JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:---Petitioners 1 and 2 are Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. Petitioner No. 2 is also an environmental society. Members of both the petitioners are nationals and citizens of India. The objects of the petitioner No. 1, amongst others, are to halt the ecological degradation of environment and to formulate and implement programmes for the rehabilitation and development of the Goan environment and to restore an ecological balance. Members of both the petitioner societies as citizens of India have the fundamental duty to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures.

2. Respondent No. 1 granted to respondent No. 4 a lease of land bearing Survey No. 12 of village Potrem in Sanguem Taluka for the purpose of erecting a beneficiation plant and purposes related therewith. Petitioners pleaded that a rich forest lies on the said plot. Respondent No. 2 is responsible for the conservation of the forest wealth in Goa State particularly the conservation of the ecologically fragile areas in which the lease falls. Respondent No. 3 is the authority which issues clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act. The plot in question, it is contended, constitutes one of the last remaining vestiges of primary forest in the ecologically sensitive region of the western ghats. The plot leased has more than the density of trees which means the forest is of the nature of a closed forest system. On account of this respondent No. 1 has given his intent to convert the contiguous plots into reserved forests. Survey No. 12, overnight and contrary to Government intent, was mysteriously leased to respondent No. 4. It is averred that this was done after a revenue official in collusion with respondent No. 4 filed fraudulent report underestimating the number of trees on the plot. Petitioners pray that a copy of the report be placed on record.

When the lease was granted the diversion of forest land to non-forestry purposes in private lands or so called private forest and revenue lands was thought not to come in the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. On account of judgment passed by this Court, the position has now altered. Felling of trees in the State of Goa is also governed by the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984. Respondent No. 4, it is contended, on injuries made by the petitioners with the local people, clear-felled 2 hectares of rich forest illegally and without any permission from any of the statutory authorities. This was in violation of Clause 9 of the lease agreement dated 1st November, 1989. This monstrous act of environmental terrorism was followed by using a bulldozer of remove all the roots of the trees. Pits were dug to lay foundation stone for the beneficiation plant without any permission from any authority under the law. The petitioners approached the Court to prohibit the respondent No. 4 from further felling any trees from the plot. Forest once destroyed, it is contended, cannot be replaced, the beneficiation plant can be relocated. Respondent No. 1 had to consider as to what was more important, the last few green patches left in this country which are essential for the survival of the Nation and its environment or the saving of few rupees of the respondent No. 4. The environment would be placed at irreparable risk if respondent No. 4 was not restrained from proceeding with further development. Respondent No. 4 could not proceed with any diversion or change of user without permission under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Therefore the reliefs as prayed for.

3. On behalf of respondent No. 4, one T. Ramaswamy, General Manager of Mining Division and its Constituted Attorney filed a reply. Various preliminary objections have been raised which are not referred to as, in our opinion, they are to be rejected at the threshold. The Government of Goa, it is contended

Click Here to Read the rest of this document