Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer Medium ... vs The Govt. Of India, Ministry Of ... on 28 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 1581/16 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1581/2016
The Executive Engineer,
Medium Project Division,
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,
Gondia. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. The Government of India,
Ministry of Environment, Forest &
Climate Change (Forest Conservation
Division),
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Aliganj
Jorbagh Road, NEW DELHI - 110 003;
through its Director (Forest Conservation).
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032;
through its Principal Secretary (Forests).
3. The Additional Principal Chief
Conservator of Forests & Nodal Officer,
Maharashtra State, NAGPUR.
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forest,
Bhandara Forest Division, BHANDARA. RESPONDENTS
Shri S.G. Jagtap, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ambarish Joshi, counsel for the respondent no.1.
Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Government Pleader for the respondent nos.2 to 4.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 28 TH MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally as a notice for final disposal was issued to the respondents and the
respondents are duly served.
WP 1581/16 2 Judgment
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
respondent no.4-Deputy Conservator of Forest, Bhandara Division,
Bhandara, dated 07.12.2015, declining permission to the petitioner to fell
the trees for implementation of the Bhimalkasa Minor Irrigation Project.
3. The respondent no.1-Ministry of Environment and Forest had
granted the approval for diversion of 116.03 Hectares of land for non-
forest activity under the Bhimalkasa Minor Irrigation Project, in
November-2008. The petitioner-Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation, deposited the amount towards Net Present Value,
Compensatory Afforestation and Penal Compensatory Afforestation in
March-2013. The petitioner-Corporation also deposited the costs for
felling of trees pursuant to the permission granted in the year 2008.
According to the petitioner, all the necessary compliances were made and
the petitioners were waiting for the permission for felling of the trees
when the impugned order declining permission to the petitioner to fell
the trees, dated 07.10.2015 was passed.
4. Shri Jagtap, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted
that the respondent no.4-Deputy Conservator of Forest was not justified
in rejecting the application of the petitioner for permission to fell the trees
on the ground that Writ Petition No.1277 of 2000 filed against the State
WP 1581/16 3 Judgment
of Maharashtra and concerning the felling of trees in the Nagzira area is
pending and if the petitioner-Corporation is desirous of felling the trees, it
would be necessary for the Corporation to seek the permission from the
High Court. It is stated that Writ Petition No.1277 2000 is neither
pending before this Court nor before the Green Tribunal. It is stated that
in the absence of the pendency of the writ petition, of which a reference is
made in the impugned order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside
and a direction to the respondents to grant permission to the petitioner-
Corporation to fell the trees, is necessary. It is lastly stated that in the
impugned order, it is observed that the petitioner has not cured the
deficiencies and has not fulfilled the conditions for diversion of the land
for non-forest activity, whereas, the petitioner has cured the deficiencies
and submitted a report in that regard to the respondent no.1. It is stated
that an appropriate order needs to be passed by the Government of India.
5. Mrs. Dangre, the learned Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 4, fairly admits that Writ Petition
No.1277 of 2000 is not pending before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay
High Court and the reference made to the pendency of the aforesaid case
in the impugned order appears to be incorrect. It is also fairly admitted
that the proceedings in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2000 were transferred to
the Green Tribunal but, there are no directions in the order of the Green
WP 1581/16 4 Judgment
Tribunal that necessary permission would be required before undertaking
the projects like Extention of National Highways or the present project. It
is submitted that since Writ Petition No.1277 of 2000 is neither pending
before this Court nor are the said proceedings pending before the Green
Tribunal, the State Government would pass a fresh order on the
application made by the petitioner-Corporation for permission to fell the
trees.
6.
Since Writ Petition No.1277 of 2000 is neither pending in this
Court nor before the Green Tribunal, the reason recorded in the
impugned order for declining the permission to the petitioner to fell the
trees is illegal. Since the aforesaid proceedings are not pending before
any Court or authority, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The
State Government may pass appropriate order on the application of the
petitioner at the earliest.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The State Government
may pass fresh order on the application made by the petitioner for
permission to fell the trees, as early as possible. The respondent no.1
should consider whether the petitioner has cured the deficiencies for
diversion of the land for non-forest activity and then pass an appropriate
order in accordance with law.
WP 1581/16 5 Judgment
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
