National Green Tribunal Act, 2010: ss. 19(1), 20, 22 – Wood Based Industries [Establishment and Regulation] Guidelines 2016 – Need for sustainable development – Provisional license – Issuance of, for establishment of Wood based industries-WBIs – Timber assessment for Trees Outside Forest-TOF in the State of U.P. for WBIs by the Forest Survey of India-FSI – E-lottery held for grant of licenses to various WBIs and issuance of provisional licenses to 1215 successful applicants in the 8 categories to set up their WBIs – Subsequently, issuance of notice by the Government of UP communicating the same to WBIs – Challenged to, by the respondent – Direction by the National Green Tribunal to the U.P. State to submit a report and to review its notice with regard to the establishment of new WBIs –NGT then quashed and set aside the notice issued by the State Government for establishing new WBIs and all the provisional licenses given – NGT held that WBIs can be allowed to operate only after ensuring timber and raw material availability to sustain such industries and this was to be determined in actual terms and not on mere assumptions – On appeal, held: Estimation arrived at by the FSI was by applying a proper and adequate scientific method – Courts should not enter into an area that is the domain of the experts – Duty of the State as well as its citizens to safeguard the forest of the country – Principles of natural justice are required to be followed even in administrative actions when such actions adversely affect the rights of the citizens – Furthermore, before a litigant is permitted to knock the doors of justice and seek orders which have far reaching effects of affecting the employment of thousands of persons stopping investment in the State, prejudicing the interests of the farmers; the credentials of the applicants must be tested – While protecting the environment, the need for sustainable development has also to be taken into consideration and a proper balance between the two has to be struck – For the sustainable development of the State and on account of the availability of the timber, sanction of granting licenses can be permitted to continue, however, as a responsible State, it needs to ensure that environmental concerns are duly attended to – Thus, the State Government directed to ensure that while granting permission for felling trees of the prohibited species, it should strictly ensure that the permission is granted only when the conditions specified in the Notification dated 7th January 2020 are satisfied – Impugned orders of the NGT are not sustainable in law andthus, are quashed and set aside. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 This Court had accepted the recommendations of the CEC wherein the CEC had computed the total availability of timber and had also taken into consideration the availability of timber from the prohibited category. Even as per the assessment of the IPIRTI, the timber requirement of a plywood unit is required to be taken as ‘NIL’ on the ground that the round timber is used as timber in the veneer units only and that the plywood units are the secondary users which use the veneer as raw material. [Para 49 & 59][797-D; 801-D-E]
1.2 As per the 2016 Guidelines, the SLC was reconstituted in the State of U.P. The SLC was to assess the availability of timber by commissioning studies, preferably in collaboration with institutes/universities of repute, once in five years. In accordance with the 2016 Guidelines, the FSI conducted the survey and submitted its report in March 2018. For conducting the survey, the FSI acquired satellite data for the inventoried districts of Uttar Pradesh from National Remote Sensing Centre, Hyderabad. The entire gambit of scientific methodology was applied. FSI had also divided the State of Uttar Pradesh into 9 Agro-climatic zones to generate the estimate of growing stock and annual potential production. The contention of the respondents that the rotation method was not applied is totally incorrect. [Para 64-67][803-GH; 804-A, F; 805-B-C]
1.3 Estimation arrived at by the FSI was by applying a proper and adequate scientific method. However, it is surprising that the learned NGT has brushed aside such a scientific exercise. A body having expertise in the field, i.e. the FSI, upon a scientific study, has concluded that there is sufficient timber available in the State of Uttar Pradesh. [Para 70, 71 & 89][806-B-C; 812-FG]
1.4 FSI has also emphasized the need of promoting TOF. It has been observed that TOF are significant natural, renewable resources which make vital contributions to the agro–ecology, socio–economy of the rural area, and environmental amelioration in the urban area and feed WBIs with raw material and thus generate significant employment. [Para 74][808-B-C]
2.1 Prohibited trees cannot be felled unless permission to fell such tree has been obtained in writing from the competent authority. The tree owners are also required to maintain 10 trees in place of each tree felled. It is thus clear that there is no absolute prohibition for felling the trees which are in the prohibited category. However, the same can be done only in exceptional circumstances [Para 76][808-E-F]
2.2 It is settled that the Courts should not enter into an area that is the domain of the experts. FSI, which is undisputedly an expert body, had arrived at its estimation based on the scientific method. NGT has failed to take into consideration the stand of the MOEFCC, which also supported the stand of the State that sufficient timber was available legally to run the new WBIs. [Para 79, 81][809-D-E; 810-A]
2.3 Decision of the SLC for not getting the assessment done by the IPIRTI is based on sound reasons. When the 2016 Guidelines itself provided for the consumption of timber by WBIs based on the report of the IPIRTI, there was no purpose to again get the assessment done by IPIRTI. The scope of judicial review has been succinctly explained by this court in the case of Tata Cellular 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 to safeguard the forest of the country. The resources of the present are to be preserved for the future generations. However, one principle cannot be applied in isolation of the other. While protecting the environment, the need for sustainable development has also to be taken into consideration and a proper balance between the two has to be struck. [Para 87 & 88][812-EF]
3.2 It is also emphasized that if the new WBIs are permitted, it will reduce the import of WBIs produce. However, all these aspects have not been taken into consideration by the learned NGT. Court is of the view that the NGT has taken a lopsided view. It has failed to take into consideration the concerns expressed by the State. NGT has committed patent error in ignoring the expert’s report and sitting in appeal over the same. NGT has also failed to take into consideration the stand taken by the MOEFCC, which supported the stand of the State. Impugned orders 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 were rejected, 1215 provisional licenses were already granted and 633 units had already been established and commenced production, NGT has passed the impugned order which adversely affects their interest.It is more than a settled law that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed even in administrative actions when such actions adversely affect the rights of the citizens. When the learned NGT exercised its judicial powers, it could not have ignored the principles of natural justice, which, even under Section 19[1] of the NGT Act, it is bound to follow. [Para 95][815A-C]
3.4 This court finds that before a litigant is permitted to knock the doors of justice and seek orders which have far reaching effects of affecting the employment of thousands of persons, stopping investment in the State, prejudicing the interests of the farmers; the credentials and bonafides of the applicants must be tested. [Para 99][816-C]
4.1 Though this court is allowing the appeals, setting aside the orders of the learned NGT, and upholding the action of the State Government in granting licenses, the court would like to remind the State and its authorities that it is their duty to protect the environment. The State and its authorities should ensure that necessary steps are taken for arresting the problem of declining forest and tree cover. The court directs the State Government to ensure that while granting permission for felling trees of the prohibited species, it should strictly ensure that the permission is granted only when the conditions specified in the Notification dated 7th January 2020 are satisfied. [Para 100 & 102][816-F; 819-E]
4.2 The impugned orders passed by the learned National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi as well as in the Review Applications are quashed and set aside. [Para 103][819F-G] Common Cause vs. Union of India and others (2017) 9 SCC 499: [2017] 13 SCR 361; Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forword Foundation and others [2019] 18 SCC 494; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. 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 of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 122 Para 83; Samatha vs. State of A.P. and Ors.(1997) 8 SCC 191 : [1997] Suppl. SCR 305; State of H.P. and others vs. Ganesh Wood Products and others (1995) 6 SCC 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–Legal Action vs. Union of India and others (1996) 5 SCC
281 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 507; Maharashtra Land Development Corporation and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2011) 15 SCC 616 : [2010]
15 SCR 37; Glanrock Estate Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 10 SCC 96 : [2010] 12 SCR 597; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others AIR 1997 SC 1228 : [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 982 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.