- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
This order consolidates the disposition of numerous interlocutory applications (IAs) filed in and arising out of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, a long-running public interest litigation concerning forest conservation and regulation of wood-based industries.
The principal controversy dealt with in the present order concerns several saw-mills, veneer and plywood units operating in Bihar. These units sought (i) clarification that “timber non-availability” should not be used against them when finalising the seniority list of wood-based industries and (ii) processing of their licence applications. Earlier directions of the Court (18-8-2003, 7-12-2007 and 16-8-2010) had tasked the State of Bihar with preparing a transparent, category-wise seniority list in consultation with the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). Because the State failed to act, the Court had, on an earlier occasion, asked the CEC to re-examine the matter and report. The CEC’s report dated 9-3-2012 again recorded non-compliance and recommended immediate preparation of the final list.
In addition to the Bihar-specific issue, the Court disposed of a series of unrelated IAs, including: (i) requests for licences by Category IV plywood units in Uttar Pradesh, (ii) a challenge to a High Court order directing renewal of a wood-based industry licence in Bihar, (iii) applications seeking permission for manual removal of boulders in the Tarai area adjoining Valmiki Wildlife Sanctuary, and (iv) miscellaneous matters concerning environmental clearances, National Board for Wildlife approvals, and other licensing disputes.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State of Bihar is obliged to finalise, within a specified timeframe, a seniority list of saw-mills, veneer and plywood industries in conformity with earlier Supreme Court directions and the CEC’s recommendations.
- Whether timber non-availability can be used as a ground to prejudice certain wood-based units while preparing that seniority list.
- Whether Category IV plywood and veneer units in Uttar Pradesh are entitled to licences upon compliance with conditions previously laid down by the Court and the CEC.
- Whether the High Court erred in ordering renewal of a licence where the licence itself had never been produced by the applicant industry.
- Whether local inhabitants may be permitted to engage in manual removal of boulders and shingles in areas adjoining Valmiki Wildlife Sanctuary, despite prior blanket prohibitions on mining and quarrying in protected areas.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants from Bihar (Sawmills, Veneer and Plywood Units)
- Timber scarcity should not be treated as a factor against their placement in the seniority list.
- They engage only in pasting activities and therefore deserve prompt processing of their licensing requests.
State of Bihar
- In principle agreed before the CEC to review and finalise the provisional seniority list category-wise, but had not completed the task.
Association of Category IV Units (Uttar Pradesh)
- Members are willing to meet all Court-mandated conditions but complain of discrimination vis-à-vis units in other categories.
Respondent in Licence Renewal Appeal (SLP(C) No. 28519 of 2008)
- Claimed entitlement to renewal because the Department had accepted renewal fees, although no licence document or number could be produced.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (2012) 11 SCC 415 | Earlier direction to CEC to examine seniority-list issues in Bihar. | Recalled to show continuing non-compliance by State of Bihar. |
| (2012) 13 SCC 433 (18-8-2003 order) | Initial mandate to prepare transparent seniority list. | Cited as prior, unimplemented order. |
| (2012) 13 SCC 438 (7-12-2007 order) | Follow-up directions on the same issue. | Demonstrates repeated opportunities given to State of Bihar. |
| (2012) 10 SCC 349 (16-8-2010 order) | Further compliance directions regarding wood-based industries. | Forms part of the chain of non-complied orders. |
| (2010) 13 SCC 316 (order dated 30-4-2010) | Conditions for licensing Category IV plywood/veneer units in U.P. | Relied upon while directing consideration of those units’ fresh applications. |
| (2011) 13 SCC 57 (order dated 14-3-2011) | Subsequent clarification on Category IV units. | Referenced to guide statutory authorities in disposing applications. |
| (2008) 16 SCC 401 (order dated 16-12-2002) | Prohibitions concerning Valmiki Wildlife Sanctuary. | Read with later judgments to reject applications for boulder removal. |
| (2010) 13 SCC 740 (order dated 4-8-2006) | Further directions on protected-area mining. | Same as above. |
| (2002) 10 SCC 606 | Requirement of Court permission before approving mining in protected areas. | Applied to deny the requested permission for manual boulder removal. |
| (2012) 4 SCC 629 (Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana) | Environmental safeguards for minor mineral exploitation. | Bolstered refusal to grant extraction permission near Valmiki Sanctuary. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Bihar seniority-list issue: The Court found that despite multiple previous orders, the State of Bihar had taken “no action” to finalise the seniority list, causing uncertainty to legitimate wood-based industries. Accepting the CEC’s latest recommendations and the State’s in-principle agreement, the Court deemed immediate compliance necessary. It therefore issued a time-bound direction: finalise the list within six months, hear all affected parties, frame rules incorporating the CEC’s recommendations under the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990, and publish the final list.
Category IV units in Uttar Pradesh: Observing that no individual applications had yet been filed by the members of the petitioner association, the Court held that statutory authorities must process any such applications within three months, strictly in accordance with prior conditions laid down in the order reported in (2010) 13 SCC 316 and related CEC minutes.
Licence-renewal appeal (SLP(C) No. 28519 of 2008): The Court noted that neither before the High Court nor before itself had the respondent produced any licence or licence number. Consequently, the High Court had erred in ordering renewal. The Supreme Court set aside that judgment but allowed the respondent liberty to apply afresh for a licence, to be considered on merits.
Valmiki Wildlife Sanctuary extraction applications: Relying on its order dated 4-2-2005 and the judgment in Deepak Kumar, the Court reiterated the blanket prohibition on mining/quarrying inside or near protected areas and rejected the plea for manual extraction of boulders and shingles.
Miscellaneous IAs: Several other applications were either adjourned, dismissed for want of material, permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to re-file, or transferred to competent fora such as the State-Level Committee or the National Board for Wildlife, in line with the CEC’s recommendations.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSAL OF APPLICATIONS: All IAs concerning the Bihar seniority-list dispute were disposed of with a mandatory six-month deadline imposed on the State of Bihar to finalise and publish the list and to frame corresponding rules.
FURTHER DIRECTIONS: (i) Uttar Pradesh Category IV units may seek licences, which must be decided within three months of application; (ii) The High Court’s order directing licence renewal was set aside; (iii) Applications for extraction near Valmiki Wildlife Sanctuary were rejected; (iv) Several miscellaneous IAs were either adjourned, transferred to specialised committees, or dismissed.
Implications are primarily administrative: the decision puts the State of Bihar under a strict timeline and procedure for regulating its wood-based industries, clarifies the route to licences for Category IV units in Uttar Pradesh, reinforces the prohibition on resource extraction in protected areas, and corrects an erroneous High Court renewal order. No new legal principle was articulated; the order chiefly enforces and reiterates existing directions.
Order
301. IAs Nos. 2423-25, 2971-73, 2984-86, 3040-42, 3135-36 and 3319-22 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
1. These applications have been filed by the various sawmills, veneer industries and plywood industries of Bihar praying that the timber non-availability be not put against them while preparing the seniority list as recommended by CEC. They have also sought a direction for processing their applications for licence on the plea that they are only indulged in pasting of veneer and plywood, etc.
2. When the matter came up for hearing this Court had directed (2012) 11 SCC 415 CEC to examine those matters and submit a report. Accordingly, CEC submitted its report on 9-3-2012. We have perused the report and heard either side. CEC has made various observations/recommendations in the report which are extracted herein:
“9. It was decided that the State of Bihar will review the process of the preparation of the provisional/final seniority list after considering the abovesaid observations of CEC and that the seniority list of the wood-based industries falling in different categories will be made available to CEC along with the relevant information. However, no information has so far been provided to CEC. This issue was discussed by CEC on 7-3-2012 with Mr Gopal Singh, Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar and who has sought four weeks' time for the preparation of the final seniority list.
10. In the above background it is submitted that the State of Bihar may be directed to take immediate action for preparation of the final seniority list of the sawmills, veneer industries and plywood industries in the State of Bihar in a transparent manner and in conformity with the directions of this Hon'ble Court and after taking into consideration the observations made by CEC as dealt with above.”
3. We have noticed that in spite of the various orders passed by this Court on 18-8-2003 (2012) 13 SCC 433, 7-12-2007 (2012) 13 SCC 438 and 16-8-2010 (2012) 10 SCC 349, reference of which has already been made in the CEC report, no action has been taken by the State of Bihar to finalise the seniority list of wood-based industries, causing a lot of inconvenience to the genuinely established wood-based industries. If proper seniority list is prepared the parties would know where they are and they can act accordingly.
4. CEC has made various recommendations after hearing the representative of the State of Bihar. The State of Bihar in principle has agreed to review the provisional seniority list taking note of the observations made by CEC categorywise, and be made available to CEC. However, the State is yet to finalise the list.
5. We are, therefore, inclined to dispose of all the applications with the direction to the State of Bihar to take immediate action to finalise the seniority list of the sawmills, veneer industries and plywood industries in conformity with the various orders passed by this Court referred to earlier and also the observations and recommendations made by CEC in its report dated 9-3-2012. The State will also issue rules incorporating the recommendations made by CEC in accordance with the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990. The State will also notify the final seniority list as per rules.
6. Considering the fact that the matter is pending for so long, we are inclined to give the direction to the State of Bihar to finalise the entire process within a period of six months from today and report compliance. Needless to say that before finalising the seniority list the State of Bihar has to hear all the affected parties. However, we make it clear that if anybody is aggrieved by the final seniority list and the rules made by the State of Bihar, they may avail of the remedy available under the Act or move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The IAs are disposed of.
302. IAs Nos. 3358-60 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
8. Await the report of CEC. List on 9-4-2012.
303. IAs Nos. 3344-45 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
9. The learned counsel appearing for the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) has made available a Letter dated 27-3-2012 granting temporary working permission w.e.f 1-1-2012 over 370.92 ha of broken up forest land within the mining lease of Noamundi Iron Ore Mine of Tata Steel Ltd., which is taken on record.
10. The application for environment clearance, it may be noted was submitted only on 18-5-2011 even though there is a clear stipulation that the application be submitted two years prior to the date of renewal. MoEF to report about the status of the application.
11. The learned amicus curiae will also submit a note with regard to the matters which can be referred to the Green Tribunal.
12. List on 9-4-2012.
304. IAs Nos. 3347 and 3348 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
13. List on 16-4-2012.
305. IAs Nos. 3311-13 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
14. These applications are preferred by an Association and few others seeking a direction to the respondents to issue licence to the plywood units falling under Category IV as per the list of the State Government prepared in pursuance to the order dated 30-4-2010 (2010) 13 SCC 316 of this Court. A detailed affidavit has been filed by the State of U.P, referring to the report of CEC dated 26-5-2010, Para 4 of the affidavit states as follows:
“That the Central Empowered Committee issued minutes of the meeting dated 26-5-2010 for granting licence to the plywood and veneer units falling in Category IV, which was permitted by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 30-4-2010 (2010) 13 SCC 316, subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:
1. Units be allowed permission in order of seniority and only if adequate timber is available.
2. Permission granted to the plywood unit should be restricted to one press only and for veneer units to one peeler only. In addition, the plywood units may be permitted one peeler each if it had one or more peeler functional in the unit before it was closed.
3. Inter se seniority of all plywood/veneer units whose application has been received till 28-2-2010 is to be finalised within a period of one month.
4. As all the units in this category have been established after 4-3-1997, the condition of a distance not less than 10 km will be applicable as ordered by this Hon'ble Court for relocation of the sawmill units after 4-3-1997.
5. Before granting permission to open a unit, it will be ensured that no forest offence is pending against that unit.”
It was pointed out that all units which fall under Class IV have to comply with the condition of 10 km distance.
15. The learned counsel submits that as per this Court's order in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2010) 13 SCC 316 dated 30-4-2010 certain conditions have been incorporated which are as follows:
“(i) the seniority list of plywood/veneer units established after 4-3-1997 (Category IV units) should be finalised by the State-Level Committee for Uttar Pradesh Wood-Based Industries in consultation with CEC. The said list should be finalised after giving wide publicity to the provisional seniority list, inviting objections from the affected parties, giving personal hearing to them and after considering the objections/submission made by them;
(ii) after meeting the requirement of the licensed wood-based industry, the units permitted by this Hon'ble Court and the units whose category is yet to be finalised, the plywood/veneer units falling in Category IV may be considered for grant of licence to the extent of timber availability and strictly in the order of seniority, subject to the one-time payment of Rs 9 lakhs per press in respect of the veneer units and compliance with the other conditions that have been stipulated. The one-time payment of penalty will be in addition to the normal licence fee and the other charges, if any, payable to the U.P Forest Department. As decided earlier, the abovesaid amount should be kept in a designated interest bearing bank account and should be utilised only after the scheme in this regard is approved by this Hon'ble Court; and
(iii) in case the timber availability is found to be inadequate for all the plywood/veneer units falling in Category IV, the permission granted to the plywood unit should be restricted to one press whereas for the veneer unit it should be restricted to one peeler only. In addition, the plywood units may be permitted one peeler each, if it had one or more peeler functional in the unit before it was closed.”
(emphasis in original)
16. The learned counsel appearing for the Association submitted that members of the Association fall under Category IV and they are willing to comply with all the conditions laid down for such units but there is no justification in discriminating them as against the units which fall under rest of the categories.
17. We find that no individual application has been preferred by the members of the Association seeking any benefits before the statutory authority. Reference has also been made to the orders of the Court dated 14-3-2011 (2011) 13 SCC 57 (ref. p. 89 of the SLP).
18. We make it clear that if the members of the Association prefer applications for permission before the statutory authority the same will be disposed of within the period of three months from the date of receipt of the applications in accordance with law and on the basis of the orders passed by this Court. The interlocutory applications are disposed of.
306. SLP (C) No. CC 5161 of 2012
19. List on 2-4-2012 subject to part-heard matter.
307. SLP (C) No. 3941 of 2010
20. List on 9-4-2012.
308. SLP (C) No. 28519 of 2008
21. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
22. The High Court vide its order dated 5-5-2008 LPA No. 1286 of 2005 directed the implementation of the order dated 6-6-2002 without noticing the detailed order passed by the High Court in Vina Arra Mills v. State of Bihar CWJC No. 8570 of 2002 the operative portion of which reads as follows:
“The question for determination arises as to whether licence was granted pursuant to the application, Annexure A or not. If the fact is analysed on the basis of material available on the record it would appear that the requirement as mentioned in Annexure G was complied with in the year 1999. However, for one of the requirements i.e map, it appears that no document has been brought on the record to show that map was produced before the authority concerned. The learned counsel also pointed out the order of the appellate authority, Annexure 8 to the writ petition. However, the order of the appellate authority does not mention licence number but was directed to furnish copy of the licence granted in the year 1994. The stand of the respondents is that in fact no licence was granted to the petitioner because he did not produce the documents within time. On query the learned counsel could not point out the licence number, if any, granted to the petitioner. This indicates that it is a disputed question of fact which could not be determined in the writ petition. However, the learned counsel says that he will file a fresh application for grant of licence and the authority be directed to consider the petition, if any, filed by the petitioner for grant of licence. The learned counsel for the respondents has no objection.”
23. The impugned judgment LPA No. 1286 of 2005 of the High Court shows that the respondent could not produce the licence before the High Court nor the licence number. Only on the plea that the licence fee for renewal was received by the Department the respondent has raised the contention that he was having a valid licence. Further, even before this Court no licence has been produced. Under such circumstances the High Court was not justified in directing the renewal of licence and to pay the cost of Rs 10,000.
24. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, we make it clear that if the respondent is so advised, he may make a fresh application for licence and the same will be considered by the authorities concerned in accordance with law.
25. The appeal is allowed and disposed of as above.
309. SLPs (C) Nos. 24627-628 of 2011
26. Leave granted. The appeals are disposed of by a separate order.
310. IAs Nos. 2421-22 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
27. These are applications for clarification of the orders dated 16-12-2002 (2008) 16 SCC 401 and 4-8-2006 (2010) 13 SCC 740 passed in IAs Nos. 836 and 1413 and also for permission for local inhabitants for carrying on their traditional activity of manual removal of boulders and shingles outside Valmiki Wildlife Sanctuary from the tarai area of Villages Kataha and Balwal, District West Champaran (Bihar).
28. The learned amicus curiae brought to our knowledge the order passed by this Court on 4-2-2005 (2012) 13 SCC 436. The operative portion of the same reads as follows: (SCC para 8)
“8. No objections have been filed to the report of CEC dated 28-10-2003. The recommendations of CEC are as under:
‘(i) MoEF's order dated 20-8-2002 allowing mining leases inside the Valmiki Wildlife Sanctuary may be set aside;
(ii) the State of Bihar may be directed to ensure immediate closure of all mining activities inside national parks and wildlife sanctuaries including within the safety zone around the boundaries of the national parks and sanctuaries;
(iii) MoEF may be directed to ensure that no mining lease inside any national park or wildlife sanctuary is approved under the FC Act without obtaining specific permission from this Hon'ble Court in view of the order dated 14-2-2000 passed in T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2002) 10 SCC 606;’”
29. In view of the abovementioned order passed by this Court as well as the judgment of the Court dated 27-2-2012 in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 4 SCC 629 the permission sought for cannot be granted. The applications are rejected.
311. IAs Nos. 3142-3203 and 3213-14, 3217-38, 3242-67 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
30. Perused the report of CEC dated 9-3-2012. CEC has recommended that the grievance raised by the applicants can be examined by the State-Level Committee. Para 8 of the CEC report reads as follows:
“8. In the above background it is submitted that this Hon'ble Court may consider directing the applicant veneer units to provide the necessary information to CEC to enable it to file its report in the matter. Alternately, the IAs filed by the 56 applicant veneer units may be considered to be disposed of with the directions that the applicant may file applications before the State-Level Committee for wood-based industries in Haryana/CEC along with complete details for seeking grant of licences for plywood industries and which should be considered and decided on merit after inter alia taking into consideration the timber availability qua the requirement of the existing licensed wood-based industries in the State of Haryana.”
31. Under such circumstances the applications are disposed of with liberty to the applicants to approach the State-Level Committee, if so advised.
312. IAs Nos. 2465-66 and 2467-68 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
32. The applicants are permitted to withdraw IAs Nos. 2466 and 2468 with liberty to approach this Court if the need arises. Rest of the applications i.e Nos. 2465 and 2467 be listed on 9-4-2012.
313. IAs Nos. 2716 and 3369 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
33. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants has already made an application in September 2011, before National Board of Wildlife (NBWL) i.e IAs Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition and the same are pending consideration. Under such circumstances NBWL to pass appropriate orders on these applications without delay.
34. The IAs are disposed of.
314. IAs Nos. 2726-27, IAs Nos. 2728-29 and IAs Nos. 2731-32 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
35. It is not possible for us to examine the various contentions raised by the applicants due to insufficient materials. The applications are disposed of with liberty to move again with sufficient materials.
315. IAs Nos. 3015-53 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
36. Rejoinder is taken on record. List after three weeks.
316. IA No. 3402 in IA No. 2378 in IA No. 2164 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
37. The learned counsel appearing for the Ministry of Environment and Forests submits that he will get instructions in the matter. List on 16-4-2012.
38. Copy of the petition be made available to the Standing Counsel for the State of Orissa.
Mentioned Matter (1) CAs Nos. 2191-93 of 2000 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
39. List on 9-4-2012.
Mentioned Matter (2) IAs Nos. 152-54 of 2012 in WP (C) No. 337 of 1995
40. List on 9-4-2012.
Court Masters
Alert