THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC. ETC versus UDAY EDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST AND ANR. ETC on 21 October 2022

[2022] 19 S.C.R. 781

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ETC. ETC

v.

UDAY EDUCATION AND WELFARE TRUST AND ANR. ETC.ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos.2407–2412 of 2021)

OCTOBER 21, 2022

[B. R. GAVAI AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: ss. 19(1), 20, 22 – WoodBased Industries [Establishment and Regulation] Guidelines 2016– Need for sustainable development – Provisional license – Issuanceof, for establishment of Wood based industries-WBIs – Timberassessment for Trees Outside Forest-TOF in the State of U.P. forWBIs by the Forest Survey of India-FSI – E-lottery held for grant oflicenses to various WBIs and issuance of provisional licenses to1215 successful applicants in the 8 categories to set up their WBIs– Subsequently, issuance of notice by the Government of UPcommunicating the same to WBIs – Challenged to, by the respondent– Direction by the National Green Tribunal to the U.P. State to submita report and to review its notice with regard to the establishment ofnew WBIs –NGT then quashed and set aside the notice issued bythe State Government for establishing new WBIs and all theprovisional licenses given – NGT held that WBIs can be allowed tooperate only after ensuring timber and raw material availability tosustain such industries and this was to be determined in actual termsand not on mere assumptions – On appeal, held: Estimation arrivedat by the FSI was by applying a proper and adequate scientificmethod – Courts should not enter into an area that is the domain ofthe experts – Duty of the State as well as its citizens to safeguardthe forest of the country – Principles of natural justice are requiredto be followed even in administrative actions when such actionsadversely affect the rights of the citizens – Furthermore, before alitigant is permitted to knock the doors of justice and seek orderswhich have far reaching effects of affecting the employment ofthousands of persons stopping investment in the State, prejudicingthe interests of the farmers; the credentials of the applicants mustbe tested – While protecting the environment, the need for sustainabledevelopment has also to be taken into consideration and a proper

A

B

CD

E

F

GH

Abalance between the two has to be struck – For the sustainabledevelopment of the State and on account of the availability of thetimber, sanction of granting licenses can be permitted to continue,however, as a responsible State, it needs to ensure that environmentalconcerns are duly attended to – Thus, the State Government directedto ensure that while granting permission for felling trees of theBprohibited species, it should strictly ensure that the permission isgranted only when the conditions specified in the Notification dated7th January 2020 are satisfied – Impugned orders of the NGT arenot sustainable in law andthus, are quashed and set aside.

Allowing the appeals, the CourtC

HELD: 1.1 This Court had accepted the recommendationsof the CEC wherein the CEC had computed the total availabilityof timber and had also taken into consideration the availability oftimber from the prohibited category. Even as per the assessmentof the IPIRTI, the timber requirement of a plywood unit isDrequired to be taken as ‘NIL’ on the ground that the round timberis used as timber in the veneer units only and that the plywoodunits are the secondary users which use the veneer as rawmaterial. [Para 49 & 59][797-D; 801-D-E]

1.2 As per the 2016 Guidelines, the SLC was reconstitutedEin the State of U.P. The SLC was to assess the availability oftimber by commissioning studies, preferably in collaboration withinstitutes/universities of repute, once in five years. In accordancewith the 2016 Guidelines, the FSI conducted the survey andsubmitted its report in March 2018. For conducting the survey,Fthe FSI acquired satellite data for the inventoried districts of UttarPradesh from National Remote Sensing Centre, Hyderabad. Theentire gambit of scientific methodology was applied. FSI had alsodivided the State of Uttar Pradesh into 9 Agro-climatic zones togenerate the estimate of growing stock and annual potentialproduction. The contention of the respondents that the rotationGmethod was not applied is totally incorrect. [Para 64-67][803-G-H; 804-A, F; 805-B-C]

1.3 Estimation arrived at by the FSI was by applying a properand adequate scientific method. However, it is surprising thatthe learned NGT has brushed aside such a scientific exercise. AH

THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC. ETC v. UDAY EDUCATION ANDWELFARE TRUST AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

body having expertise in the field, i.e. the FSI, upon a scientificstudy, has concluded that there is sufficient timber available inthe State of Uttar Pradesh. [Para 70, 71 & 89][806-B-C; 812-F-G]

1.4 FSI has also emphasized the need of promoting TOF. Ithas been observed that TOF are significant natural, renewableresources which make vital contributions to the agro–ecology,socio–economy of the rural area, and environmental ameliorationin the urban area and feed WBIs with raw material and thusgenerate significant employment. [Para 74][808-B-C]

2.1 Prohibited trees cannot be felled unless permission tofell such tree has been obtained in writing from the competentauthority. The tree owners are also required to maintain 10 treesin place of each tree felled. It is thus clear that there is no absoluteprohibition for felling the trees which are in the prohibitedcategory. However, the same can be done only in exceptionalcircumstances [Para 76][808-E-F]

2.2 It is settled that the Courts should not enter into anarea that is the domain of the experts. FSI, which is undisputedlyan expert body, had arrived at its estimation based on the scientificmethod. NGT has failed to take into consideration the stand ofthe MOEFCC, which also supported the stand of the State thatsufficient timber was available legally to run the new WBIs. [Para79, 81][809-D-E; 810-A]

2.3 Decision of the SLC for not getting the assessment doneby the IPIRTI is based on sound reasons. When the 2016Guidelines itself provided for the consumption of timber by WBIsbased on the report of the IPIRTI, there was no purpose to againget the assessment done by IPIRTI. The scope of judicial reviewhas been succinctly explained by this court in the case of TataCellular vs. Union of India [1994] 6 SCC 651.[Para 83][810-F-G]

3.1 It is the duty of the State as well as its citizens tosafeguard the forest of the country. The resources of the presentare to be preserved for the future generations. However, oneprinciple cannot be applied in isolation of the other. Whileprotecting the environment, the need for sustainable

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H

Adevelopment has also to be taken into consideration and a properbalance between the two has to be struck. [Para 87 & 88][812-E-F]

3.2 It is also emphasized that if the new WBIs are permitted,it will reduce the import of WBIs produce. However, all theseBaspects have not been taken into consideration by the learnedNGT. Court is of the view that the NGT has taken a lopsidedview. It has failed to take into consideration the concernsexpressed by the State. NGT has committed patent error inignoring the expert’s report and sitting in appeal over the same.NGT has also failed to take into consideration the stand taken byCthe MOEFCC, which supported the stand of the State. Impugnedorders of the learned NGT are not sustainable in law. [Para 91 &94][813-F; 814-E-G]

3.3 On the date on which the review applications wererejected, 1215 provisional licenses were already granted and 633Dunits had already been established and commenced production,NGT has passed the impugned order which adversely affects theirinterest.It is more than a settled law that the principles of naturaljustice are required to be followed even in administrative actionswhen such actions adversely affect the rights of the citizens. WhenEthe learned NGT exercised its judicial powers, it could not haveignored the principles of natural justice, which, even underSection 19[1] of the NGT Act, it is bound to follow. [Para 95][815-A-C]

3.4 This court finds that before a litigant is permitted toFknock the doors of justice and seek orders which have far reachingeffects of affecting the employment of thousands of persons,stopping investment in the State, prejudicing the interests of thefarmers; the credentials and bonafides of the applicants must betested. [Para 99][816-C]

4.1 Though this court is allowing the appeals, setting asideGthe orders of the learned NGT, and upholding the action of theState Government in granting licenses, the court would like toremind the State and its authorities that it is their duty to protectthe environment. The State and its authorities should ensure thatnecessary steps are taken for arresting the problem of decliningHforest and tree cover. The court directs the State Government to THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC. ETC v. UDAY EDUCATION ANDWELFARE TRUST AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

ensure that while granting permission for felling trees of theprohibited species, it should strictly ensure that the permissionis granted only when the conditions specified in the Notificationdated 7th January 2020 are satisfied. [Para 100 & 102][816-F;819-E]

4.2 The impugned orders passed by the learned NationalGreen Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi as well as in theReview Applications are quashed and set aside. [Para 103][819-F-G]

Common Cause vs. Union of India and others (2017) 9SCC 499: [2017] 13 SCR 361; Mantri Techzone PrivateLimited vs. Forword Foundation and others [2019] 18SCC 494; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbaivs. Ankita Sinha and Ors.(2021) SCC OnLine SC 897;Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma and others[2022] SCC OnLine SC 79;T ata Cellular vs. Union ofIndia (1994) 6 SCC 651 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122Para 83; Samatha vs. State of A.P. and Ors.(1997) 8SCC 191 : [1997] Suppl. SCR 305; State of H.P. andothers vs. Ganesh Wood Products and others (1995) 6SCC 363 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 477; Essar Oil Ltd. vs.Halar Utkarsh Samiti and others (2004) 2 SCC 392 :[2004] 1 SCR 808; Indian Council for Enviro–LegalAction vs. Union of India and others (1996) 5 SCC281 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 507; Maharashtra LandDevelopment Corporation and others vs. State ofMaharashtra and another (2011) 15 SCC 616 : [2010]15 SCR 37; Glanrock Estate Private Limited vs. Stateof Tamil Nadu (2010) 10 SCC 96 : [2010] 12 SCR 597;T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India andothers AIR 1997 SC 1228 : [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 982– referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2017] 13 SCR 361[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122[1997] Suppl. SCR 305[1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 477[2004] 1 SCR 808

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2022] 19 S.C.R.

B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.2407-2412 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2020 of the NationalGreen Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Review ApplicationCNos.40 and 41 of 2020 and dated 21.12.2020 in Review ApplicationNo.42 of 2020 and dated 18.02.2020 in Original Application Nos.313,335 and 396 of 2019.

With

DCivil Appeal Nos.3144-3146, 3132-3134, 3135-3137, 3138, 4061-4062, 3141, 2547-2548, 3142-3143, 3147-3149 Of 2022

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Vikas Singh, P.S. Patwalia, RanaMukherjee, V. Giri, Syed Waseem Qadri, Sr. Adv., V. K. Uniyal, VinayNavare, V.K. Shukla, Dhruv Mehta, Brijender Chahar, Sr. Advs.,EKamlendra Mishra, Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, RajeevKumar Dubey, Saurabh Singh Chauhan, Ms. Saroj Tripathi, Md. RashidSaeed, Saeed Quadri, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, DhananjayGarg, Ishaan Tiwari, Satyajeet Kumar, Rajesh Srivastava, Gaurav Verma,Neeraj Datt Gaur, Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, A. Lakshminarayanan,FRudraksh Gupta, A. Velan, Akhil P. Philip, Vishwadeep Chauhan, VikalpSharma, Ankolekar Gurudatta, Ajay Singh, Ram Kumar, DebasisMukherjee, Lokesh Kumar Choudhary, Vivek Gupta, MrinmayBhattmewara, Rajvir Singh Bhati, Shyam R. Agarwal, Namit Saxena,Ms. Suhashini Sen, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Chinmayee Chandra,Varun Chugh, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, RashidGHasan, Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Md. Anas Chaudhary, Dr. Vinod KumarTewari, Alok Kumar, Nihal Ahmad, Arvind Kumar Shukla, Amit Kumar,Ms. Prachi Goyal, Ms. Anu Singla, Tushar Swahi, Vasu, Arvind KumarShukla, Vasu Chaudhar, Ms. Prachi, S. K. Verma, Zulfiker Ali P. S,Advs. for the appearing parties.

H

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B. R. GAVAI, J.

1. For the reasons stated in the applications for impleadment/intervention, the same are allowed.

2. This bunch of appeals challenges the order dated 18[th] February2020, passed by the learned National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench,New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the learned NGT”) in OriginalApplication Nos.313, 335 and 396 of 2019, thereby quashing and settingaside the notice dated 1[st] March 2019 issued by the State of Uttar Pradeshfor establishing new wood based industries (hereinafter referred to as“WBIs”) and also setting aside all the provisional licenses given inpursuance thereof.

3. The appeals also challenge the orders dated 18[th] March 2020,2[nd] December 2020, and 21[st] December 2020 vide which the reviewapplications filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the provisional licenseholders have been rejected.

4. Civil Appeal Nos.2407-2412 of 2021 are filed by the State ofUttar Pradesh. The rest of the Civil Appeals are filed by the provisionallicense holders, who were granted licenses in pursuance of the noticedated 1[st] March 2019, issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. For the sake of convenience, we will refer to the facts as foundin Civil Appeal Nos. 2407-2412 of 2021 filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

6. There are series of orders passed by this Court and the CentralEmpowered Committee (hereinafter referred to as “CEC”) appointedby this Court, issuing various directions for prohibiting/regulating thefelling of trees as well as the establishment of WBIs. We will refer tothem extensively in the subsequent paragraphs.

7. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 5[th] October2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995 (T.N. GodavarmanThirumalpad vs. Union of India), the Ministry of Environment and Forestand Climate Change (“MOEFCC” for short) issued Wood BasedIndustries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines 2016 (hereinafterreferred to as “2016 Guidelines”) vide Notification No. S.O. 3456 (E)dated 11[th] November 2016.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A8. Subsequent to the 2016 Guidelines, timber assessment for TreesOutside Forest (“TOF” for short) in the State of Uttar Pradesh for WBIswas done for the period between February 2017 and December 2017 bythe Forest Survey of India (“FSI” for short). The FSI thereafter submittedits report, which contains district wise, species wise and diameter classwise number of stems (trees), volume and annual potential production ofBtimber from TOF in rural areas of all the districts of the State.

9. In pursuance of the 2016 Guidelines, the matter was placedbefore the State Level Committee (“SLC” for short) for grant of licensesto various WBIs. The SLC in its meeting held on 4[th] May 2018,considered the matter about the grant of licenses to various WBIs afterCtaking into consideration the availability of wood in the State of UttarPradesh for determining the amount of timber available for new WBIs.In the said meeting, it was also decided that, in order to determine thecorrect number of new licenses to be issued to WBIs under differentcategories against the timber available in the State, a reassessment mayDbe done by the Indian Plywood Industries Research and Training Institute(“IPIRTI” for short).

10. In the meeting of the SLC, held on 7[th] September 2018, sinceit was found that the capacity of plywood units is taken as fixed by the2016 Guidelines, which, in turn, was based on the assessment of IPIRTI,a decision was taken that there was no need for the fresh assessment ofthe capacity by IPIRTI.

E

11. In pursuance of the aforesaid decision, E-lottery was held on12[th] December 2018 for grant of licenses to various WBIs for theestablishment of WBIs in 8 categories. Between 12[th] December 2018Fand 31[st] December 2018, online letters of offer were issued to 1348successful applicants. Subsequently, in the months of February and March2019, provisional licenses were issued to 1215 successful applicants inthe 8 categories to set up their WBIs. Subsequent thereto, on 1[st] March2019, a notice was issued by the Government of Uttar Pradeshcommunicating the grant of provisional licenses to the newly selectedGWBIs.

12. Being aggrieved thereby, Original Application No. 313 of 2019came to be filed by Uday Education and Welfare Trust before the learnedNGT in March 2019. Vide order dated 28[th] March 2019, the learnedNGT directed the State Government to submit a report from the JointHCommittee comprising of the representative of Principal Secretary (Forest), U.P. and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P. toexamine the issues.

13. Being aggrieved by the notice dated 1[st] March 2019 issued bythe State Government, Original Application Nos. 335 and 396 of 2019also came to be filed by Samvit Foundation and U.P. Timber Associationrespectively before the learned NGT.

14. In pursuance of the directions issued by the learned NGT, theJoint Committee Report came to be submitted on 3[rd] August 2019. Videorder dated 6[th] August 2019 passed in Original Application nos. 313, 335and 396 of 2019, the learned NGT directed the State Government toreview the notice dated 1[st] March 2019 with regard to the establishmentof new WBIs by 1350 units strictly in terms of the judgment of thisCourt in the case of T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India. Vide orderdated 1[st] October 2019, the learned NGT directed the status quo to bemaintained.

15. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an Interlocutory ApplicationNo.732 of 2019 in O.A. Nos. 313, 335 and 396 of 2019, seekingmodification of the order dated 6[th] August 2019 and the order dated 1[st]October 2019. Vide order dated 18[th] December 2019, the learned NGTissued directions to the State Government to provide certain data.Subsequently, vide the impugned order dated 18[th ]February 2020, thelearned NGT allowed the said Original Applications and quashed andset aside the notice dated 1[st] March 2019 issued by the State Governmentfor establishing new WBIs and all the provisional licenses given.

16. Being aggrieved thereby, Civil Appeal (Diary) No.12004 of2020 was filed before this Court. Vide order dated 26[th] October 2020,this Court dismissed the said appeals as withdrawn with a liberty to filereview application before the learned NGT. Vide orders dated 18[th] March2020, 2[nd] December 2020, and 21[st] December 2020, the learned NGTrejected the Review Applications.

17. The appellants, therefore, approached this Court beingaggrieved by the orders passed by the learned NGT in the OriginalApplications as well as in the Review Petitions.

SUBMISSIONS

18. We have heard Shri Vikas Singh, Shri P.S. Patwalia and Mr.Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AState of Uttar Pradesh, Shri V. Giri, Shri Syed Waseem Qadri, Shri V.K.Uniyal, Shri Vinay Navare, Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsels,Ms. Prerna Singh, and Mr. Rudraksh Gupta, learned counsels appearingon behalf of the appellants, who were granted provisional licenses. Wehave also heard Shri Dhruv Mehta and Shri Brijender Chahar, learnedSenior Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.B

19. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that thedecision of the State Government to establish WBIs is in accordancewith the 2016 Guidelines issued by the MOEFCC. He submits that thetimber requirement by 1215 new WBIs, which were issued provisionallicenses is only 12.35 lakh cubic meters per year, whereas the total timberCavailable in the State is 80.30 lakh cubic meters per year. It is, therefore,submitted that, as such, the requirement is not even 20% of the totalavailability of timber. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the onlyauthorized agency in the country to conduct a survey of the forest aswell as TOF is FSI. It is submitted that the object of IPIRTI is not to Dconduct a survey of either forest or TOF. It is submitted that, as a matterof fact, the learned NGT itself has directed such a study to be conductedby FSI, who has already undertaken similar studies for many States likePunjab, Maharashtra and others. It is submitted that when the surveywith regard to availability of timber in the State of Uttar Pradesh wasdone by the very same agency, the learned NGT fell in gross error inEagain directing the State Government to conduct such a survey throughthe FSI.

20. It is submitted that even the MOEFCC had supported thestand taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the learnedNGT ought not to have interfered with the decision of the StateFGovernment.

21. Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel also submitted thatthe decision of the State Government was in tune with the decision ofthis Court dated 18[th] May 2007 and 5[th] October 2015 passed in WritPetition (Civil) No.202 of 1995 (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs.Union of India). It is submitted that when an expert body like the FSIGhad done an elaborate study, there was no reason for the learned NGTto have sat in appeal over the same. He further submits that though adetailed affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradeshin compliance with the order of the learned NGT dated 18[th] December2019, regarding the availability of timber, the learned NGT has totallyHignored the same.

22. Shri V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the learnedNGT erred in passing orders which have vitally affected the rights ofthe citizens who were granted provisional licenses. He submits that theorder impugned is totally in breach of the principles of natural justice. Itis submitted that, from the perusal of the record, it is clear that the Stateof Haryana while calculating its requirement for wood also takes intoconsideration the import from the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is submittedthat when there is excess wood available in the State of Uttar Pradesh,there is no reason why the same should be permitted to be exported tothe State of Haryana at the cost of entrepreneurs in the State of UttarPradesh.

23. Shri Vinay Navare, learned Senior Counsel, submitted thatthe timber used in the WBIs is from the trees which are agro-based. Hesubmits that though the State of Uttar Pradesh had adopted an elaborateprocedure right from June 2018 till the grant of licenses, the applicantsbefore the learned NGT had taken no steps. Shri Navare submits thatonly after the provisional licenses were issued and 632 out of 1215 WBIsprovisional license holders had already been established and commencedoperations, the applications were entertained and the orders were passedto the prejudice of the WBIs. It is submitted that Section 19(1) of theNational Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the NGTAct”) mandates following of the principles of natural justice. It issubmitted that though the applications for impleadment were made bythe WBIs, the applicants were not granted an opportunity of being heard.

24. Shri V.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Counsel submitted that thelearned NGT had erred in using the word “allotted”. It is submitted thatthere is no question of allotment of timber to the WBIs and they arerequired to purchase the same from the open market.

25. Shri V.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel submitted that theState Government decided to grant provisional licenses for 8 differentcategories of WBIs. The requirement of raw material for differentcategories of WBIs is different. It is submitted that the learned NGThas grossly erred in considering all categories of WBIs together andsetting aside the licenses granted to all of them. It is submitted that thesaid industries are established in pursuance of the National Agro ForestryPolicy of 2014 and as such the learned NGT ought not to have interfered.

26. Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel appears for the appellants,who have been granted provisional licenses for plywood (press only)

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acategory. She submits that for plywood (press only) industries, there isno requirement of consumption of timber directly. It is submitted thatinitially veneer is manufactured out of round/fresh timber. Veneer thenso manufactured is glued and pressed together to manufacture plywood.It is submitted that the learned NGT has considered the requirement oftimber as twice the actual requirement. She submits that in the State ofBUttar Pradesh, veneer is manufactured in surplus, which is exported tothe State of Haryana.

27. Shri Rudraksh Gupta, learned counsel, submits that the learnedNGT has failed to take into consideration the report of the NationalPoplar Commission of India.C

28. All the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants,in unison, submit that the original applicants before the Court were notbonafide litigants. It is submitted that there are reasons to believe thatthe proceedings were initiated at the instance of either the existing WBIsin the State of Uttar Pradesh to prevent competition or they were filedDat the instance of the WBIs in the State of Haryana who were importingtimber from the State of Uttar Pradesh at cheaper rates.

29. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalfof the respondent No.1, on the contrary, submits that this Court hasrepeatedly held that the principles of sustainable development, theEprecautionary principle and the polluter pays principle are to be followedconsistently. He raised a preliminary objection on the ground that in viewof Section 22 of the NGT Act, the scope of an appeal before this Courtcould be limited to that of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. It is, therefore, submitted that unless a substantial question of lawFis raised, the appeal could not be tenable.

30. Shri Dhruv Mehta submits that this Court vide order dated12[th] December 1996 has specifically prohibited the felling of trees in anyforest, public or private. He further relies on the report of CEC dated15[th] March 2005 to buttress his submission that WBIs can be permittedGonly if they exclusively use timber derived from poplar and eucalyptusspecies or agriculture waste products. It is submitted that the saidguidelines also specifically provided that if the unit is found to have usedany timber other than poplar and eucalyptus whether from a legal sourceor otherwise, the license granted to the unit shall be liable to be cancelled.He further relies on the report of CEC dated 12[th] October 2006. HeHsubmits that an assessment has to be done on the basis of the district- wise survey about timber availability from the TOF category. He submitsthat the said report of CEC itself would reveal that the assessment ofthe State is much less than what was initially projected by the StateGovernment. He submits that unless the timber availability for the newWBIs is assessed and the SLC examines and recommends its approval,it is not permissible to establish new WBIs.

31. Shri Mehta further submits that the report of CEC dated 18[th]April 2007, accepted by this Court vide its order dated 18[th] May 2007,would show that the availability of timber for WBIs in the State of UttarPradesh is only 45.70 lakh cubic meters per year. Learned Senior Counselsubmits that taking into consideration the fact that presently manyimported machines from China are being used, the capacity of the existingunits has gone much higher and, therefore, the timber which is availablein the State of Uttar Pradesh would not be sufficient to meet the demandof the existing industries.

32. Shri Mehta submits that when SLC in its meeting dated 4[th]May 2018 had decided to get a report from IPIRTI, there was no occasionfor it to review its decision in its subsequent meeting dated 7[th] September2018. He submits that the Senior Officer of the Forest Department ofthe rank of Chief Conservator of Forest, Kanpur Division, Kanpurrecommended that the report from IPIRTI should be obtained beforedeciding to issue the new licenses. It is submitted that the letters of thesaid officer dated 11[th] September 2019 and 20[th] April 2018have beenignored by the SLC.

33. Shri Dhruv Mehta further submits that Annexure-I to the 2016Guidelines is in contravention of the recommendations of CEC, whichtakes the requirement of timber for plywood unit as “NIL”.

34. The learned Senior Counsel submits that vide Notification dated20[th] July 2012, the State of Uttar Pradesh had notified 7 species of treesin the prohibited category. However, vide another Notification dated 31[st]October 2017, the said trees were taken out of the prohibited category.The learned NGT had set aside the said Notification of 2017 by orderdated 11[th] September 2018. It is submitted that the said order of thelearned NGT has been accepted by the State of Uttar Pradesh and afresh notification has been issued on 7[th ]January 2020, again bringing thesaid trees in the prohibited category. The learned Senior Counsel submitsthat while assessing the availability of timber, the trees under the saidprohibited category have also been taken into consideration. He submits A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Athat if 20.75 lakh cubic meters is deducted from the availability of thetimber, then the timber available in the State would be much less.

35. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the surveyhas not been conducted for all the districts and has been conducted onlyfor 30 districts and, therefore, the survey itself is erroneous.B

36. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that FSI, whileconducting the survey, has not taken into consideration the rotation periodand, therefore, the survey is erroneous on the said count also. LearnedSenior Counsel, in support of his submissions, relies on the judgment ofthis Court in the cases of Common Cause vs. Union of India andCothers[1], Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forword Foundationand others[2], Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. AnkitaSinha and Others[3]and Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharmaand others[4].

37. Shri Dhruv Mehta, relying on the judgment of this Court in theDcase of Ankita Sinha and Others (supra), submits that this Court itselfhas considered the learned NGT to be a special Tribunal and held that itwill even have jurisdiction to take suo motu cognizance of theenvironmental issues. He, therefore, submits that the arguments madeon behalf of the appellants with regard to locus are without substance.

E38. Shri Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel, in rejoinder, submitsthat the only distinction between the prohibited trees and non-prohibitedtrees is that the non-prohibited trees can be felled without permission,whereas prohibited trees can be felled only in certain circumstances andonly after the requisite permission is granted. He submits that the perusalof the FSI survey would reveal that even after the timber requirementFfor 1215 new units is taken into count, the State, still, will have 26.36lakh cubic meters in reserve. He submits that if the new WBIs arepermitted, it would result in more farmers going in for agro forestry inthe State, which, in turn, will increase the forest cover. It is submittedthat said 1215 units are likely to give employment to around 80000 people.GLearned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned ordersdeserve to be quashed and set aside.

1(2017) 9 SCC 4992 (2019) 18 SCC 4943 2021 SCC OnLine SC 897

4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 79

H

EARLIER ORDERS OF THIS COURT

39. For appreciating the rival submissions, it will be apposite torefer to certain orders passed by this Court.

40. This Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman (supra) passedan order on 12[th] December 1996. The relevant part thereof is as under:

“6. Each State Government should within two months, file a reportregarding –

(i) the number of saw mills, veneer and plywood millsactually operating within the State, with particularsof their real ownership;

(ii) the licenced and actual capacity of these mills forstock and sawing;

(iii) their proximity to the nearest forest;

(iv) their source of timber.

7. Each State Government should constitute within one month,an Expert Committee to assess:

(i) the sustainable capacity of the forests of the Statequa saw mills and timber based industry;

(ii) The number of existing saw mills which can safelybe sustained in the State;

(iii) The optimum distance from the forest, qua that State,at which the saw mill should be located.”

41. Vide subsequent order dated 4[th] March 1997[5], this Courtdirected thus:

“6. All unlicensed saw mills, veneer and plywood industries in theState of Maharashtra and the State of Uttar Pradesh are to beclosed forthwith and the State Government would not remove orrelax the condition for grant of permission/licence for the openingof any such saw mill, veneer and plywood industry and it shallalso not grant any fresh permission/licence for this purpose. TheChief Secretary of the State will ensure strict compliance of thisdirection and file a compliance report within two weeks.”

5 (1997) 3 SCC 312

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A42. Vide order dated 9[th] May 2002, this Court constituted CECfor monitoring of the implementation of the orders passed by this Courtand for placing non-compliances of the cases before it.

43. Vide order dated 29[th] October 2002[6], this Court further directedthus:B“

“44. No State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensedsawmills, veneer, plywood industry to operate and they are directedto close all such unlicensed unit forthwith. No State Governmentor Union Territory will permit the opening of any sawmills, veneeror plywood industry without prior permission of the CentralCEmpowered Committee. The Chief Secretary of each State willensure strict compliance with this direction. There shall also beno relaxation of rules with regard to the grant of licence withoutprevious concurrence of the Central Empowered Committee.

45. It shall be open to apply to this Court for relaxation and orDappropriate modification or orders qua plantations or grant oflicences.”

44. Vide order dated 1[st] September 2006, this Court allowedlicenses to be issued to the closed sawmills, Veneer and Plywood unitsas per availability of timber and eligibility and seniority as per CECrecommendation.E45. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, SLC wasconstituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh for verification and compilationof information about closed WBIs.

46. The FSI conducted its assessment and assessed the annualFavailability of wood from TOF in the State of Uttar Pradesh at 55.61lakh cubic meters vide report dated 3[rd] April 2007.

47. On the basis of the report of the FSI, the SLC assessed theannual availability of timber for WBIs from TOF at 53.01 lakh cubicmeters. CEC further reduced the same to 43.70 lakh cubic meters.GHowever, it added 2.00 lakh cubic meters per year as timber availablefrom government forests, and, therefore, assessed the annual availabilityof timber at 45.70 lakh cubic meters.

48. It is to be seen that in its report itself, the CEC included 17.77lakh cubic meters of timber from the prohibited species. This CourtH6 (2008) 16 SCC 337

THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC. ETC v. UDAY EDUCATION ANDWELFARE TRUST AND ANR. ETC. ETC. [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

considered the report of CEC and passed the following order on 18[th]May 2007:

“The matters relate to Saw Mills, Plywood and Veneer Units.

The CEC has considered the availability of wood for the industries,which was assessed as 43.70 lakh cu. mt from trees outside forestsand 02.00 lakh cu. mt from Government Forests.

It has also assessed the units into four categories.

We accept the CEC’s recommendations. The Saw Mills, Plywoodand Veneer Units may be permitted, on the basis of therecommendations made by the CEC. Licences may be given bythe State Level Committees.

If there are any objections regarding grant of Iicences, the partieswould be at liberty to submit their applications before the CEC forconsideration.”

49. It could thus be seen that in 2007 itself, this Court had acceptedthe recommendations of the CEC wherein the CEC had computed thetotal availability of timber and had also taken into consideration theavailability of timber from the prohibited category.

50. Vide order dated 29[th] February 2008, this court consideredthe issue regarding the manufacturing of Medium Density Fiber board(MDF) and Particle board in the States of Punjab, Uttarakhand andKarnataka. While considering the same, this Court passed the followingorder:

“The matter relates to the manufacturing of Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) and Particle Board in the States of Punjab,Uttarakhand and Karnataka. CEC has filed its report and statedthat there is a growing trend to use more and more MDF / ParticleBoard in place of industrial timber. The MDF/Particle Board helpin reducing the pressure on natural forests. The lops and tops andsmall wood available from the plantations of eucalyptus, poplar,etc. raised on the non-forest can be used by MDF/Particle Boardplants.”

51. In view of the permissions granted by this Court, the licenseswere granted to the unlicensed sawmills which were closed on accountof the orders passed by this Court taking into consideration the availability

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof timber between 2007 and 2010. However, it is to be noted that thesaid licenses were granted only to the units which were closed and notto the new units.

52. The matter again came up for consideration before this Courton 30[th] April 2010, when this Court passed the following order:B

“(II) after meeting the requirement of the licensed wood basedindustry, the units permitted by this Hon’ble Court and the unitswhose category is yet to be finalised, the plywood/veneer unitsfalling in category IV may be considered for grant of license tothe extent of timber availability and strictly in the order of seniority,Csubject to the one-time payment of Rs.9 lakhs per press in respectof the veneer units and compliance of the other conditions thathave been stipulated. The one-time payment of penalty will be inaddition to the normal licence fee and the other charges, if any,payable to the U.P. Forest Department. As decided earlier, theabove said amount should be kept in a designated interest bearingDbank account and should be utilized only after the scheme in thisregard is approved by this Hon’ble Court;”

53. It could thus be seen that this Court permitted granting ofadditional licenses if additional timber was found to be available.

E54. The CEC in its meeting held on 26[th] May 2010 with the SLCand representatives of WBIs Associations in the State of Uttar Pradesh,after taking into consideration the capacity of timber for Vertical BandSaw (VBS) sawmill, modified/reduced the value of capacity of timberfor VBS sawmills upto 10 Horse Power from 540 to 270 cubic metersper year for the State of Uttar Pradesh in line with other States. AsFsuch, additional 9,58,230 cubic meters of timber became available forlicenses from 3,549 such VBS units. In view of this position between2010 and 2015, licenses came to be issued by the State of Uttar Pradeshto unlicensed WBIs, which were closed earlier by the order of this Court,as per the criteria recommended by the CEC and accepted by this Court.

E

G55. The matter again came up for consideration before this Courton 5[th] October 2015 with regard to WBIs, when this Court passed thefollowing order:

“CATEGORY I - MATTERS RELATING TO WOODBASED INDUSTRIES:

H

We have heard Shri Harish Salve, learned amicus curiae,Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General of India, Shri K.K.Venugopal, learned senior counsel and other learned senior counsel/counsels. Accordingly, we pass the following orders:

(i) The State Level Committees for Wood-Based Industries(“SLCs”) are, subject to the compliance of the prescribed guidelinesand procedure, authorized to take decisions regarding the grant oflicense/permission to the wood-based industries;

(ii) In each State/UT for which the SLC has so far notbeen constituted, the SLC under the Chairmanship of the PrincipalChief Conservator of Forests with a representative of the Ministryof Environment and Forest and Climate Change (“MoEFCC”)and an officer of the State Forest Department/IndustriesDepartment not below the rank of the Chief Conservator ofForests/ equivalent rank will immediately be constituted;

(iii) The MoEF is authorized to issue appropriate guidelinesin conformation with the orders and directions issued by this Courtand also the existing guidelines to the SLCs relating to assessmentof timber availability for wood-based industries and grant oflicense/permission to the wood-based industries including additionof new machineries and also utilization of amounts recovered fromthe wood-based industries and connected matters;

(iv) Any person aggrieved by the decision taken by the SLCmay file an appeal before the MoEFCC seeking appropriate reliefwithin 60 days’ time. If, for any reason, any person is aggrievedby the orders so passed in the appeal, he may prefer an appropriatepetition/application/appeal before the appropriate forum/Court forgrant of appropriate relief(s).

We also permit the MoEFCC to condone the delay, if any, in filingan appeal, if sufficient cause is made out by the applicant(s)/appellant(s)”

56. It is thus seen that vide the said order, SLCs were authorizedto take decisions regarding the grant of license/permission to the WBIs.Vide the said order, it was also directed to constitute SLC under theChairmanship of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest with arepresentative of MOEFCC and an officer of the State ForestDepartment/Industries Department not below the rank of the ChiefConservator of Forests/equivalent rank. This Court further directed the A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

ASLCs to be constituted in each State/Union Territory for which the SLCwas not yet constituted. The MOEF was also authorized to issueappropriate guidelines in conformity with the orders and directions issuedby this Court and also the existing guidelines to the SLCs relating to theassessment of timber availability for WBIs. Appeals could be filed beforeMOEFCC against the decision of the SLC.

BMOEFCC GUIDELINES

57. In accordance with the directions issued by this Court videorder dated 5[th] October 2015, the MOEFCC issued 2016 Guidelines on11[th] November 2016. The 2016 Guidelines provided for the constitutionCof the SLC as well as the powers and functions of SLC. Under clause 4of the 2016 Guidelines, the SLC was authorised to assess the availabilityof timber for wood based industrial units in the State/UT every fiveyears. The SLC was also authorised to approve appropriate locationsfor setting up of wood based industrial units. It was also authorized toapprove the name of wood based industrial units which may be consideredDfor grant of fresh license or enhancement of the existing licensed capacity.

58. Clause 5 of the 2016 Guidelines provides for the assessmentof the availability of timber for wood based industrial units. It requiresthat the quantity of timber would be assessed by commissioning thestudy, preferably in collaboration with institutes/universities of repute,Eonce in five years. Under clause 6 of the 2016 Guidelines, the timberrequirement for various units as assessed by IPIRTI was given inAnnexure I. The said Annexure I reads thus:

“The Indian Plywood Industry Research and Training Institute(IPlRTI), Bangalore an autonomous body under the Ministry ofFEnvironment, Forest and Climate Change has assessed the timberrequirement per unit for peeling length of 4 feet and 8 feet size inthe plywood/veneer units as 5 cu.mt and 11 cu.mt. respectivelyper day on an average of 8 working hours per day. By assumingthat the peeling units work for 8 hours per day on an average forG300 days in a year the normal timber requirement of the peelinglength of 4 feet size in veneer units is 1500 cu.mt. The total timberrequirement for the stand alone veneer units may be assessed bycalculating the equivalent number of 4 feet length machines andby taking its normal installed capacity as 1500 cu.mt. per annum.

The timber requirement of a plywood unit may be taken as‘nil’ on the ground that the round timber is used as timber in theveneer units only and that the plywood units are the secondaryusers which use the veneer as the raw material produced by theveneer units. The plywood units use presses of various sizes suchas 8x4x6, 8x4xl2, 8x4xl5, 4x4x7, 4x4x10. A 8x4xl0 capacity presscan produce upto 10 plywood pieces of 8’x4' size per hour whereasa 8x4xl5 capacity press can produce upto 15 plywood pieces of8’x4' size per hour and so on. The normative installed capacity ofthe plywood units will accordingly depend upon the number andthe type of presses. This number and type of presses installed ineach of the plywood unit may be assessed and thereafter equivalentnumber or presses of 8x4x10 capacity may be calculated. Thenormative annual timber requirement for a integrated plywoodunit having a 8x4x10 capacity press may be taken as 2000 cu.mt.per annum, and accordingly the total requirement of timber forthe plywood units should be calculated.”

59. It could thus be seen that even as per the assessment of theIPIRTI, the timber requirement of a plywood unit is required to be takenas ‘NIL’ on the ground that the round timber is used as timber in theveneer units only and that the plywood units are the secondary userswhich use the veneer as raw material. It could thus be seen that theplywood units use presses of various sizes.

60. In pursuance of the 2016 Guidelines, the SLC was reconstitutedin the State of Uttar Pradesh under the Chairmanship of Principal ChiefConservator of Forest/Head of Forest Department on 17[th] May 2017.Vide Notification dated 11[th] September 2017, the MOEFCC amendedthe 2016 Guidelines.

61. Subsequently, in accordance with the 2016 Guidelines, theSLC assessed the availability of timber for WBIs in the State of UttarPradesh, through the FSI. For assessing the availability of timber, theFSI conducted a survey and arrived at the annual potential production oftimber from TOF in rural areas of all the districts of the State. FSIassessed the annual potential production from TOF at 77.74 lakh cubicmeters. Subsequent to the survey and assessment, the SLC in its meetingdated 4[th] May 2018 considered the matter for grant of license to variousWBIs. The SLC decided to get the reassessment done by IPIRTI todetermine the correct number of new licenses to be issued to WBIs A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aunder different categories against the available timber. However,subsequently, the SLC, in its meeting dated 7[th] September 2018, foundthat IPIRTI had not done any new study/assessment of the consumptionof timber by various WBIs in any State/Union Territory. It was alsofound that the State of Haryana had adopted the timber consumptionfigures based on the CEC figures of 2007. It was therefore unanimouslyBresolved by the SLC that there was no need for any fresh study/assessment for the consumption of timber by WBIs to be conducted byIPIRTI and to adopt the figures for WBIs as were referred to in the2016 Guidelines. It further found that the CEC in its meeting dated 26[th]May 2010 had reduced the annual consumption of timber of sawmillsCupto 10 Horse Power or less HP to 270 cubic meters from 540 cubicmeters.

62. On the basis of the decision of the SLC, e-lottery was held.After following the procedure, provisional licenses were issued to 1215successful applicants in 8 categories of WBIs in February and MarchD2019. After the issuance of provisional licenses, on 1[st] March 2019, the State Government issued a Notice with regard to grant of provisionallicenses to the newly selected WBIs which came to be challenged beforethe learned NGT by way of filing the aforesaid Original Applications bythe respondents. The learned NGT after passing various interlocutorydirections finally passed the impugned order and quashed and set asideEthe notice dated 1[st] March 2019 issued by the State Government andprovisional licenses given in pursuance thereof. As such we are requiredto examine the correctness of the decision of the learned NGT.

CONSIDERATIONS

F63. The learned NGT while passing the impugned order has setaside the notice of the State of Uttar Pradesh on the following grounds:

(1) that the WBIs can be allowed to operate only after ensuringtimber and raw material availability to sustain such industriesand this has to be determined in actual terms and not onGmere assumptions;

(2) that it is difficult to accept the stand of the State of UttarPradesh that there was availability of timber/raw materialto sustain the new WBIs;

(3) that it is the stand of the State of Uttar Pradesh that theHtotal potential availability of timber per year in the State of Uttar Pradesh is 80.30 lakh cubic meters, which includes2.56 lakh cubic meters from the Government forests and77.74 lakh cubic meters from TOF. Out of 80.30 lakh cubicmeters, 71.8 lakh cubic meters were stated to be availablefrom 22 species and 8.50 lakh cubic meters from the otherspecies. Out of 22 species, there are 10 species that areprohibited from felling and as such, 20.75 lakh cubic metersfrom these 10 species are liable to be excluded;

(4) that the major contribution is from Eucalyptus (28 lakh cubicmeters) and Poplar species (15 lakh cubic meters), a totalof which is 43 lakh cubic meters. Thus, the figure is notactual but presumptive;

(5) that the standard error percentage adopted by the FSI isnot correct and is much higher;

(6) that the total availability of timber for consumption includingthat from the government forests would not be more than40-45 lakh cubic meters per year;

(7) that the potential availability of 77.74 lakh cubic meters fromTOF as given in the affidavit has been overestimated.

64. It is to be noted that after this Court allowed the licenses to beissued to the closed sawmills vide order dated 1[st] September 2006, theSLCs were constituted. The permissions were to be granted on therecommendations of the CEC. Vide order dated 18[th] May 2007, thisCourt had also accepted the recommendation of the CEC. Vide anotherorder dated 30[th] April 2010, this Court permitted additional licenses to begranted if additional timber was available. Accordingly, licenses weregranted between 2010 and 2015. Vide subsequent order dated 5[th] October2015, this Court allowed the grant of license/permission to unlicensedWBIs in the country. This Court had directed the reconstitution of theSLCs for WBIs. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the2016 Guidelines were issued by the MOEFCC. As per the 2016Guidelines, the SLC was reconstituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh on17[th] May 2017.

65. One of the duties which was cast upon the SLC was to assessthe availability of timber for wood based industrial units in the State. TheSLC was to assess the availability of timber by commissioning studies,preferably in collaboration with institutes/universities of repute, once in A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afive years. In accordance with the 2016 Guidelines, the FSI conductedthe survey and submitted its report in March 2018. It will be relevant torefer to the relevant part of the Foreword of the said report of the FSI.

“In the recent past, a number of requests were receivedfor establishment of wood based industries in the state for whichBthe raw material would come from outside the forest areas. Sinceaccurate assessment of TOF is needed for effective planning &management, Uttar Pradesh Forest Department requested FSI tomake Agro-Climatic zone wise assessment on the basis ofinventory already done during its regular course of inventoryconducted in the State. As per the final report, the total stems asCestimated from the study is 299.43 million with a volume of 79.40m. cum. The total yield in the Uttar Pradesh is estimated 7.8million cum.

The report gives an assessment of the growing stock existingoutside state forest reserves. The report has also indicated district-Dwise, species-wise and girth class-wise number of stems andvolume in each Agro-Climatic Zone wise of inventoried districts.I am confident that this report would provide useful data forarriving at informed policy and programme interventions to give afillip to forestry sector in the state besides providing benchmarkEdata for tree crop in non-forest area.”

66. After conducting the survey, the FSI has come to a findingthat the State of Uttar Pradesh had an annual potential production of77,74,521 cubic meters of timber. For conducting the survey, the FSIacquired satellite data for the inventoried districts of Uttar Pradesh StateFfrom National Remote Sensing Centre, Hyderabad. The entire gambitof scientific methodology was applied. The data processing was carriedout independently for all the inventoried districts of Uttar Pradesh. It willbe relevant to refer to the following part of the report of the FSI:

“The data processing was carried out independently for all theGinventoried districts of Uttar Pradesh. Estimates of stems per haand volume per ha were generated according to species anddiameter class for block, linear and scattered stratum under eachdistrict. Estimated stems and their volumes were generatedaccording to species and diameter class by aggregating stem perhectare and volume per hectare over the entire Rural CNF AreaHof each stratum for each district by combining the estimated stems and volumes under block, linear and scattered stratum. Byaggregating the estimates of stems and volume of all the threestrata, the estimates of stems and volumes according to speciesand diameter class has been prepared for Rural area separately.”

67. The FSI had also divided the State of Uttar Pradesh into 9Agro-climatic zones to generate the estimate of growing stock and annualpotential production. District-wise production was estimated beforeconcluding that 77,74,521 cubic meters of timber was the annual potentialproduction. The contention of the respondents that the rotation methodwas not applied is totally incorrect. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph5.4 of the said report, which reads thus:

“5.4 Estimates of Annual Potential Production of Wood fromTOF (Rural)

Yield of a forest depends on several factors such as itsstructure, growth, density, productive capacity of site etc. Theestimate of yield been generated for rural area using growingstock estimates. The Uttar Pradesh Forest Department wassupplied the complete list of tree species which were found in thesurvey. The Uttar Pradesh Forest Department was asked toindicate tree species being used as ‘timber’ and ‘non timber’ androtation period of specified timber species. The Uttar PradeshForest Department informed that they do not have rotationperiod of all species and requested Forest Survey of India touse their rotation period used for estimation of annual potentialproduction of wood. The species are arranged into two groups;one containing the species having timber values and anothercontaining rest by agro-climatic zone wise. The yield has beencalculated using Von Mentel formula as given below:

Yield= 2GS/R

Where GS: Growing Stock

R: rotation period

Using the information of timber value, growing stock androtation period in the above mentioned formulae species wise yieldwere calculated. The Agro-Climatic Zone wise yield has beengiven in Annexure-11.”

[emphasis supplied]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A68. The standard error was also determined by applying theappropriate scientific method.

69. The FSI, hence, considered various aspects before concludingand submitting its 101 page report.

70. It could thus be seen that the estimation as arrived at by theBFSI was by applying a proper and adequate scientific method.

71. However, it is surprising that the learned NGT has brushedaside such a scientific exercise by merely observing that the figuresarrived at were by estimation and not realistic.

C72. The FSI has published a paper on “Trees Outside ForestResources in India”. The contributors to the said paper are (1) Dr.Subhash Ashutosh, DG, FSI; (2) Prakash Lakhchaura, DDG, FI, (3) KamalPandey, DD, FI; (4) Dr. Sourav Ghose, Proj. Scientist D; (5) SushilaTripathi; and (6) H.K. Tripathi. The paper shows that the timber andpanel products of TOF origin have emerged as the major alternative toDtimber from forests and thus TOF have significantly obviated pressurefrom forests. The report shows that, the extent of TOF in the countryhas been assessed at 29.38 m hectare, which is around 8.94% of thetotal geographical area of the country. The report further shows thatbased on the recommendations of the National Commission on AgricultureE(NCA, 1976), the Government of India launched a social forestry programin the late seventies on a large scale. The paper further shows that,these days satellite data in a wide range of spectral, spatial, radiometricand temporal resolutions are available from various Remote SensingAgencies of several countries. It further shows that there has been arapid advancement in the development of digital image processingFsoftware. It, therefore, observes that the desired mapping of naturalresources with reasonable accuracy is possible. The report refers to themethodology of assessment of TOF in different countries of the worldand refers to various authorities. It refers to different types ofmethodologies used for different periods; the first one being from 1991Gto 2001; the second period being from 2001 to 2016; and the third periodbeing from 2016 onwards. The report shows that the State of Maharashtrahas the highest potential annual yield of timber in India followed by theStates of Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka.

73. It will be relevant to refer to the conclusion of the said paper,which is as follows:H

“5. Conclusion

TOF play a significant role in the socio-economic lives of peopleboth in rural and urban areas of the country by enriching the peopleand society at large economically as well as ecologically. Themanagement of TOF assumes high significance in the country forrealizing much higher potential which it offers in generating woodbased economy and ecosystem services including carbonsequestration. Periodic assessment of TOF resources includingits spatial distribution is prerequisite for its scientific managementin the country. FSI is mandated with this task however there isneed for continuous improvement in the methodology and inclusionof more number of variables in the assessment. The organizationwill have to be further strengthened particularly in terms of manpower, to address the emerging information needs on TOF. Therehas been regular refinement in methodologies in the last threedecades to quantify TOF resources using various statistical designsand estimates with better precision. The advancement oftechnologies in the field of remote sensing, satellite imageprocessing and availability of high resolution satellite data madethe methodology much precise and easier. The progression ofscience may further refine the existing method of TOF assessmentin near future.

TOF also act as an important source for timber and fuel wood tomeet the demands of fast growing population of the country. Thereis a need to put focus on increasing the growing stock per hectareor yield of TOF by better management and planning. There isalso a need for a separate policy on TOF to ensure its expansionand sustainable management for multiple ecological benefits, timberproduction, carbon sequestration and for obviating pressure fromthe natural forests.

Occupying nearly 9% of the geographical area of the country,TOF are significant natural, renewable resource which make vitalcontribution to the agro-ecology, socio-economy of the rural areas,environmental amelioration in the urban areas and feed wood basedindustries with the raw material and thus generate significantemployment. TOF form a nearly 38% of the carbon sink in forest& tree cover of the country. TOF offers the path for achievingthe national policy goal of 33% of forest & tree cover in the country.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThrough expansion of TOF, particularly in agro-forestry and onculturable waste lands, India can substantially increase its carbonsink to achieve its international commitments of NDC and LDNby 2030.”

74. It could thus be seen that the FSI has also emphasized theBneed of promoting TOF. It has been observed that TOF are significantnatural, renewable resources which make vital contributions to the agro-ecology, socio-economy of the rural area, and environmental ameliorationin the urban area and feed WBIs with raw material and thus generatesignificant employment.

C75. It is our considered view that, when the estimation was doneby the FSI by applying the scientific method and had arrived at theconclusion based on satellite data, such a report could not have beenbrushed aside by the learned NGT lightly.

76. Insofar as the finding of the learned NGT that the survey alsoDtakes into consideration the prohibited trees, the felling of which is notpermissible, it will be relevant to note that the Notification dated 7[th]January 2020 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh provides thatthe prohibited trees shall not be felled till 31[st] December 2025 exceptunder unavoidable circumstances, such as when a tree is dead or dyingor it constitutes a danger to persons or property, or its felling is necessaryEfor executing development work approved by the Government, or if thefruit bearing capacity of such tree has declined substantially. Such treescannot be felled unless permission to fell such tree has been obtained inwriting from the competent authority. The tree owners are also requiredto maintain 10 trees in place of each tree felled. It is thus clear that thereFis no absolute prohibition for felling the trees which are in the prohibitedcategory. However, the same can be done only in exceptionalcircumstances.

77. It is to be noted that the prohibited trees also include trees likeMango, Jamun, etc. which are fruit bearing trees. After a particularGnumber of years, the fruit bearing capacity of such trees drasticallyreduces and as such, the farmers normally fell such trees and go in forreplantation of the orchard. Apart from that, it is to be noted that theCEC itself approved the availability of timber for the State of UttarPradesh in its report dated 19[th] April 2007, which included 17.77 lakhcubic meters of prohibited trees. The said report of the CEC wasHapproved by this Court vide its order dated 18[th] May 2007.

78. It is further to be noted that in pursuance of the order of thelearned NGT dated 28[th] March 2019, a Committee of Experts [JointCommittee comprising of representative of Principal Secretary (Forest),U.P. and Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, U.P.] had submitted itsreport on 3[rd] August 2019. Not only this, but in pursuance of the directionsissued by the learned NGT on 18[th] December 2019, another detailedaffidavit was filed on behalf of the State Government on 21[st] January2020, giving therein the details about the availability of timber. It wasspecifically stated in the said affidavit that eucalyptus and poplar are themain species of TOF and 80% of the wood is derived therefrom. It wasfurther pointed out that the farmers in the State of Uttar Pradesh werenot getting remunerative prices and are forced to sell their produce at avery cheap rate mainly to middlemen. It was also pointed out that therewould be an expected investment of about Rs.3000 crore in the Statewith the establishment of new WBIs. The same would employ morethan 80000 people, mostly in the rural areas of the State. However, allthese factors have been ignored by the learned NGT.

79. As such, the learned NGT has grossly erred in deducting theavailability of timber from the prohibited trees. By now, it is more thansettled that the Courts should not enter into an area that is the domain ofthe experts. FSI, which is undisputedly an expert body, had arrived at itsestimation based on the scientific method. The learned NGT could nothave sat in appeal over the opinion of the expert.

80. It is relevant to note that MOEFCC, in pursuance of thedirections issued by the learned NGT had filed its opinion on 18[th]December 2019. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 8 of the saidopinion.

“8. That based on the examination of available documents in lightof the provisions of the Wood Based Industries (Establishmentand Regulation) Rules, 2016, MoEFCC is of the opinion that theState of U.P. has followed the Wood Based Industries(Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines, 2016 (as amended in2017) issued by MoEFCC. The availability of wood in the Statehas also been assessed by the SLC through FSI. The Ministry is,therefore, of the view that the SLC may approve setting up ofnew industries in the State if it is satisfied that sufficient timber isavailable legally to run the new wood based industries.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A81. The learned NGT has failed to take into consideration thestand of the MOEFCC, which also supported the stand of the State thatsufficient timber was available legally to run the new WBIs.

82. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for therespondents that, though in the meeting of the SLC dated 4[th] May 2018,Bit was decided to get the assessment done by IPIRTI, the SLC in itsmeeting dated 7[th] September 2018 did a volte-face and decided not toget the assessment done from IPIRTI, the perusal of the minutes of themeeting of the SLC dated 7[th] September 2018 would reveal that it wasfound that the IPIRTI had not done any new study/assessment of theconsumption of timber by various WBIs in any State/Union Territory. ItCwas noticed that, as per the report of the FSI, the TOF available was77,74,522 cubic meters. Adding the timber available in the forest area of2,57,273 cubic meters, the total quantity of availability of timber was80,31,795 cubic meters. It is to be noted that the SLC had taken note ofthe letter dated 29[th] August 2018 issued by the Director, IPIRTI, whereDhe had communicated that no assessment pertaining to the annualconsumption of timber by Veneer and Plywood Industries was undertakenby the IPIRTI during the last two years in any State of the country. Itwas found that the 2016 Guidelines itself provided for annual consumptionof timber based on the report of IPIRTI. In this premise, it was foundthat there was no need to conduct a fresh study/assessment for theEconsumption of timber by WBIs by IPIRTI. It was decided to acceptthe figures as provided in the 2016 Guidelines.

83. It can thus be seen that the decision of the SLC for not gettingthe assessment done by the IPIRTI is based on sound reasons. Whenthe 2016 Guidelines itself provided for the consumption of timber byFWBIs based on the report of the IPIRTI, there was no purpose to againget the assessment done by IPIRTI. The scope of judicial review hasbeen succinctly explained by this court in the case of Tata Cellular vs.Union of India[7], which has been consistently followed in a catena ofcases. This Court, in the said case, observed thus:G“77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question oflegality. Its concern should be:

1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded itspowers?

2. Committed an error of law,

3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,

4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunalwould have reached or,

5. abused its powers.

Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particularpolicy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy isfair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisionshave been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will varyfrom case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which anadministrative action is subject to control by judicial review canbe classified as under:

(i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understandcorrectly the law that regulates his decision-making power andmust give effect to it.

(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness.

(iii) Procedural impropriety.

The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule outaddition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact,in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, exBrind [(1991) 1 AC 696] , Lord Diplock refers specifically to onedevelopment, namely, the possible recognition of the principle ofproportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that thecourt should, “consider whether something has gone wrong of anature and degree which requires its intervention”.”

84. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, it cannotbe said that the decision-making process has been vitiated either onaccount of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.

85. With regard to the contention of Shri Dhruv Mehta, learnedSenior Counsel, that Annexure I to the 2016 Guidelines providing thetimber requirement of a plywood unit to be taken as “NIL” is contrary tothe CEC recommendations is concerned, we do not find any substancein the said submission. Firstly, 2016 Guidelines have been issued by theMOEFCC in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court dated 5[th]October 2015. In any case, the raw material for plywood industries is A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A‘Veneer’ and the raw material for veneer is ‘timber’. We find substancein the contention of the appellants that, if timber is to be consideredagain as a raw material for plywood, then it will amount to showing theconsumption of the same timber more than once, which is, in fact, notconsumed. It is not in dispute that veneer is a raw material for plywood,which is derived from timber. The same timber is used for deriving veneerBand such veneer, which is used for manufacturing plywood, cannot becounted twice. In any case, as long as the 2016 Guidelines which areissued in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court are not setaside, the contention in that regard is without substance.

86. That leads us to consider the contention of the respondentsCthat this Court has repeatedly emphasized the principles of sustainabledevelopment, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.No doubt that the protection of the environment is of utmost importance.It is the duty of this generation to protect the environment for futuregenerations.DCONCLUSION

87. It cannot be disputed that Section 20 of the NGT Act itselfdirects the learned Tribunal to apply the principles of sustainabledevelopment, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.Undisputedly, it is the duty of the State as well as its citizens to safeguardEthe forest of the country. The resources of the present are to be preservedfor the future generations. However, one principle cannot be applied inisolation of the other.

88. It is necessary that, while protecting the environment, the needfor sustainable development has also to be taken into consideration andFa proper balance between the two has to be struck.

89. A body having expertise in the field, i.e. the FSI, upon ascientific study, has concluded that there is sufficient timber available inthe State of Uttar Pradesh. Not only that, but the respondents themselveshave placed on record a project report on “Study to know the percentageGand value of the raw material sourced through U.P. Forests by Plywoodand Khair (Kattha) Industries in U.P.”. The said report is prepared byRAK Management Consultants on the instructions of the Departmentof Planning, Economic and Statistics Division, Government of UttarPradesh.The said report itself shows that the consultants, during thefield survey, observed resentment among the plywood manufacturersH

against the process of issuing new licenses to the WBIs by the StateGovernment.

90. The report further goes on to show that on average 1500-1700 trucks/tractor trollies of the eucalyptus and popular wood from allover Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh go toYamuna Nagar, Haryana daily. Out of the said trucks/trollies,approximately 300-350 tractor trollies and some other small vehicles perday come from Uttar Pradesh. The report shows that approximately 5to 6 lakh metric tons of timber per year is exported to Yamuna Nagar.The said material belongs to the western districts of Uttar Pradesh, i.e.Muzaffarnagar, Saharanpur, Shamli, Baghpat and Meerut. It is statedthat there is no sufficient market for this produce in the said area. Thereport further finds that the western districts of Uttar Pradesh, i.e. Meerut,Muzaffarnagar, Saharanpur, Baghpat and Shamli, etc. do not havesufficient number of plywood and veneer units and as such, they are notsufficient for the entire farmers’ produce available in the said area. Thereport itself shows that the western districts need around 80-85 plywoodand veneer units. The report goes on further to show that there isdissatisfaction among the already existing industrialists about theassessment made by the FSI.

91. It is further to be noted that the State has specifically pointedout before the learned NGT that on the establishment of WBIs, aninvestment of about Rs.3000 crore was likely to be attracted in the State;employment opportunities to over 80000 people will be available and thefarmers of the State would get a more remunerative price. This wouldresult in more impetus for large-scale plantation and agro-forestry. TheState also emphasized that this will reduce dependence on traditional/cash crops and also reduce migration of people to urban areas. It is alsoemphasized that if the new WBIs are permitted, it will reduce the importof WBIs produce. However, all these aspects have not been taken intoconsideration by the learned NGT.

92. It will be relevant to note that the Forest Research Institute,Dehradun, Uttarakhand has published ‘Country Report of Poplars andWillows Period : 2012-2015’. The report states that the timber frompoplar and willow is the backbone of vibrant plywood, board, match,paper and sports goods industries. The report further states that in tunewith Indian Agroforestry Policy 2014, the plantation of poplar has beenpromoted. It further states that the Planning Commission of India has ABC

D

EF

G

H

Agiven special grants to certain States for the diversification of agriculturewhere farmers are advised to move away from paddy cultivation tosustain agricultural production. Poplar and eucalyptus are among thefew trees promoted under this diversification plan. The report statesthat Poplar plays a significant role in rural development by generatingemployment for many categories of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilledBworkers.

93. The paper on “Trees Outside Forest Resources in India”published by the FSI, cited supra, also emphasizes that TOF are significantnatural, renewable resources which make vital contributions to the agro-ecology, socio-economic improvement of the rural areas, environmentalCamelioration in the urban areas and feed WBIs with raw material andthus generate significant employment. TOF form nearly 38% of thecarbon sink in the forest and tree cover of the country. It states thatTOF offers the path for achieving the national policy goal of 33% offorest and tree cover in the country. It states that through the expansionDof TOF, particularly in agro-forestry and on culturable waste lands, Indiacan substantially increase its carbon sink to achieve its internationalcommitments of NDC and LDN by 2030.

94. As already discussed herein above, the majority of TOF isfrom two species, i.e. Poplar and Eucalyptus. These trees are fastEgrowing. If a market is available for the said trees, there will be impetusto the farmers for large scale plantations. The rotation in these speciesis quite fast. This will, in turn, increase the green coverage. We are ofthe considered view that the learned NGT has taken a lopsided view. Ithas failed to take into consideration the concerns expressed by the State.The learned NGT has committed patent error in ignoring the expert’sFreport and sitting in appeal over the same. The learned NGT has alsofailed to take into consideration the stand taken by the MOEFCC, whichsupported the stand of the State. As already discussed herein above, theState had emphasized many advantages of granting new licenses toWBIs. It was also emphasized that the timber from the State of UttarGPradesh was being exported to the State of Haryana. However, none ofthese aspects have been considered by the learned NGT. We are,therefore, of the considered view that the impugned orders of the learnedNGT are not sustainable in law.

95. There is another reason, in our view, why the order of thelearned NGT would not be sustainable. Though, on the date on whichH

the review applications were rejected, 1215 provisional licenses werealready granted and 633 units had already been established andcommenced production, the learned NGT has passed the impugned orderwhich adversely affects their interest. Either some of such industriesought to have been impleaded in their representative capacity or a publicnotice should have been given so that such license holders could haverepresented their case. However, the said contention is lightly brushedaside by the learned NGT by holding that, since the issue is related to thegeneral decision of the State which is applicable uniformly to all theproposed provisional licensees, it is not necessary to consider the issueraised in the impleadment applications. It is more than a settled law thatthe principles of natural justice are required to be followed even inadministrative actions when such actions adversely affect the rights ofthe citizens. When the learned NGT exercised its judicial powers, itcould not have ignored the principles of natural justice, which, even underSection 19(1) of the NGT Act, it is bound to follow.

96. Another aspect that needs consideration is that a serious issuewas raised before the learned NGT by the appellants herein with regardto the credentials and bonafides of the original applicants.

97. When the matter was heard by us, we too made pertinentqueries to Shri Mehta and Shri Chahar with regard to the credentials ofthe applicants before the learned NGT. One applicant is Uday Educationand Welfare Trust; the second applicant is Samvit Foundation and thethird applicant is U.P. Timber Association. Undisputedly, the U.P. TimberAssociation was a litigant interested in the litigation. However, insofaras the other original applicants, i.e. Uday Education and Welfare Trustand Samvit Foundation, for whom Shri Dhruv Mehta and Shri Brijender Chahar, learned Senior Counsel are appearing, specific queries withregard to the activities undertaken by the said original applicants weremade as to whether they were involved in any activity with regard to theprotection of the environment; had they at least been engaged in promotingplantation; what were the aims and objectives of the said originalapplicants; and what are the sources of funding, etc. Shri Mehta andShri Chahar, learned Senior counsel, fairly submitted that apart from thefact that they (original applicants) had previously filed some public interestlitigations wherein orders were passed in their favour, they had no otherinformation.

98. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned Senior Counsel has rightly reliedon the judgment of this Court in the case of Ankita Sinha and Others A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(supra) to submit that the learned NGT is empowered to take suo motucognizance. This Court has held that, taking into consideration the natureof functions of the learned NGT, it cannot be equated with other Tribunalsand in environmental matters, it will also have a power to take suo motucognizance. However, when the credentials and bonafides of a litigantapproaching the learned NGT are seriously raised, the same cannot beBignored.

99. We find that before a litigant is permitted to knock the doorsof justice and seek orders which have far reaching effects of affectingthe employment of thousands of persons, stopping investment in the State,prejudicing the interests of the farmers; the credentials and bonafidesCof the applicants must be tested. In the present case, there is scope toinfer that the litigation could be at the behest of the existing WBIs whowanted to avoid competition and continue to get raw material at a cheaperrate. There is also scope to infer that it could be at the behest of theWBIs in the adjoining Yamuna Nagar district of Haryana where lakhs ofDtons of timber is exported from the State of Uttar Pradesh. There isscope to infer that it could be in the interest of middlemen who areengaged in exporting timber from Uttar Pradesh to Haryana. We would,therefore, only request the learned NGT that, when credentials andbonafides of such litigants are seriously raised and when entertainingthe grievance of such litigants, which is likely to adversely affect theErights of many, it should ensure the bonafides and credentials of suchlitigants.

100. Though we are allowing the appeals, setting aside the ordersof the learned NGT, and upholding the action of the State Government ingranting licenses, we would like to remind the State and its authoritiesFthat it is their duty to protect the environment. The State and its authoritiesshould ensure that necessary steps are taken for arresting the problemof declining forest and tree cover. The State and its authorities shouldmake meaningful and concerted efforts to ensure that the green coverin the State of Uttar Pradesh is not reduced and to ensure that it increases.

G

G101. The conservation of forest plays a vital role in maintainingthe ecology. It acts as processors of the water cycle and soil and also asproviders of livelihoods. As such, preservation and sustainablemanagement of forests deserve to be given due importance in formulationof policies by the State. In this regard, it will be apposite to refer tocertain earlier pronouncements of this Court.H

(a) In the case of Samatha vs. State of A.P. and Ors.[8], a three-Judge Bench of this Court after referring to the earlier judgmentin the case of State of H.P. and others vs. Ganesh Wood Productsand others[9]observed that, even while considering the grant ofrenewal of mining leases, the provisions of the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act,1986 would apply. This Court held that the MOEF and all theStates have a duty to prevent mining operations affecting forests.It further observed that, whether mining operations are carried onwithin the reserved forest or other forest area, it is their duty toensure that the industry or enterprise does not denude the forestto become a menace to human existence nor a source to destroyflora and fauna and biodiversity. It has further been held that if itbecomes inevitable to disturb the existence of forests, there is aconcomitant duty upon the State to reforest and restore the greencover and to ensure adequate measures to promote, protect andimprove both man-made and natural environment, flora and faunaas well as biodiversity. It further held that there can be no distinctionbetween government forests and private forests in the matter offorest wealth of the nation and in the matter of environment andecology.

(b) In the case of Essar Oil Ltd. vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti andothers[10], this Court discussed the need for a balance between theeconomic and social needs and development on the one hand andenvironment considerations on the other. It was observed thatlaws on environment should be to create harmony between thetwo since neither one can be sacrificed at the altar of the other. Inthis regard, the observations of this Court in the case of IndianCouncil for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India andothers[11]were quoted as under:

“While economic development should not be allowed to takeplace at the cost of ecology or by causing widespreadenvironment destruction and violation; at the same time, thenecessity to preserve ecology and environment should not 8 AIR 1997 SC 3297 = (1997) 8 SCC 191

9 (1995) 6 SCC 363

10 (2004) 2 SCC 392

11 (1996) 5 SCC 281

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

hamper economic and other developments. Both developmentand environment must go hand in hand, in other words, thereshould not be development at the cost of environment.”

(c) In the case of Maharashtra Land Development Corporationand others vs. State of Maharashtra and another[12 ]referencewas made to Glanrock Estate Private Limited vs. State of TamilNadu[13 ]wherein it was observed as under:

“27. …. Forests in India are an important part of theenvironment. They constitute [a] national asset. In variousjudgments of this Court delivered by the Forest Bench of thisCourt in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union ofIndia (Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995), it has been held that‘intergenerational equity’ is part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

28. What is intergenerational equity? The presentgeneration is answerable to the next generation by giving tothe next generation a good environment. We are answerableto the next generation and if deforestation takes place rampantlythen intergenerational equity would stand violated.

29. The doctrine of sustainable development also formspart of Article 21 of the Constitution. The ‘precautionaryprinciple’ and the ‘polluter pays principle’ flow from the corevalue in Article 21.

30. The important point to be noted is that in this casewe are concerned with vesting of forests in the State. Whenwe talk about intergenerational equity and sustainabledevelopment, we are elevating an ordinary principle of equalityto the level of overarching principle.”

(d) Of course, one cannot ignore one of the several dicta of thisCourt in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of Indiaand others[14]wherein this Court enunciated the definition of“forest” in the following words:

“4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a viewto check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological 12 (2011) 15 SCC 61613 (2010) 10 SCC 9614 AIR 1997 SC 1228

imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for theconservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, mustapply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership orclassification thereof. The word “forest” must be understoodaccording to its dictionary meaning. This description covers allstatutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved,protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the ForestConservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2,will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense,but also any area recorded as forest in the Government recordirrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understoodfor the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted inthe Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forestsand the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to allforests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classificationthereof…”

102. Though we find that for the sustainable development of theState and on account of the availability of the timber, sanction of grantinglicenses can be permitted to continue, however, as a responsible State, itneeds to ensure that environmental concerns are duly attended to. We,therefore, direct the State Government to ensure that while grantingpermission for felling trees of the prohibited species, it should strictlyensure that the permission is granted only when the conditions specifiedin the Notification dated 7[th] January 2020 are satisfied. The StateGovernment shall also ensure that when such permissions are grantedto the applicants, the applicants scrupulously follow the mandate in thesaid notification of planting 10 trees against 1 and maintaining them forfive years.

103. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orderspassed by the learned National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, NewDelhi in Original Application Nos.313, 335 and 396 of 2019 as well as inthe Review Applications are quashed and set aside.

104. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.

Nidhi Jain and Anurag Bhaskar

Appeals allowed.

(Assisted by : Rahul Kumar, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H