AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 18 or 35 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 18 or 35 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The order forms part of continuing proceedings in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 concerning forest conservation in India. Several Interlocutory Applications (IAs) were taken up on 31-01-2000. The court dealt with: (1) IA 421, where the Union of India sought additional time to file a reply; (2) an application by the amicus curiae seeking clarification and enforcement of an earlier ban (order dated 12-12-1996) on removal of trees from protected areas; (3) IA 513 relating to compensatory afforestation and missing land records in Madhya Pradesh; and (4) IA 514 regarding auctioned timber. The present order issues interim directions, stays certain State actions, and fixes timelines for further affidavits and hearings.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the earlier ban imposed on 12-12-1996 extends to the removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees, driftwood, and grasses from national parks, game sanctuaries, and forests.
  2. Whether any orders issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh permitting felling of trees violate the Supreme Court’s 12-12-1996 ban.
  3. Whether the State of Madhya Pradesh has complied with the compensatory afforestation condition tied to diversion of 1.03 lakh hectares of forest land, and what consequences should follow if it has not.
  4. To what extent timber already felled and stored in government depots may be moved or utilised in the public interest without undermining conservation objectives.
  5. What safeguards or steps the Union of India recommends for management of such trees and timber.

Arguments of the Parties

Amicus Curiae

  • Asserted that the 12-12-1996 order bans felling in all forests, whether public or private, and remains unaltered.
  • Pointed to press reports suggesting Himachal Pradesh had lifted the ban, arguing any such State order would contravene the Supreme Court’s mandate and be invalid.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of other parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court reaffirmed its commitment to the protection of forests and wildlife sanctuaries by interpreting its earlier order of 12-12-1996 broadly to include dead, diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees and related forest produce. Observing potential non-compliance by certain States, it issued an interim, nationwide restraint on any removal of such material pending further consideration.

Regarding Himachal Pradesh, the Court treated press reports of a lifted ban seriously enough to require an affidavit within three weeks, simultaneously staying any such State order to maintain the status quo.

With respect to Madhya Pradesh, the Court focused on accountability and compliance. It demanded an explanation for missing land records (1910-11 to 1954-55) and for non-performance of compensatory afforestation stipulated as a pre-condition for diversion of forest land. The Court warned that failure to meet these conditions could lead to an order directing reclamation of the diverted land.

On the question of felled timber lying in depots, the Court balanced environmental concerns with local economic needs. Noting an estimated three lakh cubic metres of timber—equating to roughly 1.5 million natural-grown trees—it allowed limited removal: 50 % of poles of girth not exceeding 60 cm, 50 % of fuel stacks, and 10,000 cubic metres of sal and/or teak for small-scale industries. All other categories of timber remain embargoed pending detailed inventory and further orders.

Throughout, the Court sought informed decision-making by directing the Union of India to suggest safeguards for handling such material and by requiring detailed affidavits from relevant State authorities.

Holding and Implications

INTERIM ORDER ISSUED

Key operative directions include:

  • Nationwide stay on removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees, driftwood, and grasses from protected areas.
  • Stay on any Himachal Pradesh order permitting tree felling, pending the State’s affidavit.
  • Strict timelines for Union of India and State affidavits on safeguards, land records, compensatory afforestation, and auctioned timber.
  • Limited permission for Madhya Pradesh to remove specified quantities of poles, fuel stacks, and timber for small-scale industries.
  • Next listings fixed for 21-02-2000 and 28-02-2000.

Implications: The ruling maintains stringent forest-conservation controls while providing minimal relief for local economic activities. It signals the Court’s readiness to enforce previous bans, scrutinise State compliance, and potentially mandate land reclamation if compensatory measures are not fulfilled. No new precedent is formally set, but the order reinforces the breadth of existing conservation directives.

    T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others

    Order

    IA No. 421

    1. Mr K.N Raval, Assistant Solicitor-General seeks four weeks' time to file a reply. Reply be filed within four weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. List after six seeks. Stay of recovery by coercive process in the meantime.

    IA No. … (filed by Mr P.K Manohar, Advocate)

    2. An application has been filed through the amicus curiae in court, inter alia, praying for clarification that the order dated 12-12-1996 contained a ban against the removal of any fallen trees or removal of any diseased or dry standing tree from the areas notified under Section 18 or 35 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Let the same be taken on record.

    3. Issue notice to all the respondents. In the meantime, we restrain Respondents 2 to 32 from ordering the removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind-fallen trees, driftwood and grasses etc. from any national park or game sanctuary or forest. If any order to this effect has already been passed by any of the respondent States, the operation of the same shall stand immediately stayed.

    4. Reply be filed within three weeks.

    5. The Union of India will also indicate in its reply-affidavit as to what safeguards or steps should be taken in relation to such trees.

    6. The Registry should communicate this order of stay to the Chief Secretaries of all the States immediately without payment of process fee.

    7. It is submitted by the amicus curiae that it has been reported in the press that the State of Himachal Pradesh has passed some orders lifting the ban on felling of trees in that State. It is submitted that by an order dated 12-12-1996 of this Court in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995 felling of trees in any forest, public or private, has been banned and this order has not been varied so far. He, therefore, submits that if there is any order issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh giving permission to the felling of trees, that would amount to contravention of this Court's order dated 12-12-1996 and would, therefore, be bad in law.

    8. We issue notice to the State of Himachal Pradesh to file an affidavit within three weeks so as to inform the Court whether any such order has been passed. We make it clear that if any such order has been passed, the operation of the same shall remain stayed till further orders by this Court.

    IA No. 513

    9. An affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the Ministry of Environment in reply to this IA. The Chief Secretary, State of M.P should file his response to this affidavit within two weeks from today. In particular, the Court would require information with regard to para 5 of the said affidavit. If the said affidavit affirms that the land records of Damoh for the period 1910-11 to 1954-55 are missing, then the said affidavit must indicate as to when it was known that the said records are missing and what steps have been taken to trace the said records. Explanation should also be given as to why compensatory afforestation in respect of 1.03 lakh hectares as stipulated in the Ministry's order of 1990 has not been carried out. The State should show cause that as the condition which was stipulated for granting permission for diversion of 1.03 lakh hectares for non-forest use has not been fulfilled i.e compensatory afforestation not having taken place, why should the State not be directed to reclaim the encroached land which had been allowed to be diverted.

    10. It has been stated in the affidavit of the Ministry that there is some timber which is felled and is lying in the government depots which this Court may consider, allowing it to be moved in public interest due to the dependency of the local population on the said timber. We are informed at the Bar, on instructions, that approximately 3 lakh cubic metres of timber is lying in the government depots. This quantity of timber would represent approximately 15 lakh natural-grown trees which have been cut. Be that as it may, as per the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the State of M.P, lying in the government depots are wooden poles and fuel stacks, apart from cut teak and sal trees. We do not have on the Court's record details of the felled timber lying in the government depots as, it is stated, the inventory has not been carried out in toto. Considering the need of the local population, we permit the State to remove 50 per cent of the poles having a girth of not more than 60 cm each and 50 per cent of the fuel stacks which are already stored in the government depots. We do not permit the removal of any other type of timber from the government depots till further orders except that the State Government may supply 10,000 cubic metres of sal and/or teak wood for small-scale industries, workshops, furniture-makers etc. cut of its said stock.

    11. List on 28-2-2000.

    IA No. 514

    12. Issue notice returnable in two weeks. The State of M.P and the Union of India should file an affidavit in reply to this application. In particular, it should be stated as to what is the quantity of timber which was auctioned by the State on or before 17-12-1999 and in respect of which payment has been received from the auction-purchasers. List on 28-2-2000.

    13. Other IAs listed today be listed on 21-2-2000.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others
    (Feb 14, 2000)