At, Supreme Court of India
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
For the Petitioners: Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Advocate, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR, Thangathurai, Advocate. For the Respondents: ------
Applications for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment, exemption from filing official translation, exemption from filing notarized affidavit and permission to additional documents/facts/annexures are allowed.
Permission to file special leave petition is granted.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the FIR has been registered against the petitioners in pursuance to the impugned order which is contrary to the principles set forth by this Court in Sarabjit Rick Singh v. Union of India [(2008) 2 SCC 417] (page 49 of the paper book.) since the petitioners were not a party to those proceedings and consequently was not heard. It is his submission that petitioner No.4 before the High Court is a journalist having his own agenda and the petition is replete with allegations against the petitioner without impleading the petitioners in those proceedings.
Learned senior counsel has also drawn our attention to the occupancy certificate at page 161 to contend that the construction has taken place in accordance with the sanctioned plan and on permissible land though the mangrove is an adjacent area. His submission is that if there is a violation of the mangrove laws, the consequences would flow.
We enquired from the learned senior counsel as to what is the inspection report dated 8.02.2019 referred to in the impugned order and learned senior counsel submits that it is a non-statutory report but has drawn our attention to Annexure P-15 page 231 dated 20.12.2019 recording that in certain areas, there are no mangroves at Navghar and as per the approved development plan, the place is included in the non-development area.
We put to learned senior counsel that while on the first aspect we may be inclined to examine the matter, the consequences would flow if it is found that on inspection there is any a)unauthorized construction; b) construction on mangrove land and c) the mangrove has been destroyed. Learned senior counsel submits that he has obtained instructions that the petitioners will take consequences, if they so flow.
Issue notice on the Special Leave Petition as we
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ll as on prayer for interim relief returnable on 15.02.2021. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 be served dasti through standing counsel while respondent No.3 be also served dasti in addition. A copy of the order to accompany the notice.