High Court of Karnataka Considers Challenge to Forest Notification as Ultra Vires the Constitution and Forest Laws — Mining Companies Allege Notification Violates Article 246 and Entry 54 of Union List, Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The matter involved multiple writ petitions filed before the High Court of Karnataka by several mining corporations and mineral industries, including National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (NMDC Ltd.), Vedanta Limited (formerly SESA Goa Limited), Federation of Indian Mineral Industries (Southern Region), and other individual miners. The petitioners challenged a notification dated 16.8.2008 issued by the State Government under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, which was published in the Gazette on 27.8.2008. They contended that the notification was ultra vires the Constitution of India, particularly Article 246 read with Entry 54 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule), and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, a Central Act. The petitioners argued that the notification encroached upon the legislative domain of the Union and violated the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Additionally, certain petitions also impugned demand notices dated 18.9.2013 and 21.9.2013 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Chitradurga Division. The lead petition, W.P. No. 2642/2009, sought a declaration that the notification was void. The State defended the notification through the Advocate General. The High Court constituted a Division Bench comprising the Acting Chief Justice and a lady Justice to hear the batch of cases. The judgment addressed the core issue but the detailed reasoning and operative portion were not included in the provided extract.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State Government's notification dated 27.8.2008 under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is ultra vires Article 246 of the Constitution and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (KAR) (12) 10

Writ Petition No.2642/2009 (GM-MM-S) and connected matters

2015-12-03

Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, B.V. Nagarathna

K. Raghavacharyulu for Petitioner; Ravivarma Kumar (Advocate General), A.S. Ponnanna (Additional Advocate General), Y.H. Vijay Kumar (Additional Government Advocate) for Respondents

National Mineral Development Corporation Limited (NMDC Ltd.) & Others

State of Karnataka through its Secretary, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil writ petition challenging a government notification as ultra vires the Constitution and forest laws.

Remedy Sought

To declare the notification dated 27.8.2008 as ultra vires and void, and to quash demand notices dated 18.9.2013 and 21.9.2013.

Filing Reason

The notification allegedly infringed upon mining rights and exceeded the State's legislative competence under the Constitution and violated the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Issues

Whether the notification dated 27.8.2008 issued under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 is ultra vires the Constitution, particularly Article 246 read with Entry 54 of List I, and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 246, Entry 54 of Seventh Schedule, List I (Union List)
  • Karnataka Forest Act, 1963:
  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Considers Challenge to Forest Notification as Ultra Vires the Constitution and Forest Laws — Mining Companies Allege Notification Violates Article 246 and Entry 54 of Union List, Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Forest (Conser...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Holds That Exclusive Jurisdiction for Arbitration Matters Lies with Court Where Place of Arbitration Is Located, Not Where Prior Applications Were Filed. The Court Relied on the Principle That the Designation of a Seat of Arbitratio...