M.K. Janardhanam v. District Collector, Tiruvallur

A landowner filed a contempt petition in the Madras High Court. He said officials had not stopped illegal quarrying of sand from the Kusasthalai River, despite an order of 8 February 2000. The Court found large scale quarrying continuing and issued directions to the State Government for a scientific survey, a ban near bridges, and other measures.

Quick Revision

Read the full judgment: Indian Kanoon (unofficial copy)

Parties

M.K. Janardhanam — applicant; son of M.R. Krishnaswamy Naidu, of West Mambalam, Chennai. He was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 985 of 2000.

The District Collector, Tiruvallur District — respondent No. 1; filed the common counter affidavit for respondents 1 to 4.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri — respondent No. 2.

The Tahsildar of Ponneri — respondent No. 3.

The Assistant Director of Mines, Tiruvallur — respondent No. 4.

Sixth respondent in the writ petition — a private individual who filed a counter. Raghava Reddy and Sridhar are named as respondents 5 and 6 in the writ petition.

Mr. K. Ashok Chakravarthi — Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court.

Procedural History

1. Writ Petition No. 985 of 2000 sought a mandamus to respondents 1 to 4 to stop illegal quarrying of sand and savudu from the riverbed and bank of the Kusasthalai River (para 1).
2. The Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, who filed a detailed report with photographs (paras 3-4). His first inspection was on 29 January 2000 (para 8).
3. On 8 February 2000 the Court directed the respondents to ensure that the illegal quarrying was stopped forthwith (para 5).
4. Contempt Application No. 561 of 2001 was filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 after the applicant's telegrams and advocate's letter of 3 August 2001 (paras 1, 5).
5. The first respondent filed a counter sworn on 3 October 2001, filed into Court on 1 February 2002 (para 6).
6. On 15 March 2002 the Court directed the Advocate Commissioner to visit again and file a further report (para 7).
7. The Advocate Commissioner filed a further report on 11 April 2002 (para 8).
8. The Court asked the Advocate General to look into the matter, and the Collector filed an affidavit (paras 9, 11).
9. The Court decided the application, with costs, by the order dated 26 July 2002 (para 34).

Facts

1. The writ petition asked for a mandamus to stop illicit quarrying of sand and savudu from the riverbed, river bank and adjacent patta lands in Jagannathapuram and Inam Agaram villages, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District (para 1).
2. The first Advocate Commissioner's report found many lorry tyre marks, a damaged protective embankment, and earth excavated to 13.6 metres. It found pits up to 15 metres deep and excavation of about 12.5 to 14 metres near a burial ground (para 4).
   • The earth excavated at a burial ground was 50 metres wide and 8 metres deep.
   • Erosion ran 216.6 metres in S.No. 432 (odai poramboke), and 93.8 and 120.8 metres in S.No. 434 to an average depth of 11 metres.
   • A pit in S.No. 436 was about 100 by 55 metres and 15 metres deep. In S.No. 429 (river poramboke) earth was excavated 12.5 metres deep, 40 metres long and 29.4 metres wide.
   • Sand had been piled up for transport. The applicant had levelled his eroded land with bulldozers, and the Commissioner found erosion of 36 by 86 metres and 8.2 metres deep.
   • Excavated earth lay in S.Nos. 13/13 and 437, 32 by 40 metres and 9 metres deep. The burial ground pit in Jagannathapuram was 60 by 50 metres, 54.5 metres wide and 14 metres deep.
   • The Commissioner identified the check dam with the field measurement sketch given by the Village Administrative Officer.
3. Fresh track marks, a cotton wick lamp and steel plates marked SVB showed excavation only a few hours before the visit, presumably on the night of 28 January 2000 (para 4).
4. The applicant said indiscriminate quarrying eroded his own private land. The Commissioner found earth eroded from its boundaries and a track for lorries in the river bed (para 4).
5. After the order of 8 February 2000, the quarrying subsided for a few days and then began again (para 5).
6. The applicant sent telegraphic complaints between 9 March 2000 and 24 April 2001 naming individuals and lorry numbers. Respondents 1 to 4 took no action (para 5).
7. His advocate's letter of 3 August 2001 got no reply. On 11 August 2001 he complained to the Sholavaram Police Station, which said respondents 1 to 4 must act (para 5).
8. Sand quarrying was going on under the Karanodai Bridge on the GNT Road, which was newly laid after the old bridge fell due to illicit quarrying (para 5).
9. The Collector's counter said Deputy Collectors and officials were patrolling, and proceedings of 23 March 2000 ordered raids and seizures. It said 37 vehicles were seized from 15 March to 5 April 2000. A letter of 27 March 2000 from the Collector's predecessors sent a report and video coverage of the area to the Additional Advocate General (para 6).
10. It said 624 vehicles were seized from 1 April 2000 to 18 September 2001 and a penalty of Rs 1,51,22,317 was imposed (para 6).
11. The Revenue Divisional Officer reported bunds raised to 20 feet and no illicit quarrying. The writ petitioner's counsel wrote that respondents 5 and 6, Raghava Reddy and Sridhar, were quarrying with tractors and lorries. The Revenue Divisional Officer was asked to inspect on 16 August 2001, and sent his D.O. Letter of 10 September 2001 with inspection notes of 5 September 2001. His local enquiry also found no illicit quarrying. After a telegram of 25 September 2001, the Collector told the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer to patrol, and the Assistant Director of Mines to conduct surprise raids and report. The Collector tendered an unconditional apology if the Court found disobedience (para 6).
12. The petitioner's counsel produced snap shots showing that the authorities had not checked the activity. The Special Government Pleader produced snaps to the contrary (para 7).
13. The second report, of 11 April 2002, followed an inspection on 6 April 2002 with a Surveying Engineer and officials present (para 8).
14. It found continuous indiscriminate quarrying since the first visit, with deep pits like mine shafts from the check dam to the western village limit. It found no bund on the stretch between the check dam and Jagannathapuram (para 8).
15. It noted the 25 feet bund about 1-1/2 km from Jagannathapuram, and access on both banks for lorries and earth-movers. It said several thousands of lorry loads should have been excavated (para 8).
16. Villagers complained that quarrying went on from sunset to sunrise on week days, and day and night on holidays. They said ex-gratia payments were made to the Tahsildar every week, in the presence of officials (para 8).
17. The Commissioner inspected on 6 April 2002 with a Surveying Engineer, Thiru Chellaiah, and a Surveyor. The applicant, respondents 2 to 4, Revenue officials and both counsel were present. Quarrying was most pronounced on the southern bank. On the south-western bank near Sothuperumbedu Village he found pits about 10 metres deep, 117 by 73 metres. Photographs of the river bed east of the recently laid granite bridge show recent quarrying (para 8).
18. The officials told the Commissioner that action by them would endanger their lives (para 8).
19. The Collector's affidavit said the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department had proposed banning the river area. It said the Executive Engineer of the PWD had asked the Superintending Engineer to ban quarrying near Jagannathapuram and Inam Agaram and to write to the police. Since the offence is criminal, civil officials cannot deal with it more effectively than the police, who were asked to act under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Teams of Revenue officials patrolled, and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponneri posted police for patrolling (para 11).
20. It said about 10 vehicles were seized from 1 May to 28 May 2002 and 10 to 15 vehicles were kept out each day. Criminal cases (Crime Nos. 369/2002 and 372/2000, as printed) were filed on 2 May 2002 and 4 February 2002 at E-8 Sholavaram Police Station. The accused, Ellappan and Ramesh, were arrested and remanded, and the cases are under investigation (para 11).
21. It said Revenue teams and police were posted to patrol day and night. It said patrolling is not permanent, and PWD engineers should have the power to seize vehicles. A proposal would go to the Government through the Commissioner of Geology and Mining (para 11).

Issues Raised

1. Did respondents 1 to 4 wilfully disobey the order of 8 February 2000 in Writ Petition No. 985 of 2000 (para 1)?
2. What steps should the Court direct to stop illegal sand quarrying in the Kusasthalai River and in all rivers of the State (paras 10, 31)?
3. What recompense is due to the applicant and the Advocate Commissioner (paras 32-34)?

Arguments Contended

For the applicant (Mr. A. Venkatesan):

• Illegal quarrying continued in full swing after the order of 8 February 2000, in utter contempt of the Court's orders (para 5).
• The respondents did not act on the telegrams, the advocate's letter of 3 August 2001 or the police complaint. The police said respondents 1 to 4 must act (para 5).
• Photographs and the Advocate Commissioner's reports show continued quarrying (paras 4, 7-8).

For the respondents (Mr. N.R. Chandran, Advocate General, for Mr. P. Gunaraj, Special Government Pleader):

• Officials patrolled, seized 37 vehicles from 15 March to 5 April 2000 and 624 vehicles from 1 April 2000 to 18 September 2001, and imposed a penalty of Rs 1,51,22,317 (para 6).
• The Revenue Divisional Officer found no illicit quarrying and bunds raised to 20 feet. The Collector tendered an unconditional apology if disobedience were held (para 6).
• The Collector said criminal offences are better dealt with by the police and PWD officers need seizure powers. The Advocate General agreed the matter has serious connotations, assured all possible steps (paras 9-11).

Court's Reasoning

The order is by K. Sampath, J. of the Madras High Court. Paragraph numbers are those of the order. The first unnumbered paragraph is cited as para 1.

K. Sampath, J.

The reports and the Government's stand

1. Noted: The contempt petition alleges wilful disobedience of the order of 8 February 2000. The main writ petition sought to compel the statutory duty to stop illicit quarrying. (para 1)
2. Noted: Respondents 1 to 4 filed a common counter sworn by the first respondent. The sixth respondent, a private individual, also filed a counter, and the petitioner a reply. (para 2)
3. Noted: The Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner, and his detailed report has photographs. It records tyre marks, excavation of embankments and deep pits. (paras 3-4)
4. Noted: After the order of 8 February 2000, the illegal activity subsided briefly and then resumed. The applicant's telegrams, letter and complaint drew no action. (para 5)
5. Noted: The first respondent's counter is recorded. It lists patrolling, raids, seizures and penalties, and offers an unconditional apology. (para 6)
6. Noted: Snap shots from both sides were produced. On 15 March 2002 the Court asked the Advocate Commissioner to visit again and file a further report. (para 7)
7. Noted: The further report of 11 April 2002 records continuing indiscriminate quarrying and alleged weekly payments to the Tahsildar. It says officials feared for their lives. (para 8)
8. Noted: After going through the report, the Court asked the Advocate General to peruse the records and give his view. He agreed the matter cannot be allowed to drift and assured all steps to check illegal quarrying. (para 9)
9. Noted: The Court suggested that the Advocate General evolve a formula for Kusasthalai and for all rivers in the State where illicit sand quarrying is done. (para 10)
10. Noted: The Collector's affidavit says the departments took steps, the police were asked to act under Section 379 IPC, and patrolling is not a permanent measure. (para 11)

Nature, religion and the right to life

1. Noted: The Court cites an Atharva Veda verse on Mother Earth, and says the ancients worshipped the five elements of nature. It says earth is the paradise of man, and the ancients stressed care for natural resources. (paras 12-13)
2. Noted: The Court says all religions have environmental overtones and enjoin respect for nature, which is complementary to secularism. (para 14)
3. Held: Article 21 guarantees the enjoyment of life and its fulfilment. This embraces the protection and preservation of nature's gifts, and environmental degradation violates the fundamental right to life. (para 15)
4. Noted: The Stockholm Declaration says natural resources, including air, water, land, flora and fauna, must be safeguarded for present and future generations. Nature conservation must receive importance in planning for economic development. (para 16)
5. Noted: State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone (AIR 1981 SC 711) observed that rivers, forests and minerals are a nation's natural wealth. "Every generation owes a duty to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve the natural resources of the nation in the best possible way". (para 17)
6. Noted: A UNESCO publication on the Earth Summit at Rio says each generation should leave water, air and soil as pure as it found them. It should leave undiminished all the species of minerals. (para 18)

Sand mining and its effects

1. Noted: The Court refers to an article in The Hindu of 14 July 2002 on dredging for sand in Kerala and on ravaged rivers. (para 19)
2. Noted: What is happening is "not clandestine exploitation, but a bold unabashed robbery of nature's wealth". (para 19)
3. Noted: Sand mining has adverse and destructive effects. It has crippled riverine ecology and depleted the ground water table. It affects river bank stability and makes areas flood prone. The river bed goes far below the receiving canals. (para 20)
4. Noted: The Court lists other effects. Drain channels to lakes and tanks are blocked, and the sweet water aquifers that recharge and purify are destroyed. Base flow of ground water to the rivers increases, and sea water intrudes further upstream through back waters and river mouths, since too little sand reaches the mouths to form natural barriers. This leads to saline intrusion into ground water. (para 20)
5. Noted: Bridges and railway tracks are damaged, agricultural land floods where discharge channels are cut off from river basins, public roads are damaged, drinking water turns saline, mangrove ecosystems are destroyed, houses collapse, and private owners near river beds encroach the river bed. About 22,000 acres of direct irrigation in the Vaigai and Cauvery basins are affected. Lorry traffic causes accidents, noise and dust. (para 20)
6. Noted: Natural denudation of hard rock into sand takes millions of years, and extraction exceeds replenishment. Alternative materials are needed. Deepening the river bed increases soil erosion. Reduced sediment supply depletes beach sand and increases coast line erosion. (para 21)
7. Noted: The Court records large scale illicit sand mining in the Tamiraparani, Vaigai, Amaravathi, Palar, Araniyar and Kusasthalai river beds, among others. The Hindu says a mafia controls the business through an unholy nexus of contractors, politicians, trade union leaders, panchayat and revenue officials and corrupt policemen. Contractors who quote marginal amounts for auction rights extract many times the permitted sand while enforcement agencies turn a blind eye, making a mockery of the regulations. (para 22)
8. Noted: Local political leaders anchor the operation as conduits for bribes. Kingpins evade the law by alternating with illegal operations in forest and liquor businesses. (para 23)
9. Noted: The Government is deprived of huge royalty. (para 24)
10. Noted: There is no proper legal provision for action on illegal sand mining. Policies are dictated by short term considerations such as elections or partisan pressure. The rules are not scrupulously followed in granting permits for sand quarrying. Officials who should check illegal quarrying join hands with sand smugglers. (para 25)

Constitutional and legal duties

1. Noted: Articles 48-A and 51-A emphasise protection and improvement of the natural environment. The phrase protect and improve implies affirmative governmental action to improve environmental quality. (para 26)
2. Noted: Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 contains the parliamentary mandate to improve environmental quality. Courts increasingly rely on directive principles as complementary to fundamental rights. (para 26)
3. Noted: The Court quotes M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (J.T. 1996(1) SC 467): "The State is a trustee of all natural resources and is under a legal duty to protect them". (para 27)
4. Noted: People's Watch, Tamil Nadu held a public hearing on 19 February 2002 in Chennai, and the Court used materials from its proceedings. (para 28)
5. Noted: On 14 July 1999, Shanmugam, J. in Writ Petition Nos. 10632/98 etc. gave six directions to the Government. (para 29)
6. Noted: They were to define river banks with permanent marks in all rivers where quarrying is permitted, to fix a normal sand bed level, and to ban extraction where the bed is below that level. (para 29)
7. Noted: They were also to form a river management committee, by the District Collector or Tahsildar with voluntary agencies, and to keep wastes and impurities, especially from septic tanks, out of the rivers. They were also to evict encroachments summarily, and to give the Forest Department priority to conserve forests at the origin of rivers. (para 29)
8. Noted: It was "only a cry in wilderness". Nothing appears to have been done, and things have gone from bad to worse. (para 30)
9. Noted: The Hindu reported on the collapse of the Karanodai Highway Bridge, and on the Lakshmipuram Anicut across the Araniar, which was washed away. A fresh anicut needed Rs 3 or 4 crores. (para 30)
10. Noted: The Court quotes Gide Andre: everything has been said already but nobody is listening, and we must always begin again. It calls this a sordid commentary on the state of affairs. (para 31)
11. Noted: The enormity of the problem suffocates, and the apathetic and lukewarm approach of those in power baffles and pains. Scores of Judges have said the same, and their directions were not implemented. (para 31)
12. Held: Still the Court issues directions in the hope they will be implemented, in addition to those of Shanmugam, J. (para 31)

Directions, compliments and costs

1. Held: "No stone should be left unturned to annihilate the pernicious practice of exploitation of natural resources jeopardising the long term interest of the people". The suggestions are broad and may be added to. (para 31)
2. Held: Under Articles 48-A and 51-A(g), it is every citizen's fundamental duty to protect and improve the natural environment. The petitioner should be complimented for discharging this duty at risk to his safety, and deserves recompense. (para 32)
3. Held: The Advocate Commissioner did a commendable job and is to be paid adequately. He was paid Rs 18,500, and the applicant must pay a further Rs 10,000 within two weeks. (para 33)
4. Held: The petitioner spent Rs 22,258, and with the Rs 10,000 the Government must reimburse Rs 32,258 within four weeks as costs in the contempt petition. The contempt petition is ordered accordingly. (para 34)
5. Noted: The order is practically a consent order. The Advocate General appreciated the Court's concern and shared the view that something very drastic was warranted. The Court places on record the assistance of the Advocate General and the Special Government Pleader. (para 35)

Authorities

• State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s Hind Stone (AIR 1981 SC 711): natural resources belong to all generations and must be conserved. Quoted (para 17).
• M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (J.T. 1996(1) Supreme Court 467): the State is a trustee of natural resources. Quoted (para 27).
• Shanmugam, J. in W.P. Nos. 10632/98 etc. (order of 14 July 1999): six directions to the State Government on river banks, sand levels, a river management committee and encroachments. Noted as not implemented (paras 29-31).
• Other sources: the Atharva Veda (para 12); the Stockholm Declaration (para 16); a UNESCO publication on the Earth Summit at Rio (para 18); The Hindu article of 14 July 2002 (paras 19, 22, 30); Gide Andre, quoted in para 31.
• Names as spelt in the source text: M.K. Janardhanam vs The District Collector (the case title, as Janardhanam v. The District Collector); Section 37 9 I.P.C. (for Section 379, in para 11); STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. M/S HIND STONE; M.C. MEHTA VS. KAMAL NATH; W.P.Nos.10632/98 (given as 10632/92 in para 31).

Provisions mentioned

• Section 12, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: punishment for contempt, the basis of the application (para 1).
• Section 379, Indian Penal Code: theft, invoked for illicit quarrying (paras 11, 31).
• Article 21, Constitution: right to life, which embraces protection of nature's gifts (para 15).
• Article 48-A and Article 51-A(g), Constitution: State and citizen duty to protect and improve the natural environment (paras 26, 32).
• Section 3, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: parliamentary mandate to improve environmental quality (para 26).

Judgement

1. These directions are in addition to what P. Shanmugham, J. directed in the earlier writ petitions (para 31). The Government must constitute a high level committee of scientists, geologists and environmentalists within one month of the order (para 31, direction 1).
2. The committee must tour the State, conduct a scientific survey of sand quarrying in rivers and river beds, and report within six months. The report must address the damage from indiscriminate and illegal quarrying and suggest remedial steps (para 31, direction 1).
3. On receiving the report, the Government must act on its guidelines, take necessary steps to arrest exploitation and restore the status quo ante, and pass suitable regulatory legislation. It must act fast and without delay (para 31, direction 2).
4. In the meantime, there should be a total ban on sand quarrying near motor or rail bridges. The distance between bridges and the quarrying area should be at least 500 metres (para 31).
5. The distance between the riverbank and the mining area should be at least 10 to 15 metres, and sand pits should not exceed 1 to 1-1/2 metres in depth (para 31).
6. While granting a licence, the local public should be taken into confidence and allowed to air views and raise objections (para 31).
7. Stringent action should be taken against violators of the terms of a grant. Prosecution under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code should be launched, severe penalties imposed, and heavy compensation collected (para 31).
8. A special river protection force of high calibre personnel should be mobilised to patrol the river areas and apprehend culprits (para 31).
9. Officials, such as the Executive Engineer or Assistant Executive Engineer, should be vested with power to seize vehicles involved in illicit quarrying and transport (para 31).
10. District Courts may be empowered to entertain complaints of sand mining, order investigation, appoint commissions and suspend operations (para 31).
11. Items 4 to 10 are broad suggestions. The Court says there can be additions and elucidations to make the object more effective and result oriented (para 31).
12. The applicant must pay the Advocate Commissioner a further Rs 10,000 within two weeks (para 33).
13. The Government must pay Rs 32,258 to the petitioner within four weeks as costs in the contempt petition (para 34).

Legal Principle / Ratio

Article 21 embraces protection and preservation of nature's gifts, and Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) call for affirmative government action to protect and improve the environment. The State is a trustee of natural resources. The Court gave directions for a scientific survey, regulatory legislation and interim protective measures against illegal sand mining. It quotes the State's trusteeship duty from M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath. The Court quoted, "The State is a trustee of all natural resources and is under a legal duty to protect them".

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

The order does not decide contempt in terms. The judgment records the Collector's unconditional apology if disobedience is held. It then orders the contempt petition accordingly, with costs, and calls the order practically a consent order. It does not state a finding of wilful disobedience.

The Court relied on a newspaper article and a public hearing. It cites The Hindu article and the People's Watch hearing for the effects of sand mining and the nexus of interests. The judgment does not say these were tested by evidence before the Court.

The directions are broad suggestions. The Court calls the items in para 31 broad suggestions that may be added to. Some, such as District Court powers, are stated as options and not as fixed orders.

Significance

• The Court linked Article 21 with protection of nature and said environmental degradation violates the right to life.
• It described illegal sand mining as a robbery of nature's wealth and detailed its ecological effects.
• It asked for a scientific survey, regulatory legislation and interim bans and safeguards for all rivers of the State.

Exam-Important Points

• Facts in one line: sand quarrying continued in the Kusasthalai River after a High Court order, and the applicant filed a contempt petition. The Court gave directions for all rivers.
• Rule: Article 21 embraces protection of nature, and Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) call for protect and improve.
• Rule: the State is a trustee of natural resources (M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath).
• Trap: this is a High Court order on a contempt application, described as practically a consent order.
• Directions: a high level committee in one month, a report in six months, a total ban within 500 metres of bridges, and a special river protection force.
• Costs: the Government reimburses Rs 32,258 within four weeks. The applicant pays the Advocate Commissioner a further Rs 10,000 in two weeks.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. Paragraph numbers follow the Madras High Court order text; law reports may number the same paragraph differently.