Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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