- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Centre For Environmental Law, World Wide Fund-India v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The document is a composite order of the Supreme Court of India disposing of, or giving procedural directions on, a large number of interlocutory applications (IAs), special-leave petitions (SLPs) and miscellaneous matters, most of which arise out of earlier wildlife- and forest-related litigation pending before the Court. The order groups the matters item-wise and records short directions such as adjournments, extensions of time, notices, or approvals based on reports of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and decisions of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL). In several items the Court either allows or dismisses the applications in the light of earlier NBWL resolutions, CEC reports, or prior Supreme Court orders.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Submissions of the Amicus Curiae
- Shri P. S. Narasimha requested that the issue concerning Aravali Forest Land be tagged with the “Aravali Batch” matters already pending before the First Forest Bench.
- He also pointed out, in Item 317, that an earlier application (No. 1025) concerning the same project had already been allowed on the basis of a CEC report dated 28-9-2007; hence the current application should follow that precedent subject to specified conditions.
Submissions of Other Parties
- The learned counsel for a Municipal Council referred to MoEF Letter dated 26-10-2010 and stated that the Council objected to sub-paragraphs (iii) and (v) of paragraph 1; the Court indicated that the Council could approach the MoEF to seek variation of those conditions.
- In an SLP concerning mining matters, the petitioner sought to challenge a High Court judgment directly before the Supreme Court; the Court noted that the petitioner had not been a party before the High Court and had nonetheless obtained an interim stay which even the original parties had failed to secure.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order dated 23-11-2001 in I.A. No. 703 in W.P. No. 202 of 1995 | Determines whether certain petitions are covered by previous forest-related directions of the Court. | The Court adjourned the matter so that the CEC could examine whether the current petition falls within the scope of that earlier order. |
| Order dated 14-3-2011 (2011) 13 SCC 57 | Permits relocation of sawmills and other wood-based industries into notified industrial or municipal areas, irrespective of their distance from nearby forests in Uttar Pradesh. | The Court relied on this precedent to allow IAs Nos. 2974 and 2980 of 2010, as well as IA No. 2975 of 2010, relating to relocation of sawmills. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court did not engage in extensive substantive analysis; its reasoning is confined to short, item-wise directions:
- Where the NBWL or CEC had already approved a project (e.g., diversion of 4.17 ha of forest land for National Highway 11A, underground pipeline in Madhav National Park, medicinal plant transit, or works in Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary), the Court simply allowed the relevant IA “in terms of” those approvals, thereby incorporating the stipulated conditions.
- In matters where additional factual clarification was required (e.g., checking whether a petition is covered by an earlier order), the Court granted adjournments and tasked the CEC with verification.
- Where criminal or disciplinary proceedings had concluded with an acquittal and no appeal was filed, the Court treated the related IA as infructuous and dismissed it.
- For the SLP filed by a non-party to the High Court case on a mining issue, the Court found the petition to be an abuse of process, refused permission to file the SLP, and suggested that the petitioner instead seek impleadment in an existing SLP addressing the same issue.
- Several items required only routine administrative directions such as issuance of notice, listing before an appropriate Bench, or extension of time.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: The Supreme Court issued multiple procedural directives, allowed or dismissed various IAs, rejected permission for one SLP as an abuse of process, and set further listing schedules for the remaining matters.
Implications: The order primarily affects the individual parties by either granting statutory clearances subject to conditions, dismissing infructuous applications, or adjusting listing schedules. No new legal principle or binding precedent has been articulated; the Court largely applied existing approvals and its earlier orders.
Order
1. List the matter on next Friday.
2. List the matter before an appropriate Bench.
Item 301
3. Adjourned to enable the Ministry of Environment & Forests to produce the order dated 12-4-2010 of the National Board for Wildlife.
4. List the matter on next Friday.
Item 302
5. Time extended for four months from today, as prayed.
Item 303
6. Four weeks' time is granted, as prayed. List after two months.
Item 304
7. Serve notice on the Standing Counsel, Mr G. Prakash, for the State of Kerala. List after two weeks.
Item 305
8. On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter is adjourned so as to permit CEC to examine whether the petition is covered by order dated 23-11-2001 in IA No. 703 in WP No. 202 of 1995.
9. List the matter after four weeks.
Item 306
10. List the matter for final hearing.
Item 307
11. Application filed by the State of Rajasthan seeking permission for the construction of missing link of National Highway 11A was considered by the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife, in its meeting held on 17-7-2009 and resolved as below:
“Diversion of 4.17 ha of forest land from Janwa Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary for construction of missing link of National Highway 11 (Dausa-Manoharpur), Rajasthan. In this connection, a site inspection was made by Dr Divyabhansingh Chandra, Member, and Dr Anmol Kumar, DIG(WL). The site inspection report had been circulated to all the members. The Member-Secretary informed that the inspecting team has recommended the proposal subject to three conditions i.e compliance with all the conditions envisaged by the Chief Wildlife Warden in his recommendation; appropriate action against the erring officials of PWD who have violated the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by undertaking construction on the Highway without necessary clearances; and, obtain approvals under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter.
The Committee unanimously approved the recommendations of the inspecting team subject to the conditions envisaged by the Chief Wildlife Warden in its recommendation.”
12. The decision is reflected in Annexure A1 Letter dated 27-7-2009 of MoEF and the same has been approved.
13. The IA is, therefore, allowed in accordance with the directions given by the National Board for Wildlife in the 15th meeting held on 17-7-2009.
Item 308
14. IA No. 2920 of 2010 is allowed.
Item 309
15. In view of the decision taken by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife in the 13th meeting held on 12-1-2009 and the 16th meeting held on 7-10-2009, IA No. 2857 of 2010 filed by the State of Rajasthan is allowed.
Item 310
16. The learned amicus curiae, Shri P.S Narasimha submitted that the issue relating to Aravali Forest Land is pending for consideration before the First Forest Bench and hence, this matter be tagged with Aravali Batch.
17. Be listed before the First Forest Bench.
Item 311
18. Mr Kalu Ram Yadav, Driver/Hawaldar was alleged to have transported illegally timber in a police vehicle and a case was charge-sheeted against him, but he was acquitted of that charge by order dated 4-12-2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Demoh in Criminal Case No. 1585 of 2002. No appeal has been preferred against the said order and the same has attained finality.
19. Therefore, the IA has become infructuous and the same is dismissed.
Item 312
20. List the matter after four weeks.
Item 313
21. Perused the report of CEC in Application No. 1246 of 2010. Application was preferred seeking permission for transportation and the use of the Mapia Foetida (a medicinal plant) planted on non-forest land falling within the boundary of Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), Maharashtra Forest, raised no objection in issuing transit passes. Report of CEC dated 11-5-2010 is accepted and the application is disposed of as prayed for.
Item 314
22. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council referred to Annexure A-5 Letter dated 26-10-2010 of the Ministry of Environment & Forests, (Wildlife Division) addressed to the Chief Wildlife Warden and submitted that the council has some objection with regard to sub-paras (iii) and (v) of Para 1 of that letter. If that be so, it is open to the Municipal Council to move the Ministry of Environment and Forests, and in turn, MoEF may vary the conditions, if so warranted.
23. Perused the report of CEC dated 20-4-2011 and permission is accorded to use of 1.241 ha of forest land falling in Madhav National Park for laying of the underground pipeline for supply of drinking water to Shivpuri Town, Madhya Pradesh subject to the conditions enumerated in Para 6 of the report of CEC.
24. This IA is disposed of in the above terms.
Item 315 (IA No. 2637 of 2009)
25. The application is disposed of giving liberty to the applicants to approach the Notified Authority under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and it is for the Notified Authority to consider their applications and to take appropriate decisions in accordance with law.
26. The petitioners, if so advised, may also approach the State Legal Services Authority for legal assistance. The application is disposed of accordingly.
Item 316
27. Perused the report of CEC dated 26-2-2010. The learned amicus curiae submitted that the applicant had earlier moved Application No. 1025 in respect of the same project which was allowed by this Court on the basis of the report of CEC dated 28-9-2007. This application is accordingly disposed of incorporating the following conditions:
“(i) Approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act for the use of the forest land will be obtained and the stipulated conditions including the condition regarding the payment of NPV will be complied with;
(ii) The conditions laid down by the Chief Wildlife Warden for carrying out of the work of the Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary will be strictly complied with.”
Item 317
28. Applications are allowed with a direction to the applicant to approach the National Board for Wildlife for appropriate directions under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
29. List the matter after four months.
Item 318
30. We find no reason to entertain this SLP, which in our view is an abuse of the process of this Court. The petitioner was not a party before the High Court and has approached this Court directly and obtained an interim stay of the judgment, which the parties to that judgment could not get so far. Further, the same issue is pending consideration in four other SLPs before the First Forest Bench, where cases relating to mining are dealt with.
31. The petitioner, if so advised, may move for impleadment in SLP No. 19305 of 2010 and connected matters. Permission to file the SLPs is rejected. Contempt Petition (C) No. 252 of 2011 is not entertained.
Item 319
32. List after two weeks.
Item 320
33. Parties in person appeared.
34. Prayer of the applicants in the application is for a direction to MoEF to consider the suggestions given by the applicants in their two representations dated 27-8-2010 and 15-10-2010 and also to hold up the study conducted by AHEC, IIT, Roorkee.
35. Prayer is overambitious and cannot be granted. MoEF, if so inclined, may examine suggestions made by the applicants. The applications are disposed of as above.
Item 321
36. Issue notice returnable within three weeks.
Item 322
37. IAs Nos. 2792-93 are allowed in terms of the conditions enumerated in the report of CEC dated 19-1-2011.
Item 323
38. IA No. 2783 of 2009 is allowed in terms of the report of CEC dated 18-1-2010, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions imposed by the National Board for Wildlife reflected in the Letter of MoEF dated 27-7-2009.
Item 324 (IAs Nos. 2974 and 2980 of 2010)
39. IAs Nos. 2974 and 2980 of 2010 are allowed following the order of this Court in IAs Nos. 2968 and 2970 dated 14-3-2011 (2011) 13 SCC 57, by which this Court has permitted relocation of the sawmills of the applicant and other wood-based industries in (a) industrial areas notified by the U.P Government/Government of India, and (b) Nagar Nigam Area (Municipal Corporation) Areas irrespective of the distance of such areas from the nearby forest in the State of U.P The report of CEC dated 20-4-2011 has stated that the applicant's sawmill is also covered by the abovementioned order.
40. After hearing the counsel and the amicus curiae, we are inclined to allow the applications following the order of this Court dated 14-3-2011 (2011) 13 SCC 57.
IA No. 2975 of 2010
41. This application is also allowed.
Item 325
42. Adjourned for a week.
Item 326
43. The application is allowed in terms of the recommendations of CEC dated 20-4-2011 subject to the condition incorporated therein.
Item 327
44. Permission to file SLP granted. Issue notice. In addition dasti notice. State to file counter-affidavit within four weeks.
45. Meanwhile, there shall be stay of dispossession and demolition of the buildings of the petitioners for a period of two months. Application for deletion of pro forma respondents in SLPs (C) Nos. 17313-14 of 2011 is allowed at the risk of the petitioner.
Item 328
46. List the matter after four weeks.
Item 329
47. Sandalwood matters would be taken up for hearing on next Friday. Parties to get ready on that day.
Item 330
48. List the matter next week.
Item 331
49. List the matter after four weeks.
Item 332
50. List the matter on next Friday.
Item 333
51. List the matter after four weeks.
Court Masters
Alert