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

- **Citation:** [2000] 3 S.C.R. 902
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2000-05-01
- **Case number:** LA. No. 565 of 2000
- **Bench:** B.N. Kirpal, V.N. Khare, M.B. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/t-n-godavarman-thirumulpad-v-union-of-india-and-ors-17433
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Environmental Law :
Protection and conservation of forests-High Power Committee constituted by Supreme Court-Penalty for excess production on units recovering
veneer from timber-Norms adopted by HPC approved-HPC entitled to impose 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 reconsideration •if penalty/additional penalty imposed by it-HPC discharging quasijudicial functions, would briefly indicate reasons in support of order passed
by it.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., [1998] 1 SCR
211, order modified.
E
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., [1997) 2 SCC
F
G
H
267, referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : LA. No. 565 of 2000.
IN
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995.
,(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,
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
Dadlani, Rakesh K. Sharma, C. Mukhopadhaya, Manish Kumar, Manoj
902
)- -
- -"-
- .J,
T.N. GODAVARAMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1.
903
Shanna, Gopal Jain. Ms. Nandini Gore, K.V. Vishwanathan, K.V. Vrjay Kumar
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,
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
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 clarification 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
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.
A
B
c
D
E
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.
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
documents and records produced by

## Text

A
B
c
D
T.N .. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
MAY 1, 2000
[B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.]
Environmental Law :
Protection and conservation of forests-High Power Committee constituted by Supreme Court-Penalty for excess production on units recovering
veneer from timber-Norms adopted by HPC approved-HPC entitled to impose 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 reconsideration •if penalty/additional penalty imposed by it-HPC discharging quasijudicial functions, would briefly indicate reasons in support of order passed
by it.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., [1998] 1 SCR
211, order modified.
E
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., [1997) 2 SCC
F
G
H
267, referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : LA. No. 565 of 2000.
IN
Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995.
,(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,
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
Dadlani, Rakesh K. Sharma, C. Mukhopadhaya, Manish Kumar, Manoj
902
)- -
- -"-
- .J,
T.N. GODAVARAMAN THIRUMULPAD v. U.0.1.
903
Shanna, Gopal Jain. Ms. Nandini Gore, K.V. Vishwanathan, K.V. Vrjay Kumar
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,
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
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 clarification 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
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.
A
B
c
D
E
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.
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
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.
G
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
B
'"' 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
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.
E
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.
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.
)- -