MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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