Smt. Ambika Ghorpade vs. State of Karnataka, Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and Ecology and Environment and Ors. MANU/KA/0209/2009

Second Respondent registered FIR against Petitioner on basis of report made by Lokayukta for alleged forest offences – Hence, this Petition. Whether report of Lokayukta could be basis for registering First Information Report against Petitioner and to pass order seizing iron ore alleged to had illegally mined in forest area as well as tools, vehicles and machinery used for such illegal mining. Held, encroachment of forest area stands clearly established and that satellite imagery obtained would prima facie show that Petitioner had encroached upon forest area outside leased out area which was offence by itself. Therefore authorities duty-bound to prevent such illegal encroachment and mining operations apart from seizing machineries and to confiscate same by appropriate proceedings. Once there was prima evidence to show that Petitioner had encroached upon forest land and operating its activity outside limits of leased out area, Respondents had no option except to initiate criminal action against Petitioner by filing FIR and seize minerals mined outside leased out area together with tools, machineries and vehicles used in commission of offence and also to confiscate same in appropriate proceedings. Thus it was held that Lokayukta report and satellite sketch relied on in Lokayukta report could be basis for filing FIR and passing order of seizure. Petition disposed of. Therefore when evidence was yet to be collected and produced before Court and Respondents were prepared to substantiate illegal mining operation by Petitioner, it might not be proper for Court to use inherent pouter to stifle legitimate prosecution or to give prima-facie decision hastily, Hence it might not be proper for Court to quash F.I.R. at this stage. Petition disposed of. Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Whether, Second Respondent was empowered to seize machinery, equipment, iron ore and vehicles belonging to Petitioner for having committed illegal mining operation in forest area It was held, as quarry was located in forest area and mining lease was granted only subject to approval of Central Government and agreement entered with State Government, Respondents forest authorities had every right to initiate action against persons who violate terms of lease and conditions of lease agreement and KF Act. Further Respondents authorities also empowers to seize, confiscate and forfeit forest produce, tools, vehicles and machineries that were used for illegal removal of forest produce – Thus such exercise of power could not be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. Petition disposed of. Violations of conditions of lease agreement, According to Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 Whether authorities of Forest Department were empowered to take action against violations of conditions of lease agreement, Held, it was admitted that quarry was located in forest area, Therefore mining lease granted to Petitioner in such forest area was subject to conditions imposed by Central Government and State Government while exercising power conferred under Section 2 of Act. Thus while exercising power conferred under Section 2 of Act, agreement was entered into between Petitioner and Respondent wherein Petitioner had agreed to comply with conditions incorporated in said agreement. Under Condition No. 23 of said agreement Petitioner had also agreed that Respondent had power to suspend mining licence if conditions agreed to by Petitioner while executing agreement were violated – Therefore Respondent was empowered to suspend licence if conditions agreed to by Petitioner/lessee were violated – Petition disposed of. Ratio Decidendi “Once it is found that Person has encroached upon forest land and operating its activity outside limits of leased out area, then Authority shall initiate criminal action against him.”