On 21st October 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division bench comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that it is the duty of the State as well as its citizens to safeguard the forest of the country and to preserve the resources for the future generation. However, one principle cannot be applied in isolation of the other. (The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Uday Education And Welfare Trust And Anr. Etc. Etc.)
Facts of the case:
The Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) issued Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines 2016 vide Notification No. S.O. 3456 (E) dated 11th November 2016. In pursuance of the Guidelines, matter was placed before the State Level Committee (SLC) for grant of licenses to WBIs. The SLC in its meeting held on 4th May 2018, considered the matter about the grant of licenses to Wood Based Industries considering availability of wood in Uttar Pradesh for determining the amount of timber available. It was decided that, in order to determine the correct number of new licenses to be issued to WBIs, a reassessment may be done by Indian Plywood Industries Research and Training Institute (IPIRTI). In the meeting of SLC it was found that capacity of plywood units is taken as fixed by the 2016 Guidelines, which, in turn, was based on the assessment of IPIRTI, a decision was taken that there was no need for the fresh assessment of the capacity by IPIRTI. An E-lottery was held on 12th December 2018 for grant of licence to WBIs and on 1st march 2019, a notice was issued by UP government communicating the same. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent Trust, Samvit Foundation and U.P. Timber Association filed an original application before the NGT. Thereafter, the State govt. was directed to submit a report from the Joint Committee to examine the issue. The same was submitted on 3rd August 2019 and NGT passed an order to review the above said notice with regards to the establishment of new WBIs by 1350 units. On 18th February 2020, the LGT quashed and set aside the above-mentioned notice after which a civil appeal was filed which was dismissed and also rejected the review applications. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal was filed by appellants.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the appellants submitted that “decision of the State Government to establish WBIs is in accordance with the 2016 Guidelines issued by the MOEFCC. The e timber requirement by 1215 new WBIs, which were issued provisional licenses is only 12.35 lakh cubic meters per year, whereas the total timber available in the State is 80.30 lakh cubic meters per year i.e., not even 20%. Moreover, the object of IPIRTI is not to conduct a survey of either forest or TOF. The NGT itself has directed such study to be conducted by FSI, who has already undertaken similar studies for Punjab & Maharashtra. When the Timber availability survey in UP was done by the very same agency, the learned NGT fell in gross error in again directing the State Government to conduct such a survey through the FSI. The decision of the State Govt. was in tune with the decision of the court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India. There are reasons to believe that proceedings were initiated at the instance of either the existing WBIs in UP to prevent competition or they were filed at the instance of the WBIs in Haryana who were importing timber from UP at cheaper rates.”
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that “the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle are to be followed consistently.” The reports of CEC dated 15th March 2005 and 12th October 2006 were relied upon. “Unless the timber availability for the new WBIs is assessed and the SLC examines and recommends its approval, it is not permissible to establish new WBIs. CEC report of 2007 shows that availability of timber in UP is only 45.70 lakh cubic meters per year. When SLC in its meeting dated 4th May 2018 had decided to get a report from IPIRTI, there was no occasion for it to review its decision in its subsequent meeting. Moreover, the survey has been conducted for only 30 districts. FSI has not taken into consideration the rotation period and, therefore, the survey is erroneous on the said count also.” Cases, Common Cause vs. Union of India and others, Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forword Foundation and others, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha and Others and Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma and others were referred.
Observations and Judgement of the Court:
The hon'ble court observed that “when the estimation was done by the FSI by applying the scientific method and had arrived at the conclusion based on satellite data, such a report could not have been brushed aside by the learned NGT lightly. NGT has grossly erred in deducting the availability of timber from the prohibited trees. By now, it is more than settled that the Courts should not enter into an area that is the domain of the experts. The learned NGT could not have sat in appeal over the opinion of the expert. NGT has failed to take into consideration the stand of the MOEFCC that sufficient timber was available legally to run the new WBIs. The State has specifically pointed out before the learned NGT that on the establishment of WBIs, an investment of about Rs.3000 crore was likely to be attracted in the State; employment opportunities to over 80000 people will be available and the farmers of the State would get a more remunerative price. This will reduce dependence on traditional/cash crops and also reduce migration of people to urban areas. There is no sufficient market for this produce in the said area and western districts of UP do not have sufficient number of plywood and veneer units and as such, they are not sufficient for the entire farmers’ produce available in the said area. Since the issue is related to the general decision of the State which is applicable uniformly to all the proposed provisional licensees, it is not necessary to consider the issue raised in the impleadment applications. It is more than a settled law that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed even in administrative actions when such actions adversely affect the rights of the citizens. When the learned NGT exercised its judicial powers, it could not have ignored the principles of natural justice, which, even under Section 19(1) of the NGT Act, it is bound to follow.”
The appeals were allowed and orders of the Learned NGT were seat aside and quashed.
Case: The State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc. Vs. Uday Education And Welfare Trust And Anr. Etc. Etc.
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos.2407-2412 Of 2021, Civil Appeal Nos. 3144-3146 Of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos.3132-3134 Of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos.3135-3137 Of 2022, Civil Appeal No.3138 Of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos.4061-4062 Of 2022, Civil Appeal No.3141 Of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos.2547-2548 Of 2020, Civil Appeal Nos.3142-3143 Of 2022, Civil Appeal Nos.3147-3149 Of 2022
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Date: October 21, 2022
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source : twitter.com