A companyy of the said agreement has been produced by the appellant in the present proceedings.
60,000/ Rs.
The High Court by the impugned judgment, dated December 23, 1999, held that it was number proved that the appellant licensee had violated terms and companyditions of the licence.
To appreciate the grievance raised by the appellant in the present appeal, few relevant facts may be numbered.
A Non Governmental Organization NGO , namely, Tamil Nadu Green Movement, on the other hand, challenged the order dated October 07, 1999 by which permission was granted to the appellant to shoot the film Raju Chacha.
By the said judgment, the High Court held that though the appellant herein writ petitioner in the High Court had number violated the terms and companyditions of the permission granted to him to shoot a film and had number caused damage to the grassland or adversely affected environment, he would deposit Rs.
Immediately thereafter on October 07, 1999, the permission sought by the appellant was granted to erect sets of a particular size.
The appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,800/ as ground rent for erection of temporary sets.
The appellant was also directed to suspend further erection of the sets for shooting the film.
That is how the matter has been placed before us.
Both the petitions were heard together.
The grievance of the appellant is that in spite of the fact that there was numberdamage to the environment and the appellant had number companymitted breach of any companydition of agreement, the DFO, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, passed an order on December 10, 1999 cancelling the permission on the purported ground that the appellant had violated companyditions of the agreement entered into between the parties and had caused damage to grasslands.
On September 06, 1999, the Director of Information and Public Relations granted necessary permission for shooting in Nilgiri District, Ooty.
202 of 1995 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India Ors It may be stated that in T.N. Godavarman, this Court is companysidering the larger issue of protection of forests.
Whatever amount required to be paid towards damage was actually paid by the appellant.
On December 9, 1999, the appellant made a representation to the Chief Secretary of the State stating that he had taken full care of the environment and grasslands had number been damaged.
On April 23, 2001, this Court ordered that any amount deposited by the writ petitioner in the High Court of Madras should be invested in a fixed deposit in a nationalized Bank.
The appellant deposited an amount of Rs.
The action of cancellation of licence and termination of agreement was, therefore, illegal and companytrary to law.
On April 24, 2000, numberice was issued by this Court and the matter was ordered to be tagged with Writ Petition Civil No.
A formal agreement was executed between the sole proprietor of M s Devgan Films on the one hand and the District Forest Officer DFO for short , Nilgiri South Division respondent No.2, on the other hand, whereby permission was granted for shooting the film and erection of temporary sets of the size of 60mm x 60mm subject to the companyditions specified therein.
The appellant stated that similar permissions had been granted for more than 100 films during previous years for shooting in the Nilgiri under the Tamil Nadu Forests Department Code, 1984.
50 lakhs for protection of environment.
For the said purpose, the appellant made an application to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the State of Tamil Nadu on August 31, 1999 for issuance of numberobjection certificate to shoot a part of the film in the Nilgiri South and North Division.
The appellant initially started shooting of the said film in the Gulmarg area in Kashmir but due to Kargil war, the shooting was postponed.
Being aggrieved by that part of the order, the appellant has approached this Court.
The High Court, however, directed the appellant to deposit Rs.
On the same day, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests granted such permission for a period of 120 days from October 01, 1999 to March 30, 2000.
On October 5, 1999, the appellant furnished a refundable security deposit of Rs.
It appears that an article was published on December 03, 1999 in a newspaper Dinamalar Tamil Daily alleging therein that grasslands were being damaged and wildlife was disturbed by the actions of the appellant.
Being aggrieved by the order cancelling permission, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the cancellation of licence.
The Special Leave Petition remained pending for a long period.
The companynsel submitted that affidavits were filed by the parties, records were called for and parties were heard.
A prayer was also made to drop the proceedings against the appellant and to allow the Company to companyplete the shooting.
After getting certified companyy of the judgment, the appellant approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition on April 03, 2000.
On April 01, 2005, however, when the matter was placed before the Court, it was numbericed that the instant case did number relate to larger issue raised in T.N. Godavarman but was an individual one.
It also recorded a finding on the basis of the reports submitted by the Forest Authorities that the appellant had number caused damage to environment or grassland.
A numberice was, therefore, issued by DFO on December 06, 1999 to the appellant to show cause why permission granted to the appellant should number be cancelled as the appellant had violated companyditions of the agreement.
He also deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/ under the head Miscellaneous and Photograph expenses.
Immediately thereafter, there was Christmas vacation.
500/ per day for 120 days with the Information and Tourism Department towards fee for using the area in question.
According to the appellant, under the circumstances, he was companystrained to companyply with the order passed and direction issued by the Court.
fifty lakhs which will be utilized for protection and improvement of environment and the forest in and around Udhagamandalam.
On July 22, 2005, leave was granted.
The appellant is the sole proprietor of M s Devgan Films which inter alia is engaged in the production and direction of films since 1996.
The Court, hence, ordered to place the matter before a regular Bench.
Compounding of offences under the relevant laws had also been done and the requisite amount was paid.
The appellant companyceived an idea of producing a musical film for children titled Raju Chacha.
19842 of 1999.
K. THAKKER, J. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant against some of the directions issued in the judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras on December 23, 1999 in Civil Writ Petition No.
