1. Forest encroachment — Committee recommendations — Directions sought from court. (Para 6 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 2298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal, CJI., K.G. Balakrishnan, Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
IA NO. 756 in WP (C) 202 of 1995
Decided On : 12-08-2002
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Harish N Salve, SG (AC), Mr. U U Lalit, Adv. (AC), Mr. Siddharth Choudhary, Advocates.
For the Ministry of Environment & Forests/UoI :Mr. A D N Rao, Advocate.
For the Railways :Mr. S Wasim A Qadri, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
For the Railways IA No. 756 :Mr. Harish N Salve, SG (AC), Mr. U U Lalit, Adv. (AC), Advocates.
For the Railways IA 634-635 :Mr. Bharat Sangal, Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi, Ms. Sangeeta Panicker and Mr. Rana Ranjit Kumar Singh, Advocates.
For the Railways CP 193/01 :Mr. P N Ramalingam, Mr. V Balaji, M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co., (NP), Advocates.
For the Railways IA 773 :Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Railways IA 774 :Mr. M N Krishnamani, Mr. P K Goswami, Mr. P K Jain, Advocates.
For the Railways IA 775 :Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates.
For the Railways IA 421 :Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Mr. Dharmendra Tyagi and Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocates.
For the Railways IA 776 :Mr. Vivek Tankha, Adv. Genl., MP, Mr. S.K. Agnihotri, Mr. Rohit K Singh, Advocates.
For the Railways IA 777 :Mr. J R Das, Mr. S Mishra and Mr. G Biswal, J R Das & Co., Advocates.
For the Railways IA 778-779 :Mr. T R Andhyarujina, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shiraz Contractor Patodia, Advocates.
For the State of Assam :Ms. Krishna Sarma, Ms. Asha G Nair and Mr. V K Sidatharan, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advocates.
For the State of Arunachal Pradesh :Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Advocate.
For the State of Andhra Pradesh :Mr. T V Ratnam, Mr. K Subba Rao, Advocate.
For the State of Chhattisgarh :Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Contemnor No. 1 in Cont Petn.193/01 :Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Mr. Joseph Pookkatt, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates.
For the Contemnor No. 2 in Cont. Petn. 193/01 :Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocate.
For the Wildlife Protection :Mr. Raj Panjwani, Advocate.
For the Society for Orissa :Mr. Iqbal Shamsi, Advocate.
For the Intervenor :Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Advocate.
For the Chandigarh UT :Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi and Ms. Aishwariya Rao, Advocates.
For the State of Goa :Ms. A Subhashini, Advocate.
For the State of J & K :Mr. M Aslam Goni, Adv. Genl., Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Advocate.
For the State of Kerala :Mr. K R Sasiprabhu, Advocate.
For the State of Manipur :Mr. KH Nobin Singh, Advocate.
For the State of Uttaranchal :Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Mr. Mahesh C Kaushiwa, Mr. Ajay K Agrawal, Mr. C Siddharth, Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Mr. Mahesh Chandra and Ms. Savitri Pandey, Advocates.
For the State of U.P. :Mr. Ajay K Agrawal, Mr. C Siddharth, Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Mr. Mahesh Chandra and Ms. Savitri Pandey, Advocates.
Mr. Harish N Salve, SG (AC), Mr. U U Lalit, Adv. (AC), Mr. Siddharth Choudhary, Advocates.
For the Ministry of Environment & Forests/UoI :Mr. A D N Rao, Advocate.
For the Railways :Mr. S Wasim A Qadri, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Advocates.
For the Railways IA No. 756 :Mr. Harish N Salve, SG (AC), Mr. U U Lalit, Adv. (AC), Advocates.
For the Railways IA 634-635 :Mr. Bharat Sangal, Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi, Ms. Sangeeta Panicker and Mr. Rana Ranjit Kumar Singh, Advocates.
For the Railways CP 193/01 :Mr. P N Ramalingam, Mr. V Balaji, M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co., (NP), Advocates.
For the Railways IA 773 :Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Railways IA 774 :Mr. M N Krishnamani, Mr. P K Goswami, Mr. P K Jain, Advocates.
For the Railways IA 775 :Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Advocates.
For the Railways IA 421 :Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, Mr. Dharmendra Tyagi and Mr. Aditya Sharma, Advocates.
For the Railways IA 776 :Mr. Vivek Tankha, Adv. Genl., MP, Mr. S.K. Agnihotri, Mr. Rohit K Singh, Advocates.
For the Railways IA 777 :Mr. J R Das, Mr. S Mishra and Mr. G Biswal, J R Das & Co., Advocates.
For the Railways IA 778-779 :Mr. T R Andhyarujina, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shiraz Contractor Patodia, Advocates.
For the State of Assam :Ms. Krishna Sarma, Ms. Asha G Nair and Mr. V K Sidatharan, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Advocates.
For the State of Arunachal Pradesh :Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Advocate.
For the State of Andhra Pradesh :Mr. T V Ratnam, Mr. K Subba Rao, Advocate.
For the State of Chhattisgarh :Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Advocate.
For the Contemnor No. 1 in Cont Petn.193/01 :Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Mr. Joseph Pookkatt, Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advocates.
For the Contemnor No. 2 in Cont. Petn. 193/01 :Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocate.
For the Wildlife Protection :Mr. Raj Panjwani, Advocate.
For the Society for Orissa :Mr. Iqbal Shamsi, Advocate.
For the Intervenor :Mr. Vijay Panjwani, Advocate.
For the Chandigarh UT :Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Shomila Bakshi and Ms. Aishwariya Rao, Advocates.
For the State of Goa :Ms. A Subhashini, Advocate.
For the State of J & K :Mr. M Aslam Goni, Adv. Genl., Mr. Anis Suhrawardy, Advocate.
For the State of Kerala :Mr. K R Sasiprabhu, Advocate.
For the State of Manipur :Mr. KH Nobin Singh, Advocate.
For the State of Uttaranchal :Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Mr. Mahesh C Kaushiwa, Mr. Ajay K Agrawal, Mr. C Siddharth, Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Mr. Mahesh Chandra and Ms. Savitri Pandey, Advocates.
For the State of U.P. :Mr. Ajay K Agrawal, Mr. C Siddharth, Ms. Anamika Agrawal, Mr. Mahesh Chandra and Ms. Savitri Pandey, Advocates.
The court proposed notifying the Empowered Committee under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act for nationwide authority and suggested that states with deficient forest cover contribute to a fund for forest-rich states to maintain ecological balance and prevent deforestation.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act - Section 3 - Notification of Committee for forest areas - Granting powers to give directions, hear objections and take decisions to reduce judicial intervention. (Para 5)
(B) Forest Conservation - Ecological balance - Deforestation - Proposal for a fund where states deficient in forest cover contribute to states possessing forest cover to prevent cutting and habitation of forests. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
Reports indicated large-scale encroachment in forest areas. The court is monitoring forest conservation and managing various applications related to forest areas and saw mill owners.
Findings of Court:
It was noted that the forest cover is woefully low and there is extensive encroachment. It was suggested that a fund created by contributions from states deficient in forest cover could be used by states with higher forest cover to preserve ecological balance.
Issues: Whether the Empowered Committee should be officially notified under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act to manage forest areas nationwide, and whether states deficient in forest cover should financially support states with higher forest cover to prevent deforestation.
Ratio Decidendi: To ensure efficient management and reduce frequent court appearances, the Empowered Committee should be notified under the statutory framework to exercise decision-making powers. To maintain ecological balance, states deficient in forest cover should contribute to the conservation efforts of states that possess forests.
Result: Notices issued to the relevant government bodies to address arguments on the proposed fund and the notification of the committee.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- environmental law
- practice and procedure
-
criminal law
-
homicide
- murder investigation (Para 9)
-
homicide
Table of Contents
2. Submission regarding notification of Empowered Committee under Environment (Protection) Act for forest areas. (Para 5 )
3. States deficient in forest cover should contribute to a fund for forest conservation to maintain ecological balance. (Para 6 )
4. Forest-deficient states must contribute monetarily to conserve forests in forest-rich states to preserve ecological balance. (Para 6 )
5. Directions issued for committee report, notices to parties, and listing for further hearing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 , 11 , 12 )
6. Can forest-deficient states be required to contribute to a fund for forest conservation in forest-rich states?
Yes, it is a measure to conserve forests and preserve ecological balance as the forest cover is woefully low. (Para 6 )
ORDER :
I.A. Nos. 756
1. Bhure Lal Committee be reminded to submit a report within three weeks.
2. To come up on 9th September, 2002.
I.A. Nos. 778-779
3. Issue notice to the Amicus Curiae and the Union of India, returnable on 9th September, 2002.
Re : Report of Central Empowered Committee.
4. Recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee have been received. The parties may file their response to the Reports/Recommendations within three weeks.
5. The Empowered Committee was set up under orders of this Court. In our opinion, the said Empowered Committee should be notified under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act as being a Committee for all the forest areas in the whole of India with power to give directions, hear objections and take decisions so that there is no need to approach this Court from time to time. Mr. A.D.N. Rao states that he will take instructions regarding this and inform the Court on the next date of hearing. We hope that by that date formal notification would be issued.
6. According to the Report of the Central Empowered Committee, there is large scale encroachment in the forest area, the total area being 7,25,861 hectares. This encroachment is in the area where the forest exists. The other States have much less land area under forest. A question had arisen as to why the States which are deficient in forest should not contribute to a fund to be disbursed amongst the States which have forests, which are prevented from cutting the same or allowing the same to be habitated. This is one of the main measures in which the forest can be conserved as the forest cover in existence is woefully low. In other words, taking the country as a whole, it should be the duty of the States which are deficient in the forest cover to contribute money in order to prevent deforestation; thereby preserving the ecological balance.
7. Notice to issue to the Union of India and the various State Governments/U.Ts. who will address arguments on this aspect on the next date of hearing and will also file the written submissions. The Amicus Curiae may also address on this aspect on the next date of hearing. To come up on 9th September, 2002.
8. Compliance report of Andaman & Nicobar is already on record.
9. Status report in the matter of investigation of C.B.I. in Sanjay Singh murder case be kept on record. The investigating team, which is not to be changed, shall submit periodic reports of progress.
10. Pending I.As. (I.A. Nos. 301 to 382) of saw mill owners be listed for final disposal in accordance with the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee, on the next date of hearing.
11. Notice of the Reports of the Central Empowered Committee in respect of I.A. No. 703 and I.A. Nos.301-382 in WP(C) No. 202/95 respectively to go to all the States through the standing counsel and notice of the Report of the Central Empowered Committee in respect of I.A. No. 22 in WP(C) No. 171/96 to issue to the State of Jammu & Kashmir through the standing counsel.
Rest of the matters.
12. List on 9th September, 2002.
