Order
Re: Special Investigation Team Report filed in Court on 12-3-2001 and affidavit filed in Court on 12-3-2001 and affidavit filed in Court on 23-4-2001
1. List this matter for hearing after the final report of the Special Investigation Team is filed.
Direction with regard to setting up of Nodal Agencies in the State of M.P and Chhattisgarh to dispose of the interlocutory applications with regard to overseeing the working of forest
2. Report filed by the Empowered Committee is taken on record and accepted.
3. List IA No. 589 along with the report on the next date of hearing.
IA No. 295 (interim application through amicus curiae for directions regarding the State of Assam PCCF order dated 12-2-1998)
4. List after six weeks.
IA No. 664 (for directions)
5. Reply be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter. List after four weeks.
IA No. 677 (for directions/impleadment)
6. Reply be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter. List after four weeks.
IAs Nos. 395, 496 and 497 (for clarification/directions on behalf of the State of Meghalaya)
7. Replies be filed within four weeks. List on a non-miscellaneous day thereafter.
IA No. 424 (interim application on behalf of the applicant Santosh Bharti)
8. The States of Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, NCT of Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh have not filed their affidavits as per the office report dated 21-11-2001. The Chief Secretaries of these States are directed to ensure the filing of their affidavits within four weeks from today. Affidavit of the Union of India should be filed within seven weeks from today. List thereafter.
IA No. 566 (suo motu action taken by this Hon'ble Court on the statement of Mr K.N Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the Central Government showing the position of the cases approved for diverting a forest land stipulation for compensatory afforestation under the Forest Conservation Act and the compensatory afforestation done — funds to be utilised and actually utilised)
9. Most of the affidavits have been filed from a statement which has been placed on record by the learned amicus curiae. It is clear that large sums of money have been realised by various States from the user agencies to whom permissions were granted for using forest land for non-forest purposes. Monies were paid by them to the State Governments for compensatory afforestation but the utilisation of the money for reforestation represents only about 63 per cent of the funds actually realised by the State Governments. The shortfall is of nearly Rs 200 crores.
10. While on the next date of hearing the Court will consider as to how this shortfall is to be made good, the Ministry of Environment and Forests should formulate a scheme whereby whenever any permission is granted for change of user of forest land for non-forest purposes and one of the conditions of the permission is that there should be compensatory afforestation then the responsibility of the same should be that of the user-agency and should be required to set apart a sum of money for doing the needful. In such a case the State Governments concerned will have to provide or make available land on which reforestation can take place and this land may have to be made available either at the expense of the user-agency or of the State Governments, as the State Governments may decide. The scheme which is framed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests should be such as to ensure that afforestation takes place as per the permissions which are granted and there should be no shortfall in respect thereto. Counsel for the Union of India states that appropriate scheme will be formulated on the basis of which permissions will be granted in future and the same placed before this Court within eight weeks. List thereafter.
IAs Nos. 652-53 (for directions and exemption from filing official translation)
11. Issue notice returnable after four weeks. Dasti service in addition is permitted.
IA No. 669 in IA No. 659 (for directions)
12. Adjourned. List after four weeks.
IA No. 636 (for modification/directions on behalf of the State of Tripura)
13. Our attention is being drawn to the letter dated 27-4-2001 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura, Agartala with regard to the running of the wood-based units in Tripura. As per this letter, the State Government's attention was being drawn to the Court's order dated 15-1-1998 (1998) 2 SCC 59, and it has been stated in this letter that the State Government has allowed sawmills to function in a manner which was not permitted by this Court's order. It is not on record as to whether the direction contained in this letter was complied with. However, as it prima facie appears that this Court's order of 15-1-1998 (1998) 2 SCC 59 has been permitted to be violated, we issue notice to the Chief Secretary, Government of Tripura, Agartala to show cause why appropriate action should not be take in respect thereto.
14. Mr Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior Counsel states that in response to the letter dated 27-4-2001 there was a communication from the State of Tripura to the Ministry of Environment and Forests asking for clarifications. Be that as it may, our concern is as to why the State should have allowed the order of this Court dated 15-1-1998 (1998) 2 SCC 59, to be contravened. Affidavit of the Chief Secretary be filed within four weeks. In the first instance, it is not necessary for the Chief Secretary to be personally present.
15. List IA No. 636 after six weeks along with the letter above filed.
IA No. 670 (for directions to stop illegal mining, tree-felling in Kudremukh National Park)
16. Adjourned to 15-1-2001.
IAs Nos. 675-76 (for modification and stay) and IA No. 686 (letter dated 24-8-2001 received from the Empowered Committee for the State of Chhattisgarh treated as IA in pursuance of the Court's order dated 7-9-2001)
17. This is an application filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh for quashing the order dated 18-6-2001 passed by the Empowered Committee whereby the State of Madhya Pradesh has been directed to pay a sum of Rs 15 crores to the State of Chhattisgarh for compensatory afforestation because permission had been granted to the National Mineral Development Corporation to carry out non-forest activity of mining and NMDC had deposited the money with the State of M.P for carrying out the compensatory afforestation. As afforestation has to be done in Chhattisgarh therefore, the State of M.P which had received the amount from NMDC should pay this amount.
18. We are informed that pursuant to the said order, a sum of Rs 15 crores has been deposited. Mr Ravindra Srivastava, learned Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh states that this amount will be taken out of the general revenue of the State and gives an undertaking that this will be spent for afforestation of 3600 hectares, which was an obligation cast on NMDC. The compensatory afforestation will be carried out by the State of Chhattisgarh in accordance with the Scheme. As we see it, by virtue of the reorganisation there has been division of assets by applying a particular formula. The division has taken place on the basis of the respective population of the States and not on the basis of where the projects were to be undertaken. In a sense, therefore, the State of Chhattisgarh must be regarded as they have received the amount of Rs 40.30 crores. This flows from the fact that the assets and liabilities have been divided in the proportion of 73.3790:26.6203 persons between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Chhattisgarh. Reliance has been placed by Mr Vivek Tankha, learned Advocate General for the State of M.P on Annexures P-3 and P-4 which are letters of Reserve Bank of India and the Accountant General, according to which the division of assets and the liabilities have taken place in the aforesaid manner. If this be so, then Rs 15 crores which has been paid under the orders of the Empowered Committee by the State of M.P may be regarded as being in addition to Rs 40 crores deemed to have been received by the State of Chhattisgarh.
19. The learned Advocate General for the State of Chhattisgarh does not accept as correct, the proposition that the State has received Rs 40 crores which was deposited by NMDC for afforestation and he wishes to file an affidavit in that behalf. Whether this Rs 40 crores deposited by NMDC has as a result of division of assets and liabilities been received by the State of Chhattisgarh or not is therefore a point in dispute and in our opinion, this should be decided by Reserve Bank of India which has bifurcated the assets. In the meantime, the State of Chhattisgarh will be permitted to utilise Rs 15 crores which has been paid to it for afforestation. Rs 15 crores should be kept in a separate bank account and a scheme prepared and furnished to this Court by the next date of hearing indicating the manner in which this amount will be used.
20. Copy of the order be sent to Reserve Bank of India with the request to inform the Court on the issue as to whether the State of Chhattisgarh can be regarded as having received Rs 40 crores which had been deposited by NMDC for afforestation.
21. To come up for further orders, after six weeks.
IA No. 679 (for clarification of order dated 10-5-2001)
22. Dismissed as withdrawn.
IA No. 680 (for directions)
23. Adjourned. List after six weeks. Affidavit be filed in the meantime.
IA No. 685 (communication received by learned amicus curiae from the Empowered Committee for the State of Chhattisgarh treated as IA in pursuance of the Court's order dated 7-9-2001)
24. Adjourned. List after six weeks.
Contempt Petition (C) No. 193 of 2001 in WP (C) No. 202 of 1995
25. At the request of Mr M.L Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent 1 contemnor, the petition is adjourned by six weeks in order to enable him to file an affidavit. List thereafter. A suggestion has been mooted by Mr Harish N. Salve, learned amicus curiae in which there is some merit that for every illegal felling of tree in any plantation, one hectare of land must be taken away from the plantation owners for the purpose of compulsory afforestation. This aspect will be considered.
IA No. 502 (for intervention)
26. An application has been filed by the learned amicus curiae in Court against the illegal encroachment of forest land in various States and Union Territories, is taken on board. Let the same be registered and numbered. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable after six weeks. There will be an interim order in terms of prayer (a).
27. Affidavits in reply to the application may be filed. It is suggested by the learned amicus curiae that it will be helpful to the Court if an independent survey of Andaman and Nicobar ecology is undertaken especially in regard to the forest cover of that area. He suggests that Professor Shekhar Singh of the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, who is an expert in this area and has worked in Andaman, be requested to give a report to the Court with regard to the state of the forest and to what extent cutting of trees, if any, can be protected and what is required to be done to improve the ecology and the forest cover of the area. The Ministry of Environment and Forests is directed to appoint Prof. Shekhar Singh as a Commissioner to give a report on the state of the forest and other allied matters of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The expenses incurred thereto will be borne by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and Prof. Shekhar Singh may give a report preferably within a period of six weeks. He will be at liberty to take assistance of such persons as he may deem proper. Apart from the out-of-pocket expenses which will be borne by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, he will be entitled to such fee as will be determined by the Court on the next date of hearing after receipt of his report.
28. Till further orders the Administrator, Andaman and Nicobar Islands is directed to ensure compliance with this Court's order dated 10-1-2001, namely, no naturally grown tree will be cut by anyone and no sawmill, veneer or plywood factory shall utilise any naturally grown trees without further orders from this Court.
29. List of such factories, sawmills and veneer will be filed by Andaman and Nicobar Administration within two weeks. They will also file an inventory of the material lying in the government sawmills.
30. List after six weeks.
IA No. 236 (for directions)
31. Issue notice returnable after six weeks. Dasti service in addition is permitted.
IAs Nos. 634-35 (for impleadment and directions) and IAs Nos. 697-98 (for directions and exemption from filing official translation)
32. Issue notice to the Ministry of Environment and Forests which will file its reply within three weeks. It will also file Assessment Report of Environmental Impact on the basis of the permission granted by the Ministry.
IAs Nos. 700-01 (for intervention and directions)
33. Issue notice returnable after six weeks.
IA No. 605 (for directions)
34. The order directing the six police officers to be placed under suspension is hereby withdrawn. The disciplinary proceedings which are stated to have been initiated against them shall be completed within six months from today and report filed in the Court. List thereafter.
IAs Nos. 620 and 621 (for directions and exemption from filing official translation)
35. A report has been filed by Mr M.K Sharma. Copies of the same be given to the learned amicus curiae and to the counsel for the parties who may give their comments on the next date of hearing. List after six weeks.
IAs Nos. 645 and 695 (for directions)
36. Issue notice returnable after six weeks. Replies be filed in the meantime.
Rest of the matters
37. Adjourned.
Court Masters