out of 63,542 vehicles seized for illegal mining, proceedings were initiated for only 2,218 and completed for a mere 385. In response, the court has directed the Director General of Police to ensure the initiation of confiscation proceedings within 30 days, and the concerned judicial officers to dispose of these proceedings expeditiously within six months.

Furthermore, the court suggested the establishment of special courts dedicated to handling cases under the Mines and Minerals Act to prevent further environmental damage and effectively implement the law.

Advocates representing various petitioners, along with the Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, participated in the proceedings that led to this significant judgment. The court has set a date for reporting compliance, indicating the seriousness with which it views the enforcement of environmental laws and the protection of natural resources.

The High Court’s decision serves as a clarion call for action, stressing that the time for change is now. It reiterates the judiciary’s role in not just interpreting the law but ensuring its execution for the greater good of society and the environment.

Date of Decision: 11.10.2023

Ramar VS The State

Latest Legal News