The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the identification and recognition of 'other traditional forest dwellers' and 'Scheduled Tribes' as per the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and the inaction and dereliction of duty by the Forest Department officials in protecting forest rights.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

One of us, on the basis of the personal cognizance being taken, on account of illegal collection and felling of trees in the notified jungle areas, had taken a suo motu cognizance on an issue of a grave concern for the public at large.

2. Upon the cognizance being taken, the matter was registered as a PIL, and ultimately, it was nominated by orders of Acting Chief Justice before this Court to be decided on merits.

3. The prime concern was, that invariably it was seen by this Court, that people even belonging to the urbanized aboriginal areas, adjoining the forest areas, have been found rampantly plundering the forest produce for their personal gains without there being any checks and controls being exercised by the officials of the Forest Department, who are duty bound and were supposed to otherwise discharge their duties in accordance with the provisions of Indian Forest Act of 1927, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder.

4. On the said issue being taken, the concerned Divisional Forest Officers of their respective Zones assigned to them, were called upon, and ultimately, this Court looking to the seriousness of the issue, had appointed an Amicus Curiae by an order 9th November, 2023, to assist the Court, in arriving to a rightful decision with regard to the issue as raised in the present PIL.

5. By an order dated 9th November, 2023, we expected, that the official of the Forest Department would be informing the Court with regard to the exercise ! whether they have taken or not in accordance with Chapter-IV of the Forest Rights Act of 2006. But since no plausible reply was forthcoming, this Court was constrained in taking an action under Section 13 to be read with Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, as well as to be read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, issuing notices to the Principal Secretary, Forest, by an order dated 14th December, 2023.

6. The respective officials as directed by the earlier order are present before this Court, and their cause is being defended by none other than the learned Advocate General.

7. To sum up the controversy, this Court has observed in the various orders passed earlier during the proceedings of the PIL, that it had been a common experience, that where the people, who are not even legally entitled to gather and collect the fallen woods or to cut the forest trees, have been found to be picking wood or cutting trees in notified forest areas, without their being any valid authority being vested with them in accordance with the prevalent laws. In fact, what was more of concern was the inaction on the part of the Principal Secretary, Forest, and his other subordinate officials, including the DFOs of concerned areas, against them the cognizance was taken.

They too have derelicted in performance of their official duties vested upon them under law, resulting to rampant shrinking of forest areas.

8. The debate came forward from the State’s view point, that initially, the State Government had argued, that under the notification of 1966, as it was issued while exercising powers under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act of 1927, the forest dwellers had certain rights vested with them, to collect the fire wood for their personal needs, but then, the notification of 1966, was not conferring an unfettered right. It had certain checks and controls, which were mandatorily supposed to be exercised on the class of persons, as it has been provided and classified subsequently in the Act of 2006, who could have an access to the forest area for the purposes of collecting the forest woods for their personal needs, within the notified prescribed limit. The personal rights given to the class of persons under Act of 2006, do not vest a right of commercial plundering of woods from the forest areas.

9. What is more concerning for us is, that ever since 1926, till date, where the law had