ALLOCATIONS OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN FAIR AND TRANSPARENT MANNER- ‘2G SCAM CONTROVERSY’

ALLOCATIONS OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN FAIR AND TRANSPARENT MANNER- ‘2G SCAM CONTROVERSY’

1407
0
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
ALLOCATIONS OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN FAIR AND TRANSPARENT MANNER- ‘2G SCAM CONTROVERSY’
ALLOCATIONS OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN FAIR AND TRANSPARENT MANNER- ‘2G SCAM CONTROVERSY’

Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

(2012) 3 SCC 1

JUDGES: G. S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly

Date of Decision: 02-02-2012

FACTS:-

The Petitioners have filed this appeal questioning the grant of UAS Licences to the private respondents by contending that the procedure adopted by the DoT was arbitrary, illegal and in complete violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. They have relied upon the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge of the Delhi High Court as also the judgment of the Division Bench, which was approved by this Court and pleaded that once the Court has held that the cut-off date, i.e., 25.9.2007 fixed for consideration of the applications was arbitrary and unconstitutional, the entire procedure adopted by the DoT for grant of UAS Licences with the approval of the Minister of C&IT is liable to be declared illegal and quashed.

ISSUE:-

Whether the Government has the right to alienate, transfer or distribute natural resources/national assets otherwise than by following a fair and transparent method consistent with the fundamentals of the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution?

JUDGMENT:-

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that even if there is no universally accepted definition of natural resources they are to be considered as elements having intrinsic utility to mankind. They are thought of as the individual elements of the natural environment that provide economic and social services to human society and are considered valuable in their relatively unmodified, natural, form. These natural resources belong to the people but the State owns them on behalf of its people and from that point of view these are considered as national assets, more so because the State benefits immensely from their value. The State is empowered to distribute natural resources, but however they constitute a national asset, the State while distributing natural resources, is bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest. Like any other State action, constitutionalism must be reflected at every stage of the distribution of natural resources. It has also been provided under Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India that ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be so distributed so as to best sub-serve the common good. This ownership regime relating to natural resources can also be ascertained from international conventions and customary international law, common law and national constitutions.

In India, the Courts have given an expansive interpretation to natural resources and from time and again issued directions, by relying upon the provisions contained in Articles 38, 39, 48, 48A and 51A (g), for protection and proper allocation/distribution of natural resources and have repeatedly insisted on compliance of the constitutional principles in the process of distribution, transfer and alienation to private persons. The doctrine of public trust which was evolved in the case of Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois [146 U.S. 387 (1892)] has been reiterated in the case of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388] and various other judgments. The Court in this regard held that the natural resources are vested with the Government as a matter of trust in the name of people of India, thus it is the solemn duty of the State to protect the national interest and natural resources must always be used in the interests of the country and not private interests. As natural resources are public good, the doctrine of equality, which emerges from the concept of equity and fairness, must guide the State in determining the actual mechanism for distribution of natural resources. In this regard, the doctrine of equality has two aspects viz., firstly, that it regulates the rights and obligations of the State vis-à-vis its people and demands that the people be granted equitable access to natural resources and/or its products and that they are adequately compensated for the transfer of the resource to the private domain and secondly that, it regulates the rights and obligations of the State vis-à-vis private parties seeking to acquire/use the resource and demands that the procedure adopted for distribution is just, non-arbitrary and transparent and that it does not discriminate between similarly placed private parties.

HELD:-

The Court held that State is the legal owner of the natural resources as a trustee of the people and although it is empowered to distribute the same, but the process of distribution must be guided by the constitutional principles including the doctrine of equality and larger public

To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts,Please click here   

To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

NO COMMENTS