IMPORTANT POINT
In all matters falling with the ambit of the National Green Tribunal, it is only the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal which can be invoked; and the petitioners should not be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. Wayanad Prakrithi Samrakshana Samithi, Represented by its President, Wayanad, has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents not to carry on any non forestry activity in the land covered by Ext.P2 Notifications, without complying with the provisions contained in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to return the vested forest lands covered by Ext.P2 notifications and remain unassigned to the tribal community for agriculture to the forest department for conservation of forest, in the larger environmental interest.

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the State Government to appoint a Commission to enquire and file a comprehensive report on the different schemes initiated for social and economic benefit of the tribal communities in Wayanad district and the outcome of such schemes, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Court.

(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the 9th respondent to prosecute all those who are responsible for allowing non forestry activity in the land covered by Ext.P2 notifications, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

2. Grounds raised in support of the prayers are as hereunder:

“(a) Tourism is a non forestry activity and any such activity in the land covered by Ext.P2 require prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Therefore, the activities now carried on by the 8th respondent in the forest land covered by Ext.P2 are illegal and is liable to be interdicted.

(b) Protection and improvement of environment and safe guarding of forest is a directive principle of State policy. Further, the respondent cannot carry on any non forestry activity in the forest land without complying payment of NPV and prior approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The land in the possession of the 8th respondent is a reserve forest and no non forestry project can go on without complying with the provisions of law. Therefore, the tourism activity, which would have adverse effect on forest is liable to be interdicted.

(c) It is submitted that the tribal community are the most vulnerable people and the projects are commenced in their name, spending large amounts. However, the tribal communities are not benefited and only the middle men are benefited. Various projects commenced and left not functioning. Tribal empowerment is not forthcoming. As can be seen from Exts.P7, P8 and P9, payment of NPV was exempted on the ground that the forest land would be assigned to the landless tribals under the provisions of Land Reforms Act. Since, the tribal community people cannot approach this Hon'ble Court, it is just and necessary to appoint a Commission to enquire and file a comprehensive report on the different schemes intended for socio-economic improvement of tribal communities at Wayanad district, the outcome of such schemes and also suggest remedial programmes.

(d) The petitioner had pointed out the violations in Ext.P10 representation; however, no action is taken by the 9th respondent. It is necessary that directions may be issued to the 9th respondent to prosecute all those who are responsible for allowing non forestry activity in the land covered by Ext.P2 Notification.

(e) The private forests vested under Ext.P2 Notification was intended to be assigned to the landless tribal people for agricultural purposes. Such lands cannot be allowed to be used for non agricultural and non forestry purposes. It is clearly illegal and is also against the undertaking made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as evidenced by Ext.P7 order. Hence, it is prayed in the larger environmental interes