- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion is a composite order of the Supreme Court of India disposing of, or giving directions on, a series of interlocutory applications (IAs) that arise in an on-going forest and wildlife conservation proceeding. The applications cover matters such as:
- Permission sought by the State of Madhya Pradesh to establish a new zoo and rescue centre in a reserved forest at Mukundpur, District Satna.
- Clarifications regarding the relocation of sawmills and other wood-based industries in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
- Requests for diversion of forest land in Maharashtra for rehabilitation of villagers affected by the Gosikhurd irrigation project.
- Relief from a notice interfering with the operation of existing sawmills under the U.P. Saw Mill Rules, 1978.
- Permission to cut 1,457 trees in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) area along the Yamuna Expressway, subject to Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) conditions.
- Approval, subject to conditions, for construction of two border outposts within the Gangotri National Park.
Most applications were either allowed “in terms of the prayer,” disposed of with directions to administrative bodies (such as the CEC, MoEF, or State-level committees), or adjourned for further compliance. The Court routinely recorded that it had “heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned amicus curiae” before issuing each direction.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State of Madhya Pradesh should be granted permission to establish a new zoo and rescue centre in the reserved forest at Mukundpur, District Satna.
- Whether sawmills and other wood-based industries in Uttar Pradesh may be relocated to notified industrial areas and municipal corporation areas irrespective of their distance from forests, consistent with earlier Court orders and CEC recommendations.
- Whether 15.45 hectares of forest land may be diverted for rehabilitation of Savargaon villagers displaced by the Gosikhurd Project without prior permission from the Court.
- Whether the notice dated 27-2-2011 restraining operation of an applicant’s sawmills should be set aside, thereby allowing continued operation under the U.P. Saw Mill Rules, 1978.
- Whether approval should be granted for removal and cutting of 1,457 trees in the TTZ area along the Yamuna Expressway, subject to compliance with conditions in MoEF Letter No. 8B/UP/06/16/2009.FC/1160 dated 20-11-2009.
- Whether construction of two border outposts within Gangotri National Park may proceed, subject to obtaining approvals under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and compliance with conditions specified by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand.
- Ancillary procedural issues, including directions to the CEC and MoEF to file responses and to applicants to correct or supplement their filings.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Order dated 8-5-1997, (1997) 5 SCC 760, in IAs Nos. 171 and 897 of 1996 | Prior directive governing relocation of sawmills and wood-based industries in Uttar Pradesh. | The Court stated that its present clarification on relocation of sawmills (para 6-7) was “in furtherance” of this earlier order. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s analysis is concise and predominantly administrative:
- For the proposed zoo at Mukundpur (IA 19), the Court “heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned amicus curiae” and allowed the application “in terms of Prayer (a).” No further reasoning is articulated.
- Relocation of sawmills in Uttar Pradesh was approved based on (i) the CEC’s recommendations dated 7-9-2010, and (ii) consistency with the Court’s earlier order of 8-5-1997. The Court directed that relocation applications be considered for industrial and municipal areas “irrespective of the distance … from the nearby forest.”
- For diversion of 15.45 hectares of forest land in Maharashtra, the Court recorded that the issue was already pending before the MoEF and held that “no prior permission as such is required to be obtained from the Court,” leaving the matter to the MoEF to decide “on its own merits.”
- The notice dated 27-2-2011 against an applicant’s sawmills was set aside, with the Court explicitly linking the relief to clarifications issued earlier that day in IAs 2968 and 2970.
- Permission to cut 1,457 trees in the TTZ area was granted “subject to the applicant complying with the conditions” contained in the referenced MoEF letter. The Court noted counsel’s statement that the conditions had already been fulfilled and directed that a compliance report be filed with MoEF.
- Construction of two border outposts in Gangotri National Park was sanctioned subject to three express conditions: approval from the National Board for Wildlife, forest-use approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and strict adherence to conditions set by the Chief Wildlife Warden.
- Where applications required further information or scrutiny, the Court directed the CEC, State-level committees, or the applicants themselves to act within specified timeframes and granted liberty to file additional documents.
Holding and Implications
ORDER: Multiple interlocutory applications were allowed, disposed of, or adjourned with directions as summarised above. The Court granted specific permissions (e.g., new zoo establishment, tree felling in TTZ, construction of border outposts) subject to statutory and administrative conditions, clarified the relocation policy for sawmills, and remitted certain matters to governmental authorities for decision.
Implications: The order provides immediate, case-specific relief to the applicants and clarifies procedural pathways for future conservation-related permissions. It does not articulate new legal doctrine but reinforces the Court’s supervisory role in ensuring that forest and wildlife matters comply with existing statutory frameworks and prior Court directives.
Order
1. The applicant to comply with the office objections. List next week.
Item No. 316 (MM): Panchmarhi matters (Tiger Reserve, etc.)
2. IA No. 1697 to be listed along with IAs Nos. 2002-2004.
Item No. 301: For granting permission to establish a new zoo
3. Interlocutory Application No. 19 has been submitted on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh for granting permission to establish a new zoo and rescue centre in the reserved forest at Mukundpur, District Satna (M.P).
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned amicus curiae. This interlocutory application is allowed in terms of Prayer (a) of the application.
Item No. 302
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned amicus curiae.
6. In view of the recommendations of CEC dated 7-9-2010 and in the light of our earlier order, these applications are ordered directing the respondents herein to consider the applications of the applicant for relocation of sawmills and other wood-based industries in (a) industrial areas notified by the U.P Government/Government of India, and (b) Nagar Nigam area (Municipal Corporations' areas) irrespective of the distance of such areas from the nearby forest in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
7. This clarification is in furtherance of this Court's order dated 8-5-1997 (1997) 5 SCC 760 made in IAs Nos. 171 and 897 of 1996. These applications are, accordingly, ordered.
Item No. 303
8. List next week.
Item No. 304
9. The representations are stated to have been pending before the State-Level Committee, Lucknow. The State-Level Committee, Lucknow is directed to dispose of the application dated 22-2-2010 of the applicant within eight weeks from today. These interlocutory applications are, accordingly, ordered.
Item No. 305
10. The learned counsel for the applicant shall make necessary corrections in the applications. In view of the recommendations of CEC dated 7-9-2010, these interlocutory applications are ordered in terms of the prayers made in the applications.
Item No. 306
11. The CEC to submit its response to these applications. The State Government is also directed to furnish the requisite information in response to the applications to the CEC and file an affidavit in this Court. The applicant in IAs Nos. 3026-27 is required to furnish necessary information to CEC.
12. Liberty to file additional documents. List next week.
Item No. 307
13. This application has been filed by the State of Maharashtra for diversion of 15.45 hectare of forest land for rehabilitation of the villagers of Savargaon at Pagora. Vidharbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur is constructing the Gosikhurd Project upon Vainganga River. This project is constructed for providing the water for irrigation purpose for the areas situated in three districts, namely, Nagpur, Bhandara and Chandrapur. The issue is stated to be pending before the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The same may be considered by the Ministry on its own merits. No prior permission as such is required to be obtained from the Court.
14. The request in this regard may be considered and disposed of by the Ministry in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.
Item No. 308
15. The notice dated 27-2-2011 issued by Respondent 4 against the applicant is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the operation of the sawmills of the applicant during the validity of the sawmills licence issued in favour of the applicant under the U.P Saw Mill Rules, 1978.
16. The application is, accordingly, ordered. This order we have passed in the light of the clarification made in IAs Nos. 2968 and 2970 today.
Item No. 309
17. This matter was mentioned today. Not to be heard today.
Item No. 310
18. The application, as prayed for, is ordered.
19. The necessary approval/permission for removal and cutting of trees falling in TTZ area numbering 1457 alongside the alignment of the Yamuna Expressway may be granted subject to the applicant complying with the conditions as provided for in Letter No. 8B/UP/06/16/2009.FC/1160 dated 20-11-2009.
20. The applicant is required to comply with those conditions within the time-frame now to be fixed by MoEF. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel that in fact the applicants have already complied with the conditions. If that is so, the compliance report shall be filed with MoEF.
Part B List
Item No. 311 Pench
21. For the present, we are not inclined to consider and grant any relief, as prayed for. However, we grant liberty to the applicant as well as to the State Government to approach the authorities under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and put their fresh proposals for their consideration. The proposals to be so submitted shall be considered by the authorities on their own merits. It is needless to observe that the proposals, if any, to be submitted may be considered as expeditiously as possible in view of the importance of the issue involved. All the interlocutory applications are disposed of.
Item No. 312: Matters pertaining to defence
IA No. 2914
22. The CEC to submit its response to this application within three weeks.
IAs Nos. 2626, 2642
23. Adjourned. Liberty to mention.
IAs Nos. 2790-91
24. In view of the recommendations of the CEC, this application is ordered subject to the condition of complying with the following conditions, namely:
(i) approval for the construction of the two border outposts in the area falling within the Gangotri National Park will be obtained from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife;
(ii) approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for the use of forest land for the construction of the two outposts will be obtained; and
(iii) the conditions stipulated by the Chief Wildlife Warden, Uttarakhand will be strictly complied with.
25. The interlocutory applications are, accordingly, ordered.
IA No. 2794
26. This interlocutory application is ordered in terms of the prayer made in the application.
Items Nos. 313-15 and 317, 318
27. Not taken up.
Court Masters
Alert