Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

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

Similar News