Holding

The High Power Committee may impose penalties greater than the original amount on the basis of records submitted, may decide cases where records were filed by 15 January 1998 even if orders are delayed, and units may seek reconsideration within one month of the order.

Summary

The Supreme Court had constituted a High Power Committee (HPC) to fix recovery norms for veneer extraction from timber and to levy penalties on units exceeding those norms. Units were required to submit their production records by 15 January 1998, but questions arose whether the HPC could impose a penalty larger than the one originally levied based on those records, and whether it could pass orders after the deadline. The Court held that, having fixed the norms after expert advice, the HPC is empowered to examine the submitted documents and impose a higher penalty if justified. It clarified that the HPC may pass orders in any case where records were filed by the statutory date, even if the order is delayed, and that any unit penalised may approach the HPC for reconsideration within one month of the order. The Court further noted that the HPC, performing quasi‑judicial functions, must briefly state the reasons for its orders. Consequently, the application by Amicus Curiae seeking clarification was disposed of, confirming the HPC’s authority to impose larger penalties and to entertain fresh applications for reconsideration.

Issues considered

Whether the High Power Committee can impose a penalty larger than the original penalty based on records produced by the units.
Whether the HPC may pass orders on cases where records were filed by 15 January 1998 even if the orders are delayed beyond that date.
Whether a unit against which a penalty has been imposed has a right to approach the HPC for reconsideration and, if so, within what time‑frame.

Subjects

environmental lawforest conservationhigh power committeepenaltyquasi‑judicialveneer recoveryexcess productionreconsiderationdeadline compliance

Judgment

A T.N.. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MAY 1, 2000

B [B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]

Environmental Law :
Protection and conservation offorests-High Power Committee consti-
tuted by Supreme Court-Penalty for excess production on units recovering
c veneer from timber-Norms adopted by HPC approved-HPC entitled to im-
pose penalty larger than the penalty originally imposed as long as this penalty
is based on records produced-HPC entitled to look into records and pass
orders in every case whose documents and material had been placed
before it by 15.1.1998-Unit concerned entitled to approach HPC for recon-
sideration •ifpenalty/additional penalty imposed by it-HPC discharging quasi-
)- -
D
judicial functions, would briefly indicate reasons in support of order passed
by it.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [1998] 1 SCR
211, order modified.
E T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [1997) 2 SCC
267, referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : LA. No. 565 of 2000.
IN
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995.
F
,(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General (AC), Mukul Rohtagi, K.N. Raval,
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor Generals, Anil B. Divan, Kapil Sibal,
P. Chidambaram, Dipankar Gupta, G.L. Sanghi, M.C. Bhandare, V.A. Mohta,
G M.N. Rao, V.R. Reddy, K.K. Veriugopal, Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Jayant Das, U.U.
Lalit, (AC), Mahendra Vyas, P.K. Manohar, A.D.N. Rao, S. Wasim A. Quadri,
Hemant Shanna, S.K. Dwivedi; P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Anil Katiyar, B.V.
Balram Das, (Ms. Su~hfua Suri), (NP), Rajiv Nanda, B.K. Prasad, Rajiv Tyagi,
Anip Sachthey, Allupam Lal Das, Ms. Sandhya Rajpal, Arijit Prasad, ~.K.
Agnihotri, Rajendra Singhvi, Mrs. Yogmaya, Vivek Tankha, Ms. Madhur
H Dadlani, Rakesh K. Sharma, C. Mukhopadhaya, Manish Kumar, Manoj
902
T.N. GODAVARAMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1. 903
Shanna, Gopal Jain. Ms. Nandini Gore, K.V. Vishwanathan, K.V. Vrjay Kumar A
Chauhan, Ravi Prakash Gupta, Prashant Bhushan, B .S. Banthia, T.S. Chowdhary,
B.R. Atre, Himanshu Shekhar, V.J. Francis, M.L. Lahoty, P.K. Shanna, Ashok
K. Gupta, Farrukh Rashid, Anil Shrivastav, (Mis. L.P. Agarwala & Co., Sakesh
Kumar, Uma Nath Singh, Sanjay R. Hedge, Satya Mitra, Naresh K. Shanna,
Ms. Sandhya Goswami, A Mariarputham, Ms. ArunaMathur, Anurag D. Mathur,
B
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ashok Mathur, Mahabir Singh, S.S. Shinde, S.V.
Deshpande, R.K. Mehta, Gopal Singh, R.B. Mishra, S.S. Shamshery, K.B.
Rohtagi, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Mahesh Kasana, V.G. Pragasam, Ranjan
Mukherjee, Ms. Binu Tamta, D.S. Mehra, Y.P. Mahajan, P.S. Narsimha, K.
Raghavacharyulu, P. Sridhar, K.N. Jha, Manoj Swarup, Sanjay Kapoor, Sunil
K. Jain, Davinder Singh, S. Sukumaran, M.C. Bhandari, R.P. Gupta, Mukul c
Rohtagi, Ms. Beena Prakash and Ujjawal Banerjee for the appearing parties.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

- -"- This is an application by the learned Amicus Curiae seeking clarifi-
D
cation in relation to the working of the High Power Committee which was
constituted by this Court.

The first clarification which is sought is with regard to the orders
passed by the High Power Committee (HPC) imposing a penalty based on
actual adjudication at the behest of the units even if it results in the imposition
E
of penalty larger than the penalty originally imposed. The question is whether
such a penalty and/or additional penalty which is imposed on the basis of the
documents produced by the units is valid and permissible.

The HPC fixed normal recovery norms after obtaining data and expert
advice from different sources. The norms so fixed showed as to how much F
veneer etc. could be recovered from the timber and it is on that basis·that
it proceeded to examine the records of the different units and then determined
whether there has been excess production indicating use of illegal timber and
thereby justifying imposition of penalty and/or additional penalty.
G
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are in agreement
with the norms adopted by the HPC. We also hold that on the basis of the
- .J, documents and records produced by the units, the HPC was and would be
entitled to impose penalty larger than the penalty originally imposed, as long
as this penalty is based on the records so produced.
H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R.

A A question has arisen with regard to cases where orders had not been
made by the HPC on or before 15th January, 1998. This Court's order dated
'"' December, 1996 had contemplated documents being filed and orders being
passed by 15th January, 1998. It is possible that due to volume of work, the
HPC may not have been able to pass orders by 15th January, 1998 even
though papers and other relevant material had been submitted to the HPC by
B
that date. We, therefore, make it clear that the HPC would be entitled to look
into the records and pass orders in every case where documents aµd material
had been placed before the HPC by 15th January, 1998. We further make it
clear that wherever any penalty and/or additional penalty has been imposed
by the HPC, the unit concerned will have a right to approach the HPC to
C examine the matter afresh. In modification of paragraph 14 of the order of
December 1996, we permit any unit in respect of which penalty and/or
additional penalty has been levied by the HPC to approach the HPC for
reconsideration on the basis of the material which it may choose to produce
provided such a request is made by the unit within one month of the passing )- -
D of the order by the HPC or, in those cases where orders have already been
passed, within one month from today.

Inasmuch as the HPC would in effect be discharging quasi-judicial
functions, it will be appropriate that the HPC may briefly indicate the reasons
in support of the order passed by it.
E
It is further clarified that wherever the HPC has given clearance to
a unit after 9th February, 1998, the unit will be entitled to relocation.

It is, however, made clear that no unit which had not furnished the
record and particulars before 15th January, 1998, will be entitled to the benefit
F to this order.

This I.A. stands disposed of.

R.P. Petition disposed of.