ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri.A.X.Varghese, the learned Spl. Government Pleader Shri.M.P.Madhavankutty and the learned Counsel appearing for the Addl. 8th Respondent.Hindustan Newsprints Ltd.

2. This Original Petition was filed by the petitioner, who claims to be an Organisation, which is eager to protect environment and ecology. This Public Interest Litigation was preferred for preventing plunder of forest resources. Allegations have been made against the officials of the Forest Department. It was pleaded that large scale felling of Rose wood trees and other valuable trees is going on in Idukki Wild Life Sanctuary and in the High Ranges of Idukki District. Various newspaper reports have been referred to in the Original Petition. It has been pleaded that Kerala Forest Tree Project which has been initiated by the Forest Department is providing source for destruction activities. In the Original Petition, series of orders were passed by this Court. Application was filed by the petitioner for appointment of Advocate Commissioners to inspect and submit a report. An affidavit was filed highlighting various issues and points which were required to be looked into by the Advocate Commissioners. This Court by order dated 11-04-2001 in CM.P.No.9976 of 2001 appointed Advocate Commissioners and Shri. P.B. Sahasranaman was appointed as the Convenor of the Inspection Group. A clarification order was subsequently issued on 21-05-2001 pointing out the issues on which the report had to be submitted by the Advocate Commissioners. The Advocate Commissioners submitted a preliminary report on 30-05-2001. On 22-12-2000, this Court passed an interim stay of felling and removing of trees and destruction of undergrowth in the name of weeding and planting.

3. The additional 8th respondent/Hindustan Newsprint Limited came up with an application for impleadment which was allowed. By order dated 31-05-2001, although the 8th respondent/Hindustan Newsprint Limited was permitted to go on with the plainting of Acacia in the area set apart to them, direction was issued to the Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI) to see whether the weeding operation done by the Additional 8th respondent is something which is more than what is required. Certain other directions were also issued in the aforesaid order. Subsequently a further order was passed on 30-10-2001 directing the 8th respondent to file an affidavit of a qualified chemist in its employment describing the chemical composition of the pesticide with the trade name ‘Roban’. The learned Counsel for the Addl. 8th respondent submits that a certificate bringing on record the composition of the said pesticide is in file. A statement has also been filed on behalf of the second respondent as well as a counter affidavit by the 8th respondent.

4. Shri.A.X.Varghese the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no human interference be permitted in the forests which have to be protected for the environment and ecology to be maintained. He submits that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 itself contains provisions prohibiting the State Government and other agencies to carry out any non-forest activities without the permission of the Central Government. He further submits that environment impact assessment has also to be carried out prior to carrying out any activity in the natural forest. Further direction has been sought for, for fixing responsibility and to initiate action against the officers who are responsible for destruction of forests. Direction has also been sought for, for scientific appraisal of the functioning of the Department and model method of execution of the scheme.

5. Shri.P.B.Sahasranaman, who was the convenor of the Advocate Commissioners, pointed out one of the recommendations made by the Advocate Commissioners that there should be some legislation for taking control of ecological fragile lands for better management of the forests.

6. Shri. M.P. Madh