Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(SC) 1149

Supreme Court of India
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
Versus
Union Of India & Others
I.A. No. 828 with I.A. Nos. 833, 834-835, 837-838, 839, 840, 846-847, 850, 853-854, 855-856,866-868,869-870, 871-872, 873-874, 875-876, 877-878, 879-880,881-882, 891-892, 893-894, 900, 901-902, 903, 904, 905, 1276-1277, 1310-1310A in I.A.No.833 in I.A.No.828, 1329, 1330, 1331-1332, 1450-1452 in 1310, 1465, 1488 in 891-892, 1590, 1612-1613, 2007-2008 & 1700-1703 in W.P.(C)No.202 of 1995
Decided On : 07-09-2007

Infrastructure projects on forest land require strict compliance with compensatory afforestation and conservation funds. While monitoring committees are essential for environmental protection, their delegated powers must not exceed the administrative intent of the enabling notifications.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 3(3) - Forest Conservation Act - Delegation of powers to a monitoring committee - Continuing role of the committee for environmental protection - Administrative problems arising from excessive delegation of powers under notifications - Modification of notifications to be reported within a specific period.

(B) Infrastructure Projects - Construction of road - Challenge to change of alignment - If a previous challenge to the change of alignment has been dismissed, a subsequent plea to revert to the original alignment is not maintainable.

(C) Forest Land - Permission for construction of bridge - Mandatory conditions including requisite approval under the relevant forest act, clearance from management boards, deposit of net present value (NPV) in compensatory afforestation funds, contribution to conservation and development funds, dismantling of existing road structures, translocation of trees, and compensatory afforestation adjacent to the impact area.

Facts of the case:
Several applications were filed concerning the continuation of a monitoring committee, permission for the construction of a bus stand and parking area, a challenge to the change of alignment of a highway, and a request for the use of forest land for the construction of a bridge.

Findings of Court:
The monitoring committee's tenure is extended as an interim measure, with a report required on necessary modifications to the enabling notification. Construction of a bus stand is permitted pending a report from the committee. The challenge to the highway road alignment was rejected. Permission for the bridge was granted subject to the fulfillment of seven specific environmental and compensatory conditions.

Issues: Whether the delegation of powers to a monitoring committee was excessive; whether a previously dismissed challenge to road alignment could be revisited; and what conditions are necessary for the use of forest land for infrastructure projects.

Ratio Decidendi: Environmental protection justifies the interim continuation of a monitoring committee, provided that any administrative overreach in delegated powers is addressed. Infrastructure projects on forest land are permissible only upon strict adherence to compensatory afforestation, payment of net present value, and other conservation-centric conditions to mitigate ecological impact.

Result: Applications decided as per individual merits; monitoring committee continued interimly; bridge construction allowed subject to conditions; road alignment challenge rejected.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Judgment :

I.A.Nos.828 with 833, 834-835, 837-838, 839, 840, 846-847, 850, 853-854, 855-856,866-868,869-870, 871-872, 873-874, 875-876, 877-878, 879-880,881-882, 891-892, 893-894, 900, 901-902, 903, 904, 905, 1276-1277, 1310-1310A in I.A.No.833 in I.A.No.828, 1329, 1330, 1331-1332, 1450-1452 in 1310, 1465, 1488 in 891892, 1590, 1612-1613, 2007-2008 & 1700-1703 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995:

Issue notice to C.E.C. in fresh matters.

List on 14 September, 2007.

Meanwhile, C.E.C. to file its response where-ever not filed.

I.A.No.2016:

Heard learned Amicus Curaie and also learned Solicitor General for India.

Learned Amicus Curaie expressed the view that the C.E.C. should continue to assist the Court and that is why the C.E.C. was appointed and the final Notification was made by MoEF on 17 September, 2002 and it is submitted that the continuation of this Committee would help this Court to issue appropriate directions for the protection of the forests and also the environment.

The learned Solicitor General for India pointed out that C.E.C. has been appointed, and the powers are to be exercised under Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It is pointed out that some powers which are to be exercised under sub-sections (4) & (5) by the Notification dated 17 September, 2002 have been given to the C.E.C. which are beyond intended delegation and these cause serious administrative problems for the Central Government. Our attention was particularly drawn to clauses II, III, IV and V of para 2 of the Notification in this connection.

As an interim measure, we direct that the said C.E.C. will continue until further orders and the learned Solicitor General would give a brief report within a period of four weeks as to the modifications that are required in the Notification issued on 17 September, 2002.

List after four weeks.

I.A.No.1991:

In this application, the applicant is seeking a direction for construction of a bus stand. It is alleged that the C.E.C. has prevented the applicant from constructing some parking area near the bus stand. We are told that the C.E.C. is proposing to inspect the site and shall give a report. We think that before giving any direction to the applicant, the C.E.C. may hear the applicant and file a report and meanwhile the work relating to the construction of bus stand may continue but no other construction shall be carried out.

List after six weeks.

I.A.No.1699:

This application relates to construction of a road by N.H.A.I. Originally the alignment was permitted and it is alleged that the original proposal was interfered with as there is some wildlife sanctuary and forest area. Thereafter the matter was considered and the alignment was changed. We may also recall in this connection that the change of alignment was challenged by the same applicant in a writ petition before this Court and the same was dismissed by this Court on 27 March, 2006. Now a contention has been raised by the applicant that the alignment should not have been changed and the original alignment should have been retained without any change.

Learned Solicitor General appearing for MoEF also submitted that N.H.A.I. is going ahead with the construction on the basis of the changed alignment. We find no reason to give any direction in this application. Accordingly, the application is rejected.

I.A.No.1797:

As requested, five weeks' time is granted to C.E.C. to file its response. List thereafter.

I.A.No.1860:

Adjourned.

I.A.No.1861:

Adjourned.

I.A.No.1865:

The matter is referred to C.E.C. for instructions and report, if any.

I.A.Nos.1866-67:

The matters are referred to C.E.C. for instructions and report, if any.

I.A.No.1801:

The matter relates to use of forest land falling in Delhi ridge for the construction of bridge over the Neela Hauz water body at Aruna Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The C.E.C. has examined and recommended the same subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions :

"1. Requisite approval under F.C. Act to be obtained.

2. Cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document