Order

I.A. No. 16 :

We have heard Mr. Dipankar Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the officials of the State Government who have filed their coun­ters in response to the notice issued by this Court. We have also heard Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina, learned Senior counsel representing Mr. B.A. Karimi, the Managing Director of M/s. Bekay Katha Pvt. Ltd., who has filed an affidavit in this Court on March 1998.

2. Mr. Dipankar Gupta, in response to the directions issued to him by us on 4th of May, has brought to our notice various steps which are taken by the Administrative Department and the Forest Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir after the orders of this Court dated 10th May, 1996, 12th December 1996 and 4th March 1997.

3. From a perusal of the office notings, it appears that M/s. Bekay Kattha Pvt. Ltd. represented to the State Government vide letter dated 18th of March 1997 that this Court had exempted “minor forest produce from the ban on fellings “vide order dated 4th March 1997. On the basis of that representation, an office note was prepared in which para 65 reads thus:

“ Katha’ is a Minor Forest Produce. The Katha is manufactured from the Khair wood. In pursuance of the order dated 4.3.1997 there is now no ban on the felling of khair trees from the forest areas as per the working plan.”

4. This note was put up before Mr. S.R. Bhagat, the then Additional Secretary, Forest, who on March 20, 1997 directed the forwarding of the representation of M/s. Bekay Katha Ltd. to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest for necessary action. “keeping in view the Supreme Court orders and the contractual obligations”. The file was then put up before Mr. Vijay Bakaya, Additional Chief Secretary, Forest who recorded in para 68 of the noting as follows :

“This is a matter of interpretation of whether `Khair’ can be treated as minor forest produce. Let us discuss on 25.3.97 at 3 p.m. with Pr. CCF, MDSFC, Conservator working plan.”

Opinion was thereafter sought from I.C.F.R. & E., Dehradun as to whether ‘khair’ tree was a M.F.P.

5. After the matter was referred to the Indian Council for Forestry Research and Education, another note appears to have been prepared by the office and submitted to Shri Bhagat, Additional Secretary, Forest. In para 70 of the noting it is recorded :

“In view of the above opinion of the Indian Council for Forestry Research and Education, khair is a minor forest produce and in terms of the order dated 4.3.1997 passed by the Supreme Court of India there is now no ban on extraction of MFPs from the forest areas.”

6. Mr. Vijay Bakaya, the Additional Chief Secretary, Forest in para 75 of the note observed :

“This issue was discussed at length with all the officers of the department. They were of the view that as per the books on the sub­ject, only katha is MFP and khair tree is timber and therefore, Su­preme Court’s directive on MFP is not applicable.”

7. However, in spite of the above observation, we find that directions were issued to allow khair trees to be felled for extraction of katha to M/s. Bekay Katha Pvt. Ltd.

8. The nothing in paragraph 65 (supra) to the effect that katha is a minor forest produce and that it is manufactured from khair wood read with the noting in paragraph 75, in which it is categorically recorded that even as per the books on the subject, it is only katha which is MFP while khair is timber go to show that the distinction was very much present to the minds of the officials and they were also con­scious of the fact that the order of this Court dated 4.3.1997 was not applicable to khair trees. Vide orders of this Court dated 10th May 1996 and 12th of December 1996 ban was placed on felling of various trees including khair tree. The order dated 4th March 1997 did not lift the ban on the felling of khair trees and yet the State Govern­ment officials allowed the felling of khair trees. Prima facie, we are satisfied that there has been a deliberate attempt to circumvent the order of this Court and ther