HC glare on tree felling for Khasi Hills ropeway
2
Guwahati: The High Court of Meghalaya directed the advocate general of the state and the advocate representing the petitioner, who has alleged indiscriminate and large-scale felling of trees in East Khasi Hills district, to visit the ropeway cable car project area in question and file a short report regarding the feasibility and possibility of carrying out afforestation work there.
The bench of Chief Justice IP Mukerji and Justice W Diengdoh last week was hearing the petition filed by Geraldine G Shabong. The petition was filed last year.
The bench stated that the report filed by the authorities transpires that the deforestation activity was carried out after obtaining due permission from the central govt under the relevant act and rules for the construction of the Shillong Peak Ropeway Cable Car Project at Raid Laban Reserve Forests and Raid Laban Forest by the state tourism department.
Senior advocate K Paul, counsel for the petitioner, argued that wherever deforestation occurs, the state govt is enjoined with a duty to effect 'compensatory afforestation'. However, the afforestation result in Meghalaya is the lowest in the country.
The court said the main submission of the petitioner's advocate now is that when the central govt has authorised deforestation for the Shillong Peak Ropeway Cable Car Project and such activity was carried out, there should be proper compensatory afforestation in the vicinity of the project rather than in any distant place, to make up any loss of ecological balance or loss in environmental elements.
Meanwhile, advocate general A Kumar submitted before the court that the state govt is prepared to carry out afforestation work but problems exist with regard to the availability of land in the subject area.
Following this submission, the court directed the advocate general and the petitioner's advocate to visit the subject area and file a report on the feasibility and possibility of carrying out afforestation work around the ropeway cable car project area.
The matter has been listed for the next hearing on Aug 14.
In a previous order, the court emphasised that trees are very precious to the state, contributing to its natural beauty, environment and ecological balance, and said it would only permit their felling if absolutely necessary for the preservation of life and property.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
Allahabad HC judge has made a mockery of justice, says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has passed a scathing order reprimanding an Allahabad High Court judge, choosing to name him while saying that he not only 'cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice'. The order brought to fore the Supreme Court's apprehensions about the High Court judiciary's performance. 'We are at our wits' end to understand what is wrong with the Indian judiciary at the level of the High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,' a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan wrote in a 19-page order dictated in open court on August 4 and published on Tuesday. The apex court recorded that the High Court judge in question, Justice Prashant Kumar, found nothing wrong in a litigant filing a criminal case against a buyer in a purely civil dispute over an unpaid balance of money in a sale transaction. In fact, the Bench said the High Court judge had found that registering a criminal case for 'criminal breach of trust' would be a quicker way to get the unpaid balance. A civil suit would be too laborious and time-consuming. 'The judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time… It was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process', the Supreme Court noted. Justice Pardiwala, the lead judge on the apex court Bench, asked how the ingredients of the offence of 'criminal breach of trust' would apply to a sale transaction. The offence would only arise if there was a fraudulent misappropriation of an 'entrusted' property. 'Mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment,' the apex court explained. Interestingly, even the local police had refused to lodge a criminal case, saying the nature of the dispute was purely civil. However, the Magistrate had gone ahead to register a criminal case, oblivious of the point that the dispute concerned only a sale transaction and payment of a balance amount. Justice Kumar had seconded the Magistrate's point of view, refusing to quash the criminal case. 'We are not taken by surprise with the Magistrate exhibiting complete ignorance of law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust … However, we expected at least the High Court to understand the fine distinction between the two offences and the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust,' the apex court rued. It further asked the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to remove Justice Kumar from the criminal roster and not assign any criminal case to the latter till he demitted office. 'The Chief Justice shall make the judge concerned sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court,' the Supreme Court noted.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Failure to lower National Flag after sunset not an act of gross affront: Kerala HC
Kochi: High court has held that a mere lapse or inaction in not lowering the National Flag after sunset cannot be regarded as an act of gross affront, indignity, or insult to the flag. Justice Kauser Edappagath made the ruling while allowing a petition by Vinu C Kunjappan, a former secretary of Angamaly municipality, seeking to quash a criminal case against him for allegedly dishonouring the National Flag. The allegation was that, during his tenure as secretary, he failed to lower the National Flag hoisted in the municipal office compound on Aug 15, 2015, and that it remained hoisted even two days later. Angamaly police had suo motu registered a case under Section 2(a) of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, read with Part III, Section III, Rule 3.6 of the Flag Code of India, 2002. Perusing the petition, HC noted that to attract Section 2 of the Act, a person must burn, mutilate, deface, defile, disfigure, destroy, trample upon or otherwise show disrespect to or bring into contempt the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India, in any public place or within public view. The court held that the act of not lowering the National Flag after sunset does not fall within any of the acts listed in Section 2. Further, prosecution had no case that this omission amounted to a gross affront or indignity to the National Flag. In the absence of any deliberate or intentional act, HC held that Kunjappan's conduct could not be considered a punishable offence under the law. Similarly, the Flag Code of India, 2002, contains executive instructions issued by the central govt and, therefore, does not qualify as "law" within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution. It serves as a model code of conduct, which is expected to be compulsorily followed by all citizens, but penal consequences cannot be invoked unless there is a specific statutory provision providing for such punishment. Accordingly, HC quashed the case and all further proceedings against the petitioner.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Can't monitor CM Relief Fund disbursement but hope there's no deviation from its purpose: HC
Mumbai: Bombay High Court has said it cannot monitor disbursement of money from the Chief Minister's Relief Fund, but it hopes and trusts the same is utilised strictly for the purpose for which it is operated and there is no deviation. A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, in the order on July 31, noted transactions of the fund can always be accessed by members of the public by seeking information under the Right to Information Act. "We cannot monitor the operation of the CMRF. We, however, hope and trust that the contributions made to the CMRF are utilised strictly for the objectives and purpose for which the fund is operated and that there is no deviation in any case," the court said. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai The HC disposed of a public interest litigation filed by city-based NGO 'Public Concern for Governance Trust', claiming the Chief Minister's Relief Fund was being used for purposes other than what it was established for. The plea said the CMRF should be used solely and exclusively to assist victims of natural calamities, disasters and upheavals, as was envisaged at the time of its formation. The government opposed the plea, saying that while initially the CMRF was set up to assist victims of natural calamities and disasters, its aims and objectives were expanded in November 2001. This was done in view of the increasing demands for victims of incidents other than natural calamities. The petition also sought the HC to form a committee to manage disbursement of money from the CMRF and also for an audit to be conducted. It alleged that the CMRF is being used by successive chief ministers for other reasons such as construction of cultural halls, sponsoring teams for tournaments, granting personal loans to political, social and cultural bodies and so on. The government said providing assistance for promotion of cultural and sporting activities was one of the objectives of the CMRF. The CMRF was being operated in a transparent manner and information related to its transactions could be obtained through the Right to Information Act, the government added. The high court in its order said it was a matter of policy decision of the state government to sanction and widen the CMRF's objectives. The petitioner cannot insist that the CMRF must be operated for the original purpose alone and there is no legal prohibition on widening of the objective of the CMRF, the judges said. The HC also refused to accept the petitioner's allegation of non-maintenance of CMRF's transparency and said the accounts of the trust are audited and income tax returns are filed.
