Judicial Trends and Public

Interest Initiatives UNIT 2 FOREST CASES AND RESPONSES

(CASE LAWS)
Structure
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Objectives
2.3 The Forest (Conservation) Act: An Overview
2.2 The Genesis of the Godavarman Case
2.5 Orders and Judgments
2.5.1 Working Plan
2.5.2 Mining
2.5.3 Compensatory Afforestation
2.5.4 Saw Mills and Wood Based Units
2.6 Summary
2.7 Terminal Questions
2.8 Answers and Hints
2.9 Glossary
2.10 References and Suggested Readings

2.1 INTRODUCTION
The subject of forest has received special attention of the Supreme Court since
the year 1996 when the Court on a weekly basis started hearing a petition titled
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [‘Godavarman’ for short]. The
understanding of the some of the orders in Godavarman is crucial for it shows
the scope of public Interest litigation but also how the Courts fill up gaps in
existing laws and policies. Through the Godavarman case, the Supreme Court
has dealt with a wide range of issues concerning the subject of forest. It set up a
Committee to assist it in dealing with forest issues i.e the Central Empowered
Committee (under Section 3 (3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
This unit provides an overview of some of the major issues related to forest on
which the Court has passed significant orders.

2.2 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit, you should be able to:
z explain the genesis and development of Supreme Courts role in forest
governance;
z describe how the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is applicable and
interpreated; and
z examine some of the significant decisions with respect to mining, saw mill
and compensatory afforestation.

18
 Forest Cases and Responses
2.3 THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) ACT, 1980:AN (Case Laws)
OVERVIEW
The Forest (Conservation) Act, was enacted in 1980 and subsequently amended
in 1988. Section 2 of the Act forms the core and states that ‘no State Government
or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central
Government, any order directing-
i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest”
in any law for the time being in force that State) or any portion thereof, shall
cease to be reserved;
ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest
purpose;
iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or
otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or
any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;
iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have
grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for
reafforestation.
Explanation-For the purpose of this section, “non-forest purpose” means the
breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for -
a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants,
horticultural crops or medicinal plant;
b) any purpose other than reafforestation; but does not include any work relating
or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forest and wild
life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless
communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams,
waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purpose.

Self Assessment Question

1) Why is cultivation of Tea, Coffee and Horticultural crops treated as ‘non
forest purpose’?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

2.4 THE GENESIS OF THE GODAVARMAN CASE

The genesis of the Godavarman case was a result of the non-responsiveness of
various State Governments to the issue of forest conservation. The Writ Petition
filed by Environmental Awareness Forum (W.P. 171 of 1995) and the T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad (W.P. 202 of 1995) on limited and restricted issue of
forest conservation was extended by the Supreme Court on 02.09.1996, when the
19
Judicial Trends and Public Court directed the issue of Notice to Chief Secretaries of all the State Governments
Interest Initiatives other than States that were already made parties. The Court in its order noted that
“inspite of notice being issued to all the State Governments, many of them have
not entered appearances”. The Court, therefore, directed the issue of fresh notice.
Unfortunately, even this did not result in much response. The Court in its order
dated 28.11.1996 observed that inspite of notice been served on all the State
Governments, there is no representation on behalf of most of the State
Governments. The Court felt that the version of the North Eastern States in
particular is necessary ‘but no assistance to that effect was available to the Court
on account of absence of any representation at that time on behalf of any of the
seven North Eastern States’. The Court emphasized the fact that “it is necessary
that effective representation on behalf of each of the seven North Eastern States
be ensured during the entire hearing of this matter”. It, therefore, directed the
personal presence of the Secretary dealing with Forest and Environment of each
of the seven North Eastern States along with the Secretaries of Sikkim, Kerala
and Maharashtra during the hearing of this matter.
On the next date of hearing i.e. on 12.12.1996, the Supreme Court passed an
Interim order that was to be one of the most significant decisions of the Court on
an environmental issue. The order of 12.12.1996 became the basis for the
subsequent judicial involvement in forest conservation.
Among the most significant orders passed by the Supreme Court in Godavarman
was the order of 12.12.1996 which clarified certain provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 [FCA] and also extended the scope of the Act.
The Supreme Court observed in its order of 12.12.1996 stated that there is
misconception in certain quarters about the true scope of the Act and the meaning
of the word “forest” used therein. There is also misconception about the need of
prior approval of the Central Government. The Court order dealt with the following
aspects–
Dictionary Meaning of Forest
The Court did a purposive interpretation of the Act, and held that the Act was
enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in
ecological imbalances, and therefore, the provisions made therein for conservation
of forests must apply to all types of forests irrespective of the nature of ownership
or classification. Most significantly, the Court held that:
z The word “forest” must be understood according to the dictionary meaning.
The Court clarified that this description covers all statutorily recognized forest,
whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of
Section 2(i) of the Act.
z The term “forest land” as occurring in Section 2 will not only include “forest”
as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in
the Government record irrespective of the ownership.
z The provisions enacted in the Act, for the conservation of forests must apply
clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or
classification thereof.
Identifying Forest
20 Having extended the scope of the Act by including diverse categories as “forest”,
the Court directed each State Government to constitute within one month an expert Forest Cases and Responses
committee to: (Case Laws)

z Identify areas which are ‘forests’ irrespective of whether they are so notified,
recognised or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of
the land of such forest;
z Identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or
cleared; and
z Identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and
those belonging to persons.
Specific Directions on Non Forest Activities
The Court directed that in accordance with Section 2 of the Act, “all ongoing
activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior
approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith”. Significantly, the
felling of trees in all forests was to remain suspended except in accordance with
working plans of the State Government, as approved by the Central Government.
Specific orders were passed for the North Eastern State and especially for Tirap
and Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh
and hill regions of Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu. Most importantly, it was directed
that this order (i.e. 12.12.1996) will operate and be implemented notwithstanding
any order at variance, made or which may be made by any Government or any
authority, tribunal or court, including the High Court1.
Thus, began the engagement of the Supreme Court on a continuing basis with the
issue of forest conservation. This case came to be known popularly as the
Godavarman2 case or less commonly the ‘forest conservation case’3. The prime
focus of Godavarman was the effective implementation of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. However, as the case progressed, the Wild life
(Protection) Act, 1972 [WPA] and all State and local laws relevant for forest
conservation also came within the purview of the Godavarman case.
Godavarman and Centre for Environmental Law
Forest conservation law in India is now impacted not only by the outcome of the
Godavarman case but also the ongoing litigation concerning the National Parks
and Sanctuaries through the Centre for Environmental Law WWF-India v. Union
of India, (W.P. 337 of 1995). Although, in principle the case concerns the issue of
settlement of rights in National Parks and Sanctuaries, yet its scope is much beyond
this issue. Perhaps, the most significant was the order dated 13.11.2000, wherein
the Supreme Court through an interim order restrained all State Government from
dereserving National Parks, Sanctuaries and Forests. The order reads as follows:
“This Court while directing to list the above application after five weeks DOTH
ORDER THAT pending further orders no dereservation of Forests/Sanctuaries/
National Parks shall be effected.

1
This was further reiterated in order dated 04.03.1997.
2
Incidentally, the petitioner, TN Godavarman Thirumulpad has little to do with the subsequent
developments in the case.
3
Shyam Diwan and Armin Rosencranz, Environmental Law and Policy in India 289 (Oxford
University Press, 2nd ed., 2001).
21
Judicial Trends and Public AND THIS COURT DOTH FURTHER ORDER THAT this ORDER be
Interest Initiatives punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned”
The inclusion of the word ‘forest’ is significant and adds a completely new
dimension to the implementation of forest law in the country and specifically of
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act. 1972
The combined implication of the Godavarman and Centre for Environmental
Law case can be summarized as follows:
z The Court by order dated 12.12.1996 in Godavarman restrained all State
Governments from using forest land for non-forest purpose without the prior
approval of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of
Section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation ) Act, 1980.
z The Court by the same order stayed all non-forest activities insofar as they
were being carried out without prior approval of the Central Government.
Thus, the decision of 12.12.1996 aimed at ensuring the proper and effective
implementation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

2.5 ORDERS AND JUDGMENTS

2.5.1 Working Plan
The Godavarman case attracted significant attention when on 12.12.1996 the
Court in its order ‘suspended’ the felling of trees in all forest except in accordance
with the working plans of the State Governments which were approved by the
Central Government. It was brought to the notice of the Court that most of the
working plans on the basis of which timber were harvested were based on plans
which placed primacy to commercial consideration over ecological and social
concerns. The issue of working plans was dealt with extensively in the order
dated 15.01.1998, The Court directed that working plans for all forest divisions
shall be prepared by the State Governments and approval will be obtained from
the Government of India. It was clarified that the term ‘State Government’ would
also include District Councils constituted under Schedule VI of the Constitution
of India. The working plans would have to be prepared within a period of two
years. During the intervening period, the forest shall be worked according to an
annual felling program approved by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. In
respect of District, Regional and Village Council Forests, it was directed that the
same shall be worked in accordance with worked with working scheme which
has to specify both the program for regeneration and harvesting. It was however
clarified that the plantation schemes raised on private and community holding
shall be excluded from these requirements but will be regulated under the respective
State rules and regulations. For the purpose of preparing the working plans, the
States were directed to constitute a state level expert Committee to be headed by
the PCCF.
Very interestingly, the Court in its above order directed the North Eastern States
to identify ecologically sensitive areas in consultation with Institutions such as
the Indian Council of Forest Research and Education, Wild Life Institute of India,
North Eastern Hill University, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and
Technology and NGOs and ensure that such identified ecologically sensitive areas
are totally excluded from any kind of exploitation, The Court further stipulated
22 that minimum extent of such area shall be 10% of the total area of the State.
Subsequently, (on 12.05.2001), the Court laid down detailed guidelines for the Forest Cases and Responses
felling of trees from forest areas as well as non forest areas including plantation. (Case Laws)
As per the order, the felling of trees from forest areas could be allowed only as per
the approved Working Plans/schemes, whereas the felling of trees from non forest
area could be allowed only as per detailed guidelines which are prepared by the
State Government with the concurrence of the Central Government. This order,
together with the order of the Court on 15.01.1998 forms the guidelines for felling
of trees. The highlights of the Order dated 12.05.2001 were-
i) Felling of trees from forest shall be only in accordance with working plans/
schemes or felling schemes approved by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests.
ii) Such working plans/schemes shall also be needed for felling of trees from
any non-Government forest areas including land which is required to be treated
as “forest” as the decision of the Court on 12.12.1996.
iii) While implementing the Working Plans/schemes approved by the Central
Government, the State Government or the concerned authority shall ensure
that no felling is done unless and until sufficient budgetary provisions exist
for the regeneration of such areas.
iv) For felling of trees from non-forest areas, including plantations on concerned
State Government which will come in force only after concurrence from the
Ministry of Environment and Forest.
v) The Guidelines/Rules shall also include provisions for penalties and mode of
disposal in respect of any felling done in violation of such Guideline/Rules.
vi) Till such Guidelines/Rules become effective no felling from any area other
than that under approved working pans/schemes or felling schemes shall be
permitted.
vii) The schemes are to be prepared within a period of three months and the
Ministry of Environment and Forests has to take a decision on the same within
a period of one month of the date of receipt.

Self Assessment Question

2) Why was there a need to insist on approved working plan? Why is working
plan crucial in forest management?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

2.5.2 Mining
In a series of orders in the Godavarman case, the Supreme Court dealt at length
and at times in minute details about instances of mining taking place in forest
area. The Supreme Court however, made it clear that it was not against mining
per se but against mining which is in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980, and also mining in National Parks and Sanctuaries. In one of its order dated 23
Judicial Trends and Public 17.12.1999, on application filed by the National Mineral Development Corporation
Interest Initiatives (N.M.D.C.), the Court clarified its position vis-à-vis wherein it held that the ban
imposed on mining was subject to the approval of the Central Government and
when Central Government has granted the permission the applicant would be at
liberty to operate the said mines.4 What was prohibited was illegal felling of trees
without the permission of the Central Government.
The Kudremukh Case
The continued operations of the Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited (KIOCL),
a Government of India, a Public Sector Unit, was a major issue for many
environmental groups. The Supreme Court’s response was based on an application
filed by Wild Life First! a Karnataka based NGO.
According to the Petitioner, inspite of the orders passed by the Supreme Court,
mining activities were conducted by the KIOCL within the Kudremukh National
Park which were in clear violation of orders passed by this Court. The main reliefs
sought were: (a) to direct the MoEF to withdraw the illegal “temporary working
permission” issued by it and stop mining activities, (b) direct KIOCL to stop
polluting the Bhadra river due to open cast mining, (c) take action against KIOCL
for illegal encroachment in the forest and for the destruction of forests in the
Kudremukh National Park., and (d) to stop KIOCL from laying a new slurry pipe
line in the forest of the National Park, The main reliefs sought were (a) to direct
the MoEF to withdraw the illegal ‘temporary working permission’ issued by it
and stop mining activities (b) direct KIOCL to stop polluting the Bhadra river due
to open cast mining (c) take action against KIOCL for illegal encroachment in the
forest and for the destruction of forests in the Kudremukh National Park: and (d)
to stop KIOCL from laying a new slurry pipe line in the forest of the National
Park. The Court accepted the time period for stopping mining activities as fixed
by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. It meant that KIOCL was to be given five years to
wind up operation from the time its earlier lease expired (it had already expired).
This meant mining would be allowed till the end of 2005 by which time the
weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area will be exhausted.
In view of the series of temporary working permission that were granted, as well
as the inconsistency on part of the Government of Karnataka and Ministry of
Environment and Forests, the Court observed:
“Before we part with the case, we note with concern that the State and the
Central Government were not very consistent in their approach about the
period for which the activities could be permitted. Reasons have been
highlighted to justify the somersault. Whatever be the justification, it was but
imperative that due application of mind should have been made before taking
a particular stand and not to change colour like chameleon, and that too not
infrequently.”
The Kudremukh case is also important in view of the law laid down with respect
to the use of discretionary powers to be exercised under the Forest (Conservation)
Act, 1980. The Court also emphasized the need to implement the provisions of
the Convention on Biological Diversity:
“Duty is cast upon the Government under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India to protect the environment and the two salutary principles which govern

4
24 I.A. No. 419 & 420.
 the law of the environment are; (i) the principles of sustainable development Forest Cases and Responses
and (ii) the precautionary principle. It needs to be highlighted that our country (Case Laws)
has acceded to the Convention on Biological Diversity and therefore, it has
to implement the same. As was absence by this Court in Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan, [1997(6)SCC 241], in the absence of any inconsistency between
the domestic law and the international conventions, the rule of Judicial
Construction is that regard must be had to international conventions, and
norms been in construing the domestic law. It is, therefore, necessary for the
Government to keep in view the international obligations while exercising
discretionary powers under the Conservation Act unless there are compelling
reasons to depart there from”.

2.5.3 Compensatory Afforestation

Compensatory afforestation refers to afforestation activities carried out to
compensate the losses due to diversion of forest land due to non forest activities.
Compensatory afforestation prior to the orders of the Court was carried out in
accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests
under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. According to the
guidelines:
z The compensatory afforestation is to be done over an equivalent non-forest
are at the cost of the user agency.
z Wherever non-forest land is not available, which is to be certified by the
Chief Secretary of the State, compensatory afforestation is to be done over
double the degraded forest area at the cost of the user agency.
z After the funds for compensatory afforestation are deposited with the
concerned State Government and the land for this purpose is transferred and
mutated in favour of the forest department, a formal approval for diversion of
forest land for non forest use under Section 2 of the FC Act is given by the
Ministry of Environment and Forests.
z Compensatory afforestation is generally to be done by the Forest Departments
in the respective States.
The Central Empowered Committee considered at length all aspects related to
compensatory afforestation. It consulted the Ministry of Environment and Forests
as well as the State Governments. Although, there were guidelines on compensatory
afforestation, the same were not uniformly followed. For example, the procedure
for the receipt and utilisation of funds differed among different states. Thus, in
the States of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Uttar Pradesh, the
money received on account of compensatory afforestation is directly deposited
by the user agency with the Forest Department as “forest deposit” and do not
form part of the consolidated fund of the State. In these States, accessing funds
for compensatory afforestation is not a problem. Unfortunately, in most other
States, the funds received from the user agencies for compensatory afforestation
are deposited as ‘revenue receipts’ with the State Governments, which are made
available to the forest department only through budgetary provision and sanction.
As such, in all States other than Karnataka, there is problem of timely release of
funds for compensatory afforestation. It was, therefore, felt that a Fund for
Compensatory Afforestation should be created to be called ‘Compensatory
Afforestation Fund’ wherein all the amount received from the user agencies be
deposited and subsequently released directly to the implementing agencies as and 25
Judicial Trends and Public when required. It was further recognized that plantations raised under
Interest Initiatives compensatory afforestation can never adequately compensate for the loss of natural
forests as they are poor substitutes of the natural forests. The CEC in its report
noted that in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the net present value
is being recovered at the rate of Rs. 5.80 Lakh per hectare to Rs.9.20 Lakh per
hectare of forest land depending upon the quality and the density of the forest
land diverted for non forest purpose. The CEC recommended that the Net Present
Value of the forest land diverted for non-forest purposed should also be recovered
from the user agency while according approval under FCA. The fund so recovered
could be utilised for undertaking specific activities such as forest protection and
other conservation measures.5
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority
(CAMPA)
On 29.10.2002, the Court directed that a Compensatory Afforestation Fund shall
be created in which all the monies received from the user agencies towards
compensatory afforestation, additional compensatory afforestation, Net Present
Value of forest land, Catchment Area treatment fund shall be deposited. The fund
will be administered through a body called CAMPA. However, in view of the fact
that the considerable time would be required till CAMPA becomes operational,
the Court constituted6 an Ad Hoc CAMPA. The Ad Hoc CAMPA would comprise
of Director General of Forest as Chairman and have members from the CEC, the
CAG and Ministry of Environment and Forest. It was directed that all the State
Governments/ Union Territories shall account for and pay the amount collected
with effect from 30th October, 2002 in conformity with the order dated 29.10.2002
to the said Ad-Hoc CAMPA.
The functioning of CAMPA and specifically the management of funds collected
by the Ad Hoc CAMPA was considered at length by the Courts at different hearings.
It was observed by the Court that various agencies had deposited amounts by way
of Net Present Value when the forest area were utilised for non forest purposes.
This amount is lying with CAMPA. The issue was examined in detail by the CEC
and a report filed.7 Based on the Report of the CEC, the Court accepted8 the
following recommendations:
A) The guidelines and the structure of the State CAMPA as prepared by the
MoEF may be notified/implemented. All previous orders passed by this Court
regarding this would stand modified to the extent necessary for implementation
of the present proposal.
B) Substantial amount of funds have been received by the Ad-hoc CAMPA and
sudden release and utilisation of this large sum all at one time may not be
appropriate and may lead to its improper use without any effective control on
expenditure. This Court considers it appropriate to permit the Ad-hoc CAMPA
to release, for the next 5 years, in proportion of 10% of the principal amount
pertaining to the respective State/UT as per the conditions given below:
i) the details of the bank account opened by the State Executive Committee
(in Nationalised Bank) are intimated to the Ad-hoc CAMPA;

5
I. A. No. 566; see order dated 26.09.2005.
6
Order dated 05.05.2006.
7
I.A. No. 2143.
8
26 Order dated 10.07.2009.
 ii) the amount towards the NPV and the protected area may be released Forest Cases and Responses
after the schemes have been reviewed by the State Level Executive (Case Laws)
committee and the Annual Plan of Operation is approved by the Steering
Committee;
iii) the amount towards the CA, Additional CA, PCA and the Catchment
Area Treatment Plan may be released in the respective bank accounts of
the States/UTs immediately for taking up site specific works already
approved by the MoEF while granting prior approval under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980.
C) An amount upto 5% of the amount released to the State CAMPA may also be
released and utilised by the National CAMPA Advisory Council, for
monitoring and evaluation and for the implementation of the various schemes
as given in para 19 of the Guidelines on the State CAMPA. It is left to the
discretion of the National CAMPA Advisory Council whether it wants to
spend money directly or through the Ad hoc CAMPA.
D) The recommendations for the release of the additional funds, if any, will be
made in due course from time to time after seeing the progress made by the
State Level CAMPA and the effectiveness of the accounting, monitoring and
evaluation systems.
E) The State Accountant General shall carry out the audit of the expenditure
done out of State CAMPA funds every year on annual basis.
F) The State Level Executive Committee shall evolve an appropriate and effective
accounting process for maintenance of accounts, returns and for audit.
G) The interest received by the State CAMPA on the amounts placed at their
disposal by the Ad hoc CAMPA may be used by it for administrative
expenditure.
Till an alternative system is put in place (after obtaining permission from this
Court) the money towards CA, NPV and Protected Areas (National parks, Wildlife
sanctuaries) shall continue to be deposited in the Ad hoc CAMPA and its release
will continue to be made as per the existing orders of this Court.
Self Assessment Question
3) Why was the need felt to Impose Net Present Value?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
4) What is CAMPA? Why was it felt necessary to have a separate fund for
compensatory afforestation?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................. 27
Judicial Trends and Public 2.5.4 Saw Mills and Wood Based Units
Interest Initiatives
The Court in order dater 12.12.1996 directed that all ongoing activities within
any forest without the prior approval of the Central Government must cease
forthwith The Court made it absolutely clear that the running of saw mills of any
kind, including, veneer or plywood mills are not permissible without prior Central
Government approval. Specifically concerned about the danger to the tropical
wet evergreen forest of Tirap and Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh, the Court
directed the immediate closure of all saw mills, plywood mills and veneer mills
within a distance of 100 kms from the border of Assam. Further, in order to stop
the trade in timber, the Court directed that there shall be a complete ban on the
movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven North Eastern States to
any other State.

Each State Government was directed to file within two months a report regarding
the number of saw mills, veneer and plywood mills operating within each State,
the real owners of these mills, the licensed and actual capacity of the mills their
proximity to the nearest forest and their source of timber. Further the Sates were
also directed to constitute within one month an Expert Committee to:

z assess the sustainable capacity of the forest of the State vis-à-vis saw mills
and timber based industries;

z the number of existing saw mills that can be safely be sustained by the State;
and

z the optimum distance from the forest at which the saw mills should be located.

In view of the large number of saw mills operating in the North Eastern Region,
the Court constituted a High Power Committee (HPC) on 04.03.1997 in order to
oversee the ‘strict and faithful implementation’ of the orders of the Court. On the
same day, the Court passed an order that no new unlicensed sawmills, plywood,
veneer and wood based units shall function in the State of Uttar Pradesh and
Maharashtra. All unlicensed sawmills, veneer, plywood industries in the States of
Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh were to be closed forthwith and the State
Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission/
license for the opening of any such sawmill, veneer and plywood industry. The
Court directed that it shall not grant any fresh permission/license for this purpose.

The order dated 15.01.1998 was very significant and dealt at length with the
running of wood based industries specifically in the North Eastern States. The
Court in its order observed:

“Even though the proliferation of wood based industries has been the main
cause of degradation of forest in the North Eastern States, considering the
extent of forest (64% of the geographical area) and the dependence of local
people on the forest in the region it is neither feasible nor desirable to ban
completely either the timber trade or running of wood based industries.
However, their number and capacities are to be regulated ... and they are
also required to be relocated in specified industrial zones. Moreover, industrial
requirements have to be subordinated to the maintenance of environment
and ecology as well as bona fide local needs.”

With a view to regulating the saw mills, the Court directed the State Governments
28 to notify industrial estates for locating wood based industrial units in consultation
with the Ministry of Environment and Forest some of the important directions Forest Cases and Responses
issued are as follows: (Case Laws)

z Licenses given to all wood based industries shall stand suspended.

z Wood based industries cleared by the HPC will have the option to shift to
identified industrial estates.
z Units which do not want to shift shall be allowed to be wound up as per law.
z Licenses of units shall be renewed annually only when no illegality is
attributed.
z Number of wood based industries shall be determined strictly within the
quantity of timber that can be felled annually on a sustainable basis as
determined by approved working plan from time to time.
z There shall be a complete moratorium on the issue of new licenses for any
wood based unit for the next five years.

Self Assessment Question

5) Why did the Supreme Court feel the need to regulate Saw Mills? Can the
restrictions be termed as unreasonable restrictions?
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................

2.6 SUMMARY
z In this Unit, we discussed the how the Supreme Court of India has dealt with
the issue of forest. How judicial activism on forests evolved and was innovative
in many ways.
z We discussed how the scope of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was
broadened by the Supreme Court in Godavarman.
z We dealt at length on how mining, saw mill were dealt by the Supreme Court
in its various orders.
z We further discussed the imposition of Net Present Value and the constitution
of CAMPA.

2.7 TERMINAL QUESTIONS

1) Why was there a need for the judicial intervention on the issue of Forest?
2) Why was the Court so concerned about Compensatory Afforestation and need
for constituting CAMPA?
3) Why is it that the Supreme Court continues to monitor issues related to forests?
Is it because of the failure of the executive?
29
Judicial Trends and Public
Interest Initiatives 2.8 ANSWERS AND HINTS
Self Assessment Questions
1) Refer to Sub-section 1.2.3
2) Refer to Section 2.5
3) Refer to Sub-section 2.5.3
4) Refer to Sub-section 2.5.3
5) Refer to Sub-section 2.5.4
Terminal Questions
1) The loss of forests was alarming and the executive to a large extent had failed
to take action to stop the degradation. It therefore became necessary for the
Court to pass regular directions.
2) The existing practice of carrying out compensatory afforestation has not
been successful in the Country. The funds meant for compensatory
afforestation were routinely used for other activities unconnected with forests.
There was massive diversion of funds and the need was felt to have an
independent body to collect and disburse the funds.
3) Many of the orders passed by the Court emphasizes on the need for prior
approval from Supreme Court before certain activities can take place viz no
dereservation of National Parks, Forests and Sanctuaries. As a result many
cases come before the Supreme Court.

2.9 GLOSSARY
W.P : Writ Petition.
I.A : Intervention Application. This is when a third Party files an Application
in an existing Writ Petition.
CEC : Central Empowered Committee constituted under Section 3(3) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to assist the Court in implementation
of the orders.

2.10 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

1) “Supreme Court on Forest Conservation”, Ritwick Dutta & Bhpender Yadav,
Universal Publications, Second Edition, 2007.

30