T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. on 16 February 2018

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 2 S.C.R.

A

IN RE:

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD ETC.v.

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

(Interlocutory Application No. 3840 of 2014 in B

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995)

FEBRUARY 16, 2018

[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]

Environment – Forests – Felling of trees – Directions issuedCby Supreme Court on 12.12.1996, to a large number of Statesincluding State of Himachal Pradesh, inter alia that there will be nofelling of trees in any forest, public or private – However, therewere reports that State of Himachal Pradesh had passed orderslifting ban on felling of trees – Supreme Court, while issuing noticeDto State of Himachal Pradesh on 14.02.2000, also made it clearthat such orders, if passed, operation of the same were stayed andno felling of trees be done – Application by State of HimachalPradesh that it may be permitted to carry out silviculture fellingincluding thinning and other cultural operations in Chil Pine, Khairand broad-leaved forests only – After the application was filed,ECentral Empowered Committee (CEC) directed to file its report –Held: As per affidavits filed by State of Himachal Pradesh, someamount of silviculture felling is necessary, because if no felling isdone then regeneration of trees is not as fast as it should be andonce the mature trees die after reaching their maximum life span, Fthere will be very few young trees to replace the old trees – With aview to protect forests, felling of trees in India has been banned bySupreme Court for more than two decades – However, on anexperimental basis silviculture felling of trees is permitted to a verylimited extent – Such felling should be monitored very carefully to see whether it actually helps in the regeneration of forests or not –GIn addition to the conditions laid down by CEC for felling of trees,further conditions laid down to be strictly complied with – PrincipalChief Conservator of Forests shall be liable to ensure that felling isdone strictly in accordance with the orders of Supreme Court – Tothis limited extent, orders dated 12.12.1996 and 14.02.2000 areHmodified as far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory ApplicationNo. 3840 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

J. S. Attri, Sr. Adv, A. D. N. Rao, (AC.), Siddhartha Chowdhury,(AC), Sudipto Sircar, Ms. Tulika Chikker, S. Wasim A. Qadri, RavindaraBana, Ms. Gargi Khanna, D. L. Chidanand, Zaid Ali, Ritesh Kumar, G.S. Makker, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Chandra Nand Jha, Ms. PragatiNeekhra, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. By means of this application the Stateof Himachal Pradesh has prayed that it may be permitted to carry outsilviculture felling including thinning and other cultural operations inaccordance with the Working Plan approved by the Government of Indiaup to an elevation of 1500 metres above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in ChilPine, Khair and broad-leaved forests only.

2. On 12.12.1996, this Court issued directions to a large numberof States. The relevant directions with regard to the State of HimachalPradesh read as follows:

“1. There will be no felling of trees permitted in any forest, publicor private. This ban will not affect felling in any private plantationcomprising of trees planted in any area which is not a forest; andwhich has not been converted from an earlier “forest”. This banwill not apply to permits granted to the right holders for theirbonafide personal use in Himachal Pradesh.

2. In a ‘forest’, the State Government may either departmentallyor through the State Forest Corporation remove fallen trees orfell and remove diseased or dry standing timber from areas otherthan those notified under Section 18 or 35 of the Wild LifeProtection Act, 1972 or any other Act banning such felling orremoval of trees.

3. For this purpose, the State Government is to constitute an expertcommittee comprising a representative from MOEF, arepresentative of the State Government, two private experts ofeminence and the MD of the State Forest Corporation (as Member A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASecretary), who will fix the qualitative and quantitative norms forthe felling of fallen trees and diseased and standing timber. TheState shall ensure that the trees so felled and removed are inaccordance with these norms.

4. Felling of trees in any forest or any clearance of forest land inBexecution of projects shall be in strict conformity with the ForestConservation Act, 1980 and any other laws applying thereto.Moreover, any trees so felled, and the disposal of such trees shallbe done exclusively by the State Forest Corporation and no privateagency is to be involved in any aspect thereof.”

C3. Despite such order having been passed, the amicus curiae on14.02.2000 submitted before this Court that there were reports in thepress that the State of Himachal Pradesh had passed some orders liftingthe ban on felling of trees. This Court, thereafter, issued notice to theState of Himachal Pradesh and also made it clear that if any such ordershave been passed, the operation of the same were stayed and no fellingDof trees be done. In the affidavit filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh,in response to the order dated 14.02.2000, it was pointed out that theintention of the State was to resume silviculture operations consisting ofregeneration, felling and thinning of the trees as per the Working Planduly approved. The State of Himachal Pradesh also informed this CourtEthat though the State had intended to do silivicultural felling but in actualfact this decision has not been given effect to. It was clearly mentionedthat no felling of trees has taken place except of those allowed by thisCourt specifically. It is also pertinent to mention that the Government ofIndia vide G.O. dated 11.10.2002 suspended the Working Plan for variousStates including the State of Himachal Pradesh. The State thenFapproached the Central Empowered Committee (for short ‘the CEC”),which advised the State to approach this Court for modification or vacationof the earlier stay order. This led to the filing of the present application.

4. After this application was filed, this Court directed the CEC tofile its report. The CEC, in its report dated 06.07.2017 has made theGfollowing recommendations:

“i) the permission for silvicultural fellings including thinning in theState of Himachal Pradesh be limited to only three working circlesof Chil, Sal and Khair occurring below 1500 MSL to encourageregeneration of the forests aimed at achieving mixed species H

forests with multi layered canopy having more efficient carbonsequestration capability;

ii) no felling of broad leaved species be permitted in thecompartments to be taken up for regeneration fellings of the abovethree working circles or in the miscellaneous/broad leaved workingcircle irrespective of the recommendations in the Working Plan;

iii) 764 ha. of Eucalyptus trees proposed for felling as per WorkingPlan prescriptions be permitted to be felled and the same arearegenerated with native broad leaved species;

iv) rotation of Sal and Chil to be 120 years and are worked underirregular shelterwood system;

v) rotation age of Khair be kept at 30 years with minimum dia of25 cms. at breast height;

vi) there will be total ban on burning of debris including after seedingor over wood felling in order to encourage natural regeneration ofbroad leaved species and reduce soil erosion;

vii) no felling to be undertaken in Ban oak forests and other broadleaved forests other than Sal and Khair;

viii) planting component in Assisted Natural Regeneration shallinclude more than 50% seedings of native broad leaved andmultipurpose use species other than that of the principal species;

ix) the removal of Lantana weed to be an integral component ofregeneration felling and the removal of Lantana has to becompleted before the felling operations commence, so that theregeneration of the felled area is taken up forthwith;

x) in Khair working circle a minimum of 50 healthy trees per ha.are identified in advance, at least two years prior to the proposedfelling in the compartment and labelled as mother trees or standardsand these trees are not permitted to be lopped thereafter; xi) the size of the compartment to be taken up for regenerationfelling in a given year shall not exceed 20 ha.. If any compartmentis more than 20 ha. in area, it can be sub-divided into two or moreunits so as to avoid creation of large gaps in canopy of forests ina given location; AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

xii) the felling operations in the adjoining forest area/compartmentof the already felled area/compartment be taken up only afterfive years of regeneration felling in the given compartment andafter ensuring that the regeneration is established in the alreadycleared forest area; B

xiii) adequate soil and moisture conservation measures are to beundertaken in regeneration area;

xiv) no green fellings are to be carried out in steep slopes andalong streams and nallas as per the standard prescription in theWorking Plan code and in the forest areas falling under Protectioncum Rehabilitation Working Circle; C

xv) State Government shall prepare three separate comprehensivemanagement plans one each for Chil, Sal and Khair respectivelycovering the entire forest area falling below 1500 MSLincorporating revised set of prescriptions as detailed in this reportDas one time exercise and after obtaining approval of MoEF&CC,integrate the same with the Working Plans of respective forestdivisions for operational purposes; and

xvi) State Government shall submit an undertaking in the form ofan Affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court ensuring sufficientEbudgetary provisions for undertaking regeneration of the felledarea in the financial year following the felling year.”

5. The report filed by the CEC was considered by this Court on12.09.2017 when learned counsel appearing for the State of HimachalFPradesh submitted that he would file an affidavit identifying three workingcircles in different areas of the State. After this affidavit was filed, werealised that circles covered a large area and the State was directed tofile an affidavit giving the areas covered by each circle and also the areaof each range/beat in the circle. On perusal of the affidavit it was foundthat each forest circle comprises of a very large area covering moreGthan one district in the State, which would entail felling of large numberof trees. Thereafter, on 04.12.2017, the State was directed to identifytwo or three ranges where the process of silviculture felling may becarried out, the area of each of those ranges, the number of beats ineach range and the area of each beat.

H

H

6. Affidavit has been filed and in this affidavit it has been pointedout that for felling of Khair (Acacia Catechu) trees, Nurpur ForestRange of Nurpur Forest Division (Dharamshala Forest Circle) of DistrictKangra, Himachal Pradesh has been identified. Khair wood is usedcommercially in making katha and, therefore, the wood of this tree is ingreat demand. It has been proposed that 80% of trees of 25 cms. diameterand above would be felled and remaining 20% of trees of 25 cms. diameterand above would be retained to act as mother trees. It is also stated thatno other broad-leaved tree shall be felled. Details have been given andit is proposed to carry out felling in the year 2018-2019 in an area of903.14 ha. and an area of 706.30 ha. has been earmarked for silviculturefelling for the year 2019-2020.

7. As far as Chil Pine (Pinus Roxburghii) trees are concerned,the State of Himachal Pradesh has proposed an area of 49.05 ha. forthe year 2018-2019 and an area of 23.95 ha. for the year 2019-2020 forsilviculture felling in the Bharari Forest Range of Bilaspur Forest Division(Bilaspur Forest Circle) of Bilaspur District of Himachal Pradesh. Asfar as Chil is concerned, it is proposed that at least 20-25 mother treesper hectare shall be retained.

8. As far as Sal (Shorea Robusta) trees are concerned, the rangeidentified is Paonta Forest Range of Paonta Sahib Forest Division (NahanForest Circle) of District Sirmour of Himachal Pradesh and an area of176.01 ha. for the year 2018-2019 and an area of 120.12 ha. for the year2019-2020 have been earmarked for silviculture felling.

9. This Court, with a view to protect the forests, had totally bannedfelling of trees. As per the affidavits filed by the State of HimachalPradesh, some amount of silviculture felling is necessary, because if nofelling is done then regeneration of trees is not as fast as it should be andonce the mature trees die after reaching their maximum life span, therewill be very few young trees to replace the old trees. Felling of trees inIndia has been banned for more than two decades. We are of the viewthat on an experimental basis we may permit silviculture felling of treesto a very limited extent and such felling should be monitored very carefullyto see whether such silviculture felling actually helps in the regenerationof forests or not. We may also note that the CEC, in its report, has alsopermitted felling of trees subject to certain conditions. We may furthernote that the CEC has recommended that the size of the compartment A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ataken up for regeneration in a given area shall not exceed 20 hectaresand we reiterate that the State shall be bound by all the conditions laiddown by the CEC including the condition that no compartment of morethan 20 hectares shall be felled at one go. In addition to the conditionslaid down by the CEC, the following conditions shall be strictly compliedwith by the State of Himachal Pradesh:B

1. The felling should be done directly by the Forest Departmentor by the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation and thework of felling should not be handed over or given on contractto any private agency;

C2. The Forest Department should ensure that videography of eachbeat where felling is to be done, is done separately at regularintervals to clearly indicate the condition and state of the forestbefore felling, during felling and after felling;

3. As far as Khair trees are concerned, the State shall ensureDthat at least 25% of mature Khair trees are retained as mothertrees and these should be marked and numbered as trees notto be felled, which should be clearly reflected in thevideography. The trees to be felled can be marked by a separatecolour. The number, size and girth of the trees should be clearlyspelt out;E4. As far as Chil Pine and Sal trees are concerned, the State shallensure that at least 40 mature trees are retained per hectareand the other conditions will be the same as applicable to Khairtrees;

5. In addition to the conditions laid down in the Working Plan andFthose laid down by the CEC, the State of Himachal Pradeshshall ensure that adequate funds are made available and re-afforestation is done either simultaneously or if it is not possible,immediately after felling is complete in each block of 20hectares.G

6. It should also be ensured that these forest areas are kept freefrom grazing and are protected;

7. The State should also ensure that sufficient number of healthysaplings are planted so that there is proper regeneration of theforest.H

8. This entire programme of experimental silviculture felling shallbe done under the supervision and guidance of a two-MemberCommittee headed by Shri V.P. Mohan, IFS (Retd.), formerPrincipal Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh.The second member of this Committee shall be nominated bythe Vice Chancellor, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticultureand Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The secondMember shall be a Professor of Silviculture.

10. The Principal Chief Conservator shall be liable to ensure thatfelling is done strictly in accordance with the orders of this Court. Tothis limited extent, the orders dated 12.12.1996 and 14.02.2000 aremodified as far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned.

11. The Committee should submit its report to this Court every 6months. The State of Himachal Pradesh shall provide all facilities to thecommittee including transport and boarding facilities. The remunerationto be paid to the members of the committee shall be determined whenthe committee submits its report.

12. Registrar Judicial to send the copy of this order to Shri V.P.Mohan, IFS (Retd.), former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,Himachal Pradesh, Sunny Villa, Nigam Vihar, Shimla-171002 andDr. Y.S. Parmar, University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan,Himachal Pradesh-173203.

13. Accordingly, I.A. is disposed of.

Divya Pandey

I.A. disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H