Holding

Renewal of quarry leases granted before the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is not a matter of right; the Act prevails and renewal without Central Government approval is prohibited.

Summary

Ambica Quarry Works and others held quarry leases for minor minerals that were granted before the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force. After the Act, they applied for renewal of these leases under Rule 18 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966, but the applications were rejected because the lands were classified as reserved forest and renewal required prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of the 1980 Act. The appellants argued that the word "may" in the rule created a duty to renew and that their existing leases exempted them from the Act. The Supreme Court held that the 1980 Act, whose purpose is to prevent further deforestation, prevails over the pre‑1980 rules and that renewal without Central Government approval is not a matter of right. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether leases granted prior to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 can be renewed under Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 after the Act's commencement.
Whether the term "may be renewed" in Rule 18 creates a duty or a right to renewal for the lessee.
Whether Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 bars renewal of quarry leases without prior Central Government approval.
Whether prior dereervation or existing quarry operations exempt the renewal from the provisions of the 1980 Act.

Legislation cited

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980s. 2
Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966s. Rule 18(b)(i)

Subjects

forest conservationmineral lease renewalForest (Conservation) Act 1980Gujarat Minor Mineral Rulesenvironmental lawstatutory interpretationdeforestation

Judgment

A
AMBICA QUARRY WORKS & ANR.
v..
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

DECEMBER 11, 1986
-
B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.]

Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966: Rule 18-Renewal of lease- ~
Lease granted prior to coming into operation of Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980-Renewal whether mcndatory.

C Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Pre-existing mining leases-
Renewal of-Whether could be daimed as a matter of right. J.
Interpretation of statutes--/nterpretation must sub-serve and help
implement intention of Act. Expressiorr 'may' when not construed as ~
'shall'.
D
Constitution of India:· Article 141-Precedent-Ratio of a deci-
sion to be understood in the background of facts of the case.

Sub-clause (b)(i) of rule 11! of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1%6,
which were framed under Act fi7 of 1957, provides that the lease for all
E minerals specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) may be renewed by the
competent officer for one or m11.re periods not exceeding ten years at one
time.

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, brought into
force on 25.th October, 1980 provides that notwithstanding anything
F contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no
State Government or other au1tbority shall make, except with the prior
approval of the Central Gover1lllllent, any order directing (i) dereserva·
tion of reserved forest, and (ii) the use of forest land for non-forest
purposes.

G The appellants had bet'n granted leases for quarrying minor
minerals prior to the cominJ!; into operation of the 1980 Act. Their
applications for renewal of leases under r-18 of the Rules were rejected
by the competent authority on the ground that the lands fell under the
reserved forests which were governed by the 1980 Act. Their revision
applications failed, and the High Court also rejected the writ petitions
H filed by them.

562
'-
AMBICAQUARRYWORKSv. STATEOFGUJ . 563

.... _.., In the appeals by special leave, it was contended for the appel-
A
lants that the conditions preced~nt for. the operation or the Act were not
existing, that there was no question of extending for non-forest
purposes forest lands, since their's were existing quarry leases in areas
which were at the _relevant time dereserved fQrests, that they had not
committed any breach or the terms or grant uor there were any other
;. ..... " factors disentitling them to such renewal, that the "words 'may be re- B
newed' in r.18(h)(i) should be read as 'shall be renewed', and so read
they make it incumbent on the Government to renew the lease if the
lessee so desired, and as they had invested large sums or money in
mining operations a duty was cast on the authorities to exercise the
power granting permission in a manner that they ·could receive full
J benefit of their investments.
c
-.- For the respondents it was contended that after the coming into
operation of 1980 Act there was no .question or renewal of the leases
because it had prevented renewal or lease without the approval of the
Central Government.
D
Dismissing the appeals, the Court,

HELD: I. Whether the power is one coupled with a duty must
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and must be so
decided by the ~ourts in each case. [569D I
1-- E
1.2 The Gujarat Minor Minerals Rules, 1966 dealt with a situa-
lion prior to the coming into operation of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980. While under r.18 orthe Rules there was power to grant renewal,
which might have cast a duty on account of the investments made by the
appellants in the areas covered by the quarrying leases, they could not
claim renewals as a matter or right after the Act was brought into force. F
~
-..;
;
Their applications were rejected on good grounds. The orders of the
appropriate authorities deal with the situation. [569G, F, 570B]

Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, [1880] 5 Appeal Cases 214 and
Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn. 229, referred to.
G
2.1 All interpretations mtist subserve and help implement the
...... intention of the Act. The primary purpose of the Act of 1980 is to
prevent further deforestation and ecological imbalances. Therefore, the
concept that power coupled with duty enjoined upon the respondents to
renew the lease, stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation
manifest in the Act. The primary duty was to the community and that H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A took precedence over the obligation to the individuals. [573C,A,569H-570A]

2.2 The appellants are asking for renewal of the.quarry leases. It
will lead to further deforestation or at least it will not help reclaiming
back the areas where deforestations have taken place. The Central
Government bas not granted approval. H the State Government was of
B the opinion that this was not a cru:e where it should seek approval of the
Central Government, the State c;··ovemment could not apparently seek
such approval. [572G, 573A]

3. The ratio of any decisfon must be understood in the back-
ground of the facts of that case. A case is only an authority for what it
C actually decides, and not what logi '3lly foUows from it. [572C]

Quinn v. Leathern, [1901] A~•peal Cases 495, referred to.

State of Rajasthan v. Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal, [1965] 3 SCR
402, State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram .\1odi and Others, [1985] 3 SCC 643,
D distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
4250-4251 of 1986.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9th August, 1985 of the Gujarat ~
E High Court in Sp!. Civil Appln. No. 2471 of 1985 and 6218 of 1983.

Govind Dass, S.H. Sheth, Mio. H. Wabi and M.V. Goswami for
the Appellants.

P.S. Potio, T.U. Meh!a, and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J: We grant leave in these two
special leave applications and dispofe of these appeals arising out of
the decisions of the High Court of Gujarat by the judgment herein.
G
The two appeals centre round the question of how to strike
balance between the need of exploitation of the mineral resources .y
lying bidden in the forests and the preservation of the ecological
balance and to arrest the growing environmental deterioration and
involve common questions of law. In the appeal arising out of special
H leave petition No. 12041of1985 the appellant firm bad been granted a
AMBICAQUARRYWORKSv. STAIBOFGUJ. [MUKHARJl,J.] 565

quarry lease for the minor mineral black trap at S. No. 73 of Village A
Morai of Taluka-Pardi, in .the District of Valsad in the State of
Gujarat ..The lease was granted on or about 8th November, 1971 for a
period of ten years. The area comprised of 13 acres of land for quarry-
ing purpose. Three persfns were granted -2-1/2 acres of land each and
the remaining -5-1/i acres of land were placed at the disposal of
Industries, Mines and Power Department for the purpose of granting B
quarry lease from the same.· The case of the appellant was that the said
lands were dereserved from the forest: area from 1971.

On or about 3rd August, 1981 when the appellant's term of lease
~_ was about to expire, the appellant applied for renewal of lease as per
rule 18 of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called the c
said Rules). The application of the appellant for renewal of lease was ··
..,.. rejected by the Assistant Collector, Valsad, on the ground that the
land fell under the "Reserved Forest" area and hence the Forest (Con-
servation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter called '1980 Act') applied to the
forests. The forest department of State of Gujarafrefused to give 'no
objection' certificate. The contention of the appellant was that by the D
order dated 29th November, 1971; the forest department had dere-
served the said land from the reserved area and had allotted the land
for the quarrying purpose to the appellant. The contention of the
appellant was as the land was under the control of the Industries,
··..I... Mines & Power department, the 1980 Act did not apply to the same.
An appeal was preferred by the appellant which was dismissed by the E
Director, Industries, Mines and Power department Government of
Gujarat on or about 4th March, 1985.
_.,.-/'

It is asserted by the appellant that on or about 29th January,
1983, the Government had issued two circulars instructing the
Director of Geology and Mining and other 'luthorities not to issue the F
leases in the fresh area issued by the State Government. The appellant
thereafter filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat. The High
Court of Gujarat dismissed the petition. The appellant has come up in
appeal before this Court from the said decision. The appeal arising out
of S.L.P. No. 12041 of 1985; hereinafter mentioned as first appeal.
G
The case of the appellants in the second appeal is that on diverse
dates quarry leases. had been granted to the said appellants. There
were ten of them. Eight of the appellants got their first renewal of their
quarry leases in 1976-77. Appellant No. 9 applied for first renewal in
August, 1979. Appellant No. 6 applied for first renewal on 20th July,' H
1982. In 1982, some of the appellants except appellants 6 to 9 applied
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

-,.
A for second renewal to the Collector. In. December, 1982, second '
renewals were .refused by the Collector. Revision filed by the appel·
!ants against the order of the Collector was rejected by the Director,
Geology and Mining in 1983 and in December, 1983, writ petition
often described as special civil application was filed before the High
Court, challenging the refusal to renew. The High Court rejected the
B said writ petition. The second appeal herein arises out of the said
~-
decision in August, 1985 of the High Court of Gujarat. (

Both these appeals invo:1ve the question, whether after coming
into operation of 1980 Act, the appellants were entitled to renewal
either first or second of their quarry leases?_Jn this connection it is ~

c necessary to refer to the 1980 Act. This was an Act passed by the ~
Parliament to provide for the conservation of forest and for matters
connected therewith or ancillary thereto. The Statement of Objects of _,,
the said Act is relevant. It is st •led that deforestation caused ecological
imbalances and led to environmental deterioration. It recognised that
deforestation had been taking place on a large scale in the country and
D it had thereby caused widespread concern. With a view to checking
further deforestation, an Ordinance had been promulgated on 25th
October, 1980. The Ordinance made the prior approval of the Central
Government necessary for d1:reservation of reserved forests and for
the use of forest land for non· forest purposes. The Ordinance had also
provided for the constifution of an advisory committee to advise the .Jr
E Central Government with regard to grant of such approval. The 1980
Act replaced the said Ordinance. The Act extends to the whole of India
except the State of Jammu & Kashmir, and came into force on 25th
October,, 1980. Section 2 of lhe said Act is only relevant for our pre-
•
sent purpose. It provides as follows:
•
F "2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of
forest land for non-forest purpose -Notwithstanding any-
thing contained in any other law for the time being in force
in a State, no Stote Government or other authority shall
make, except with the prior approval of the Central
Government, aQy order directing-
G
(i) that any :reserved forest (within the meaning of the
expression "reserved forest" in any' law for the time _..
being in force in that state) or any portion thereof, ' ·
shall cease to be reserved;

H (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be
used for any non-forest purpose. ·
\

AMBICA QUARRY WORKS v. STATE OF yUJ. [MUKHARJI, J.] · 567

- .. >,-- Explanation.-For the purposes of this section "non-forest A
purposes" means breaking up or clearing of any forest land
or portion thereto for any purpose other than re-affore-
station."

The said section makes it obligatory for the State Government to
obtain the permission of the Central Government for (1) dereservation B
of reserved forest and (2) for use of forest land· for non-forest
purposes. It is apparent, therefore, that the two dual situations were
intended to be prevented by the legislation in question, namely dere-
servation of reserved forest, and use of forest land for non-forest
purposes.

·In the instant appeals leases for quarrying purposes had been
c
granted -prior to the coming into operation of the Act in question. Shri
Gobind Dass, learned counsel for the appellant in the first appeal and
Shri Sheth learned counsel for the ap_pellants in the. second appeal con-
tended that there was no question of extending for non-forest purposes
forest lands. There were existing quarry leases in one case first renewal D
wa~ sought and in some other cases second or third renewals were .
being sought. Therefore these were at the relevant time dereserved
forests. Neither of the two contingencies sought to be prevented was
there·. The conditions precedent for the operation of the Act were not
there in the facts of these appeals, it was urged.

Our attention was drawn to rule 18 of Gujarat Minor Mineral
Rules, 1966 which were framed under the Act 67 of 1957 hy the
Government of Gujarat. The rules provided for the period of the
lease, renewals and availability of areas already granted and sub-clause
(b )(i) of the said rule 18 of the said Rules provides as follows:
F
"(b)(i) The lease for all minerals spllcified in su\>-clause (i)
of clause (a) may be renewed by the competent officer for
one or more periods and the period of renewal at one time
shall not exceed ten years and the total period for w)lich the
lease may be renewed shall not exceed twenty years in the
aggregate." G

Shri Sheth drew our attention to rule 3 of Part VIII (page 62) of
the Manual which 'deals with the procedure of granting renewals
under the rules.

On the other hand Shri Mehta~ counsel for the respondents in the H
(

568 SUPREME COUIC REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A first appeal and Shri Poti, counsel for the respondents in the second
appeal contended before us that aftc'r coming into operation of 1980
Act there was no question of renewill of the leases because this Act
had prevented renewal of the lease without the approval of the Central
Government.

B Shri Gobind Dass, however, placed strong reliance on State of '"t- '
Rajasthan v. Hori Shankar Rajendra Pal, [1965] 3 SCR 402. That was a
decision dealing with Rajasthan Mhes Minerals Concessi<m Rules,
1958. This Court in that case was con :erned with Rule 30 under Chap-
ter IV under the said Rajasthan Ruks. This Court observed that the
word '•may' in the proviso in rule 30 in regard to the extension of the .t
C period by Government should be construed as 'shall' so as to make it
incumbent on Government to extend the period of the lease if the _i......
lessee desired extension. The Rajasthan Rules provided, inter alia, as -...
follows:

"Period of lease-A mining lease may be granted for a
D period of 5 years unless the applicant himself desires a
shorter period;

Provided that the period may be extended by the
Government for another period not exceeding 5 years with
option to the lessee for renewal for another equivalent
E period, in case the lessee guarantees investments in
machinery, equipments and the like, at least to the tune of
20 times the value of annual dead-rent within 3 years from
the grant of such extension. The value of the machinery,
equipment and the like shall be determined by the Govern-
ment. Where the lease i.s so renewed, the dead rent and the
F surface rent shall be fixed by the Government within the
limits given in the Second Schedule to these rules, and shall
in no case exceed twice the original dead-rent and surface
rent respectively, and the royalty shall be charged at the
rates in force at the time of renewal."

G It was submitted by Shri Gobind Dass that the said rule was in
pari materia with sub-rule (b) of rule 18 of Gujarat Minor Mineral
Rules 1966. Often when a public authority is vested with power, the T
expression 'may', has been construed as 'shall' because power if the
conditions for the exercise are fulfilled is coupled with duty. As
observed in Craies On Statute Law, 7th Edition, page 229, the expres-
H sion "may" and "shall" have often been subject of constant and con-
/
AMBICA QUARRY WORKS v. STATE OF GUJ. [MUKHARJI, J,] 569

flicting interpretation. "May" is a permissive or enabling expression A
but there are cases in which for various reasons as soon as the person
who is within the statute is entrusted with the power, it becomes his
duty to exercise it As early as 1880 the Privy Council in Juliw v. Lord
Bishop of Oxford, 1880, 5 Appeal Cases, 214. explained the position.
Earl Cairns, Lord Chancellor speaking for the judicial committee
observed dealing with the expression "it shall be lawful" that these 8
words confer a faculty or power and they do not of themselves do more
than confer a faculty or power. But the 'Lord Chancellor explained
· there may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be
done, sometimes in the object for which it is to be done, something in
the conditians under which it is to be done, something in the title of
the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, c
which may couple the power with i duty, and make it the duty of the
person in whom the power is reposed, to exercise that power when
called upon to do so. Whether the power is one coupled with a duty
must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and must
be so decided by the courts in each ca~. Lord Blackbum observed in
the said decision that enabling wor~ were always compulsory where D
the words were to effectuate a legal right

Here the case of the appellants is that they have invested large
sums of money in mining operations. Therefore, it was the duty of the
-j,., authorities that the power of granting permission should have been so
, exercised that the appellants had the full benefits of their investments.
E
It was emphasized that none of the appellants had committed any
breach of the terms of grant nor were there any other factor8 disentitl-
ing them to such renewal. While there was power to grant renewal,
and in these cases there were clauses permitting renewals, it might
have cast a duty to grant such renewal in the facts and circumstances of
F
the cases specially in view of the investments made by the appellants in
the areas covered by the quarrying leases, but renewals cannot be
claimed as a matter of right fort~ following reasons.

The rules dealt with a situati~n prior to the coming into opera-
tion of 1980Act. '1980 Act' was an Act in recognition of the awareness
that deforestation and ecological imbalances'as a result of deforesta- G
tion . have become social menaces and further deforestation and
ecological imbalances should be prevented. That was the primary
purpose writ large in the Act of 1980. Therefore the concept· that
power coupled with the duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew
the lease stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation as manifest in H
1980 Act in the facts and circumstances of these cases. 11lc primary
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] l S.C.R.

A duty was to the. community and that duty took precedence, in our
opinion, in these cases. The obligation to the society must predomi-
.11ate over the obligation to the individuals~.
. y

For the same reasons we are unable to accept tlie view that the
ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
B Hari Shankar Rajendra Pal (supra) could be invoked in the facts and
. circumstances of these cases to demand renewal. Furthermore it
appears to us from the affidavits in opposition filed on behalf of the
respondents that there were good grounds for not granting the renewal
of the lease'..The orders of the appropriate authorities in both these
· · cases deal with the situation. ·
c
Both Shri Gobind Dass as well as Shri Sheth, however, relied very
heavily on the decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram
Modi and Others, (1985] 3 SCC 643. As the said decision .dealt with
section 2 of the 1980 Act, it is necessary to refer to the facts of that
case. 'rhi:re'a mining lease for winn1ng mica was granted by the State
D · Govern;,..ent in respect of an area of 80 acres of land which formed
part of reserved forest before coming into force of 1980 Act. However,
the. forest land had been dug up and mining operations were being
carried on only in an area of 5 acres out of the total lease area of 80
acres. While carrying on mining ·operations, the rei;pondent came
across two associate minerals felspar and quartz in the area. The
E. respondent in that case, therefore, made an application to the State
Government for execution of a Deed of Incorporation to include the·
said minerals also in the lease. Though the 1980 Act had come into
force, the .State Government executed the Deed. of Incorporation in-
corporating these items without obtaining prior sanction of the Central
Government under. section 2 of 1980 Act. Since the respondent in that
·. F ~ case made a statement before the Court that he would carry on the·
mining operations only on 5 acres of land which had· i!lready been
utilised for non-forest purposes even before the Act came into force,
the·question for determination was whether prior approval of the
·Central Government under section 2 of 1980 Act in' the facts of that~·
. case was necessary for the State Government for granting permission
G to win associate minerals also within the same area of 5 acres of land?
· This Court answered the question in negative and affirmed the judg-
i••
......__,_ ment of the High Court. This Court observed at pages 647 and 648 of
the report as follows:

"The relevant parts of Section 2 of the Act which have to
H be construed for purposes of this case are clause (ii) of and
AMBICAQUARRYWORKSv. STATEOfGUJ. [MUKHARJI,J.l 571

the Explanation to that section. Clause (ii) of Section 2 of A
the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no
State Government or other authority shall make, except
with the prior approval of the Central Government, any
order directing that any forest land or any portion thereof
B
may be used for any non-forest purpose. Explanation to
Section 2 of the Act defines "non-forest purpose" as break-
ing up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for

-
any. purpose other than reaforestation. Reading them
together, these two parts of the section mean that after the
commencement of the Act no fresh breaking up of the
forest land or' no fresh clearing of the forest on any such c
land can be permitted by any State Government or any
authority without the prior approval of the Central
Government. But if such permission has been accorded
before the coming into force of the Act and the forest land
is broken up or cleared then obviously the section cannot
D
apply. In the instant case it is not disputed that. in an area of
five acres ·out of eighty acres covered by the mining lease
the forest land had been dug up and mining operations
were being carried on even prior to the coming intoforce of
the Act. If the State Government permits the lessee by the
• amen'dment of the lease deed to win and remove felspar
E
and quartz also in addition to mica it cannot be said.that the
State Government. has violated Section 2 of the Act be-
cause thereby no permission for fresh breaking up of forest
land is being given. The result of taking the contrary view
will be that while the digging for purposes of winning mica
can go on, the lessee would be deprived of collecting fels-
F
par or quartz which· he may come across while he is carrying
on mining operations for winning mica. That would lead to
an unreasonable result which would not in any way sub-
serve the object of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view
that while before .,granting· permission to start· mining
operaticms on a virgin area Section 2 of the Act has to be
G
complied with it is not necessary to seek the prior approval
of the Central Government for purposes of carrying out
mining operations in a forest area which is broken up or
cleared before the commencement of the Act. The learned
counsel for respondent I has als0 given an undertaking that
respondent I would confine his mining operations only to H
the extent of five acres of land. on which .mining operations '
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R.

have already been carried out and will not feel or remove
._.,.'
A
any standing trees thereon without the prior pennission in
writing from the Central Government. Taking into consi-
deration all the relevant matters, we are of the view that
respondent 1 is entitled to carry on mining operations in
the said five acres of land for purposes of removing felspar
B and quartz subject to the above conditions."
.... •
The aforesaid observations have been set in detail in aider to under-
stand the true ratio of the said decision in the background of the facts
of that case. It is true that this Court held that if the pennission had
4
been grant~d before the coming into operation of the 1980 Act and the
c forest land has been broken up or cleared, clause (ii) of section 2 of .~

•
1980 Act would not apply in such a case. But that decision was
rendered in the background of the facts of that case. The ratio of any
decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that
case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for
'"
what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. (See,
D Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathern) [1901] Appeal Cases 495. But in
view of the mandate of Article 141 that the ratio of the decision of this
Court is a law of the land, Shri Gobind Dass submitted that the ratio of ,
a decision must be found out from finding out if the converse was not
correct. But this Court, however, was cautious in expressing the
reasons for the said decision in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi &
E Others (supra). This Court observed in that decision that the result of ..... ' .
taking the contrary view would be "that while digging for purposes of
winning mica can go on, the lessee would be deprived of collecting
felspar or quartz which he may come across while he is carrying on ~

mining operations for winni11g mica. That would lead to an unreasonable ·
result which will not in any way sub-serve the object of the Act."
F There was an existing lease where mining operation was being carried
on and what was due by incorporation of a new tenn was that while
mining operations were being carried on some other minerals were
..,
I

avbailable, he was given right to collect those. The new lease only
permitted utilisation or collection of the said other minerals.

G In the instant appeals the situation is entirely different. The appel-
lants are asking for a renewal of the quarry leases. It will lead to
further deforestation or at least it will not help reclaiming back the
areas where deforestations have taken place. In that view of the
matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the
ratio of the said decision cannot be made applicable to support the
H appellants' demands in these cases because the facts are entirely diffe-
AMBICAQUARRYWORKSv. STATEOFGUJ. [MUKHARJI,J.) 573

rent here. The primary purpose of the Act which must sub-serve the A
interpretation in order to implement the Act is to prevent further
deforestation. The Central Government·has not granted approval. If
the State Government is of the opinion that it is not a case where the
State Government should seek approval of the Central Government,
the State Government cannot apparently seek such approval in a mat- B
ter in respect of, i9 our opinion, which it has come to the conclusion
that no renewal should be granted.

In that view of the matter and the scheme of the Act, in our
opinion, the respondents were right and the appellants were wrong.
All interpretations must sub-serve and help implementation of the
intention of the Act. This interpretation, in our opinion, will sub-serve C
the predominant purpose of the Act.

In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain· the submis:
sions urged in support of these appeals. The appeals therefore fail and
are accordingly dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of
these appeals, however, we direct the parties to pay and bear their own D
costs.

P.S.S. Appeals dismissed .

•