AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Forest Conservation Act
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
  • Forest Conservation Act
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The order is part of long-running proceedings before the Supreme Court of India concerning forest conservation and wildlife protection across several States. Numerous interlocutory applications (IAs) were taken up on the same day. The applications involve: (i) proposals to alter the boundaries of existing wildlife sanctuaries in Bihar and Maharashtra; (ii) requests to divert forest land for the Durgawati Reservoir Project; (iii) questions about licensing and functioning of wood-based industries in Haryana, Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal; (iv) clearance for National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) projects; and (v) miscellaneous compliance directions sought from, or concerning, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) constituted by the Court.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the State of Bihar may lawfully reduce the area of Valmiki Wildlife Sanctuary without violating ecological and statutory safeguards.
  2. Whether 600.72 hectares of forest land can be diverted for the Durgawati Reservoir Project, and under what conditions.
  3. Whether unlicensed or proposed wood-based industries in various States may be allowed to operate, and the criteria for granting licences.
  4. Whether interim orders that had stayed the grant of licences for sawmills in West Bengal should be vacated.
  5. Whether and how the boundary of the Great Indian Bustard Wildlife Sanctuary in Maharashtra should be rationalised to permit non-forest activities in excluded areas.

Arguments of the Parties

State Governments

  • Bihar: Sought to reduce the Valmiki Wildlife Sanctuary from 880 km² to 840.26 km²; expressed willingness to approach the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) committee for boundary rationalisation.
  • Bihar (Durgawati Project): Accepted all conditions proposed by CEC for diversion of 600.72 ha of forest land.
  • Haryana & Uttaranchal: Informed the Court that they had either framed rules or had no objection to CEC recommendations regarding wood-based industries.
  • West Bengal: Indicated readiness to process licences for 750 sawmills in line with CEC guidelines if permitted.
  • Maharashtra: Through the Solicitor General, submitted that only 347.63 km² of the notified 8,496.44 km² Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary is effectively wildlife habitat and sought rationalisation of the remainder.

Central Empowered Committee (CEC)

  • Reported that the north-western flank proposed to be excluded from Valmiki Sanctuary is ecologically fragile and hosts important wildlife species.
  • Recommended conditional clearance for the Durgawati Reservoir Project, including compliance with Forest Conservation Act approval, National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) conditions, and deposit of 5% of revised project cost for conservation.
  • Provided detailed guidelines on the number and location of wood-based industries that could be sustainably licensed in Haryana, Uttaranchal and West Bengal.
  • Advised that only 750 sawmills could be supported by available timber in West Bengal and that industries using imported timber be situated away from forest land.
  • Indicated no further action was necessary against certain officers earlier flagged by NBWL.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Interim Orders dated 18-5-2007 and 27-7-2007, reported at (2010) 13 SCC 325 Stayed the granting of licences for sawmills in West Bengal pending further evaluation. The present order vacates the stay, allowing the State to process licences in accordance with CEC guidelines.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court largely accepted the technical and ecological assessments of the CEC and used them as the basis for its directions:

  • Valmiki Sanctuary, Bihar: The Court noted the CEC’s finding that the area proposed for exclusion is “eco-fragile and sensitive”. It ordered that any reduction of area must first be examined by the MoEF boundary-rationalisation committee, which should also consider the CEC report.
  • Durgawati Reservoir Project: Clearance was granted because the State agreed to comply with all three CEC-stipulated conditions, ensuring statutory approvals and financial contributions for conservation.
  • Action against Officers: Although NBWL had earlier recommended proceedings, the Court held that “larger interest” warranted closure of the matter and barred any further action.
  • Wood-based Industries:
    • Haryana and Uttaranchal: Upon confirmation that CEC recommendations were accepted and rules framed, no further orders were needed.
    • West Bengal: The Court evaluated timber availability statistics from CEC, accepted the cap of 750 sawmills, mandated adherence to location and raw-material specifications, and vacated previous stay orders.
  • Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary, Maharashtra: The Court recorded the State’s submission on actual wildlife habitat and directed the MoEF rationalisation committee to decide boundary issues within four weeks, emphasising expedition to enable lawful non-forest activities elsewhere.
  • Infrastructure Projects (NHAI): Cleared subject to compliance with CEC recommendations.

Holding and Implications

Multiple IAs DISPOSED OF; specific clearances and directions issued as summarized below.

  • Bihar may pursue reduction of Valmiki Sanctuary only through MoEF’s rationalisation committee.
  • Durgawati Reservoir Project cleared subject to strict fulfilment of CEC’s three conditions.
  • No disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the officers previously flagged by NBWL.
  • Licensing of 750 sawmills in West Bengal permitted; earlier stay orders vacated.
  • Wood-based industries in Haryana and Uttaranchal may proceed in line with CEC guidelines; several related IAs closed.
  • NHAI projects and other applications cleared subject to CEC recommendations.
  • MoEF committee directed to finalise rationalisation of Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary within four weeks.

The order resolves numerous interim matters but sets no new doctrinal precedent; its immediate impact is operational—facilitating project implementation and industry licensing while ensuring continued ecological oversight through CEC and MoEF committees.

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

    Order

    IAs Nos. 2281-82

    1. List on Friday, 24-10-2008. CEC may file its reply/response, if any, in the meantime.

    IAs Nos. 991, 1004, 1185, 1273, 1280, 1294, 1443, 1611, 2018 and 2073, 2175, 2357 and IA No. 979 in IAs Nos. 443, 1204, 1245, 1357 and 2110, 2141

    2. List on 19-12-2008.

    IAs Nos. 2213-15 in IAs Nos. 948-948-A

    3. Issue notice to CEC and State of Chhattisgarh. Response/report, if any, may be filed within four weeks.

    IAs Nos. 2070, 2071, 2142 and 2387 in 2071, IA No. 2070

    4. In the State of Bihar there is a wildlife sanctuary by name Valmiki Wildlife Sanctuary which is originally having an extent of 880 sq km and now it seems that the State seeks to reduce the extent to 840.26 sq km as part of the rationalisation of the boundary of the sanctuary.

    5. CEC has examined the matter and filed a report wherein it is stated that this is a part of the north-western flank of the sanctuary and it contains low hill Sal and miscellaneous forests of high density with small grassy moist patches; tiger, leopard, wild boar, sloth bear, Sambhar and Cheetal are found in the area and the entire area is eco-fragile and sensitive and has bearing on critical wildlife habitat.

    6. The State, if it is serious to reduce the area, may approach the MoEF Committee for rationalisation of the boundary and while considering this fact report of CEC also may be considered.

    7. IA is disposed of accordingly.

    IA No. 2071

    8. The State seeks permission to divert 600.72 ha of land for Durgawati Reservoir Project. CEC has examined and has laid down the following conditions:

    1. approval under the Forest Conservation Act will be obtained for use of the forest land;
    2. the conditions on which the project has been recommended for approval by the Standing Committee of NBWL will be strictly complied with; and
    3. five per cent of the revised estimate cost of the project will be deposited by the project authorities for conservation, protection and improvement of national parks and sanctuaries in the State of Bihar. For utilisation of the funds, a society under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Bihar with the Principal Secretary (Forests), the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the Chief Wildlife Warden as its members and one officer not below the rank of the Chief Conservator of Forests as its Member-Secretary may be got registered. This amount along with the amount payable towards NPV, Catchment Area Treatment and Compensatory Afforestation should be deposited in an interest bearing account(s) in a nationalised bank(s) maintained by the Society and income received by way of interest should be used in perpetuity for conservation, protection and development of forest and wildlife in the State.

    The said conditions are acceptable to the applicant.

    9. Subject to the fulfilment of the above conditions, the project is cleared. IA is disposed of accordingly.

    10. NBWL had earlier recommended that action be taken against some officers. But having regard to larger interest, no further action is required and we make it clear that no proceeding may be taken against the said officers. Consequently, IAs Nos. 2142 and 2387 are also disposed of.

    IAs Nos. 1381, 1429, 1519-20, 1652-54, 1782-83, 1812, 1995-96, 1998-99, 2014 and 2120, IA No. 1381

    11. This application is regarding functioning of unlicensed wood-based industries in the State of Haryana. CEC has examined the matter and the State has complied with all the recommendations of CEC and the State, as per the recommendations of CEC, has framed rules for giving/granting licences and it was stated that all steps are being taken for issuing licences. No further directions are required.

    12. IA is disposed of accordingly.

    IA No. 1429

    13. In the State of Uttaranchal, there are certain plants of medium density fibre board (MDFB) which are not using the timber for this purpose. CEC has examined the matter and has made certain recommendations. The State has not raised any objections to the recommendations of CEC.

    14. The application as regards Uttaranchal is disposed of.

    15. List the application on 28-11-2008 as regards the State of Madhya Pradesh.

    IAs Nos. 1519-20

    16. There are large number of applicants to start the wood-based industries in the State of West Bengal. There are 2927 units seeking permission to start wood-based industries. The total timber available from the forest area was assessed to be 14.25 lakh cu m as against 25.52 lakh cu m assessed by the State Government. The available timber is adequate only to accommodate 750 sawmills.

    17. CEC has suggested that as regards 750 sawmills, they may be given licences according to the guidelines and suggestions issued by it.

    18. It is also noticed that there are several other wood-based industries which are operating only on the imported timber. CEC has suggested that these wood-based industries shall be located at such places which are away from the forest land and also to ensure that these wood-based industries are not using non-imported timber.

    19. If these conditions are acceptable to the State Government, the State Government may process the applications in accordance with the guidelines and suggestions issued by CEC and issue licences based on the said guidelines/suggestions.

    20. The interim order(s) passed by this Court on 18-5-2007 (2010) 13 SCC 325/27-7-2007 staying granting of licences is vacated. IAs are disposed of accordingly.

    21. IAs Nos. 1652-54, 1782-83, 1812, 1995-96, 1998-99, 2014 and 2120 are also disposed of accordingly.

    IA No. 1421 in 703

    22. CEC to file its response within four weeks.

    IA No. 941 in IAs Nos. 754-55 with IAs Nos. 777, 1131-33, 1138-46, 1148, 1184, 1272, 1361, 1579-80 and WP (C) No. 356 of 2007

    23. List on 5-12-2008.

    IA No. 2000-2000-A

    24. The applicant to serve the unserved respondent State of Chhattisgarh. In addition, permitted to serve the Standing Counsel for the State.

    25. Adjourned by four weeks.

    IAs Nos. 2149-50 and 2153-54

    26. It is submitted that the recommendations of CEC are acceptable to the applicant NHAI and the project is cleared subject to the fulfilment of suggestions/recommendations of CEC.

    27. The applications are disposed of accordingly.

    IAs Nos. 2147-48

    28. List on 10-11-2008.

    IAs Nos. 2245-46 in IA No. 1620 in IA No. 566 of 2002

    29. Adjourned.

    IAs Nos. 2287-88

    30. Issue notice to CEC. CEC to file its response within four weeks.

    IA No. 2342 in 2119 in 1483 in 548

    31. In the State of Maharashtra, the Great India Bustard Wildlife Sanctuary, as on paper, is having an extent of 8496.44 sq km. But it is submitted by the learned Solicitor General of India, appearing for the State, that out of this area 347.63 sq km is effectively the wildlife sanctuary and out of this 347.63 sq km, 250.64 sq km is forest and 85.72 sq km is vacant land and 11.27 sq km is private land. Learned Solicitor General submits that they are carrying non-forest activities in the rest of the area including 347.63 sq km.

    32. The rationalisation of the boundary of the sanctuary is to be finally decided based on the recommendation of the Committee constituted for the said purpose working under the MoEF. The Committee may take an early decision and based on the decision, the rest of the area which is excluded in such non-forest activities could be permitted.

    33. We request the rationalisation committee to take a decision at the earliest at least within a period of four weeks.

    34. List after six weeks.

    IAs Nos. 2306-07 in IA No. 1785 in WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985

    35. Issue notice. Notice shall also be issued to CEC.

    IA No. 2198 @ Contempt Petition No. 125 of 2006 in IA No. 1785 in WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985

    36. The State to file its affidavit within four weeks.

    IA No. D-58737 in WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985

    37. Adjourned.

    IAs Nos. 1-3 in SLP (C) No. … CC No. 11166 of 2008

    38. Permission to file SLP granted.

    39. Issue notice to the State of Himachal Pradesh and CEC.

    Court Masters

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    T.N Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India And Others
    (Oct 20, 2008)