ORDER:- Petitioner society claims to be interested in the preservation and conservation of nature and they fight against the ecological imbalance and environmental degeneration at Thiruvazhamkunnu in Palakkad District. The respondent Agricultural University owns 400 hectares of land. Petitioner alleges that attempts are being made to cut about 2000 odd trees from this property and tender notification was published on 21-11-93. A decision was taken by the executive committee of the University in the month of March 1993. All these trees have grown well and this area comes under the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. Petitioner alleges that one Sateesh Chandran Nair has conducted a detailed study about bio-diversity of Southern Western Ghats, and it is observed that the preservation of this 'bio-sphere is necessary. Petitioner prays that respondent University shall not be allowed to cut the trees pursuant to Ext. P. I notification. 2. On behalf of the respondent Agricultural University a counter affidavit is filed. In the counter affidavit dated 17-12-93. It is contended by the respondents that the averments in the original petition are not correct. The total extent of land of the Kerala Agricultural. University at Thiruvazhamkunnu comes about 400 acres. Out of this 80 acres are being preserved as thick and natural forest and the remaining extent is being used for Research Programmes and also for production of fooder for the requirements of livestock. This area is situated in Kottoppadam village of Nannarghat Taluk and it is about 17 Kms. north of Mannarghat. Originally this farm was under the Department of Animal Husbandary of Madras Government. In 1956, it was transferred to the Department of Animal Husbandary of the Kerala State and on the formation of the Kerala Agricultural University it was handed over to the University. In order to carry out various research programmes, the university decided to dispose of certain trees which are either dead, dying moribund, diseased or over matured etc. These trees are standing at isoleted places causing hindrance to various operations in the farm. The dead trees have to be removed to maintain the general hygiene of the Research Station. A good number of venue trees are now infected with various diseases. A substantial extent of the land is being used for cultivation of various types of fodder (grass) species. The trees are being cut not for the purpose of earning any revenue. The agricultural university has got sufficient financial resources. A good number of venue trees are now infected with various diseases. A substantial extent of the land is being used for cultivation of various types of fodder (grass) species. The trees are being cut not for the purpose of earning any revenue. The agricultural university has got sufficient financial resources. Most of the trees which are auctioned were planted by the university. It is further denied that this land will come under Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve. This farm cater to the intensive research needs of cattle development, development of feed and fodder suitable for local communities and an All India Co-ordinated Research Project is functioning in this farm since 1983. The proposed felling of trees is essential for the sustained development of farm. It is alleged that if any delay is occasioned in the removal of trees it would adversely affect the various research activities and development programme. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations in the counter affidavit. 3. I heard the petitioner's counsel and the standing counsel for the Kerala Agricultural University. One of the main contentions urged by the petitioner's counsel is that the agricultural farm owned by the respondent University is very close to the silent valley National Park and therefore, it forms part of the Nilgiri Biosphere. It is contended that if these trees are cut and removed it would cause serious ecological problems posing threat to the preservation of the Nilgiri Biosphere. Petitioner has relied on the report prepared by one R. Sukumaran, Centre for Ecological Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. The standing counsel for the University submits that Agricultural Farm is not part of any biosphere and it is alleged that it lies outside the area of the Niligiri biosphere. Niligiri Biosphere Reserve covers an area of 5,520 Km2 spreading over States of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamilnadu. For the purpose of preservation of these areas it is classified into core zone, Manipulation Forestry zone, Tourism zone and Restoration zone. The biosphere is mostly falling within forest land and it is administered by the forest department of the respective States. A map of the biosphere is shown in the report. From the map it is not possible to hold that agricultural farm is part of the Niligiri biosphere. It is true that this farm is very close to the Silent Valley National Park. The agricultural farm is not a forest land. A map of the biosphere is shown in the report. From the map it is not possible to hold that agricultural farm is part of the Niligiri biosphere. It is true that this farm is very close to the Silent Valley National Park. The agricultural farm is not a forest land. It is exclusively owned and possessed by the University. The respondents' counsel submitted that about 80 acres of land is preserved as forest. That does not mean that it will form part of Niligiri biosphere. But going by the plan produced this land is lying on the periphery. Even if it is assumed that this area is lying close to the Nilgiri biosphere it cannot be said that no trees can be cut from this area. It may be noticed that under the Nilgiri biosphere reserve scheme, the peripheral area is identified as restoration zones. It is stated that this area is depleted of national vegetation and is discriminated as restoration zone where suitable afforestation are being taken up. In the report it is stated that the restoration areas may also be corridors to link any severed forest connections or catchment areas of reservoirs where soil conservation measures have to be promoted. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the farm area is part of the Niligiri biosphere and therefore the respondents should be restrained from cutting the trees cannot be accepted. 4. The next question to be considered is whether the decision taken by the University to cut these 2000 and odd trees is either illegal or unreasonble and whether it would cause serious environmental or ecological problems. The respondent University in the counter-affidavit filed on 1-3-94 had described the circumstances under which how the decision to cut these trees was taken. It is alleged that this agricultural farm has got 265 animals including cows and calves. It is pointed out that every 400 kgs. of body weight will be treated as one body unit and there are about 265 cow unit in the Livestock Research Station, Thiruvazhankunnu. The requirement of fodder for a cow unit per day is 40 kg. Therefore, the total requirement of fodder for one cow unit for a year is 14,600 kgs. and for the 225 units the annual requirement is 3375 tonnes. The present production is only 2690 mt. The requirement of fodder for a cow unit per day is 40 kg. Therefore, the total requirement of fodder for one cow unit for a year is 14,600 kgs. and for the 225 units the annual requirement is 3375 tonnes. The present production is only 2690 mt. The hard strength of Thiruvazhamkunnu Station is proposed to be increased to 450 from the year, 1994-95. For that purpose an amount of Rs. I .5 lakhs have been provided in the budget and therefore, it is contended that from 1994-95 the total requirement of fodder would be more than 5700 tonnes. It is further pointed out that out of total extent of 163.3 hectares, 32 hectares of land is kept as undisturbed thick natural forest and 91.5 hectares alone is used for forage crops (fodder cultivation). 25.3 hectares is being utilised for plantation of mango, jack, coconut, pepper, cashew etc. An extent of 4.5 hectares is being utilised for agro-forestry experiments. It is alleged that existing fodder crops are poor in production. These varieties require replacement with better varieties. In the affidavit it is further stated that most of the tropical forage grasses require high intensive sun light. Therefore, the shade effects of the trees cause serious problems. The trees standing nearby release wide spectrum of organic compounds into soil either through root exudation or through decomposing litter. This is technically called 'allelopathy'. It is also alleged that these trees compete for water and other nutrients with the forage crops. In short, the contention of the counsel for the University is that the trees which are sought to be cut are standing at isolated places and they are causing serious problems. For proper maintenance of the farm these trees have to be cut and removed and fodder cultivation is to be intensified. The details of the trees that are to be cut are mentioned in Annexure 'A'. 5. The counsel for the petitioner could not give any satisfactory explanation to the details furnished by the respondent's counsel. All arguments were centred around the plea that this form part of the Nilgiri biosphere and, therefore the authorities shall not be allowed to cut and remove these trees. As already noted, I do not think that the matter has to be viewed only on that, basis. The question is whether the university has taken an unreasonable decision to cut these trees. As already noted, I do not think that the matter has to be viewed only on that, basis. The question is whether the university has taken an unreasonable decision to cut these trees. On going through the details furnished by the respondent university, I do not think that the respondent University has taken a wrong decision. If the farm requires more land for fodder cultivation they have to find out the land within the area. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the standing of trees at isolated places would only help the fodder cultivation. It is alleged that solar radiation will not be affected by these trees. I am unable to accept this contention. The respondent University has got expert scientists and they must have considered this fact in detail. The shading trees may not be helpful for forage cultivation. It would cause only hindrance to the proper cultivation of the fodder crops. The counsel for the respondents pointed out that the cattle strength of the farm is going to be increased and they will require more fodder. It is also important to note that the farm may not be in a position to purchase fodder from outside. It is pointed out that it would be unhealthy and sometimes cause serious diseases to the cattle. It is also important to note that in the farm area the present yield from fodder cultivation is very low and it has to be improved by scientific methods and the cutting of the trees is intended for that purpose. 6. The counsel for the petitioner made reference to some of the decisions of the Supreme Court touching on the subject of environmental pollution. Reference was made to M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1988 SC 1115), Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P. (AIR 1988 SC 2187) and Shri Sachidanad Pandey v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1987 SC 1109). In Shri Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal the Supreme Court observed that (at p. 1114), "Where an administrative action or order of the Government involves the problem of environment and the Government is alive to the various considerations requiring thought and deliberation and has arrived at a conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be for the Court to interfere in the absence of mala fides. On the other hand, if relevant considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant considerations influence the decision, the Court may interfere in order to prevent a likelihood of prejudice to the public. Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Art. 48A of the Constitution, the Directive Principle which enjoins that 'The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country', and Art. 51 A(g) which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures', When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Directive Principles and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy making authority. The least that the Court may do is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go further, but how much further must depend on the circumstances of the case. The Court may always give necessary directions. However; the Court will not attempt to nicely balance relevant considerations. When the question involves, the nice balancing of relevant considerations the Court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority." 7. The matters involved in this case were examined in the light of the above Supreme Court decision and I am satisfied that the respondent University have considered these matters and taken a decision to cut and remove these trees having due regard to all relevant circumstances. Petitioner's counsel lastly contended that it may lead to corruption. It is for the respondent University to take action to see that the work is executed complying with all legal formalities. This respondent being a Government enterprise, naturally there is an in-built mechanism of auditing to find out the irregularity, if any, committed by the officials. Needless to say, the respondent shall comply with all legal formalities before the cutting of trees is fully implemented. So I do not think that the respondent University should be restrained from proceeding with Ext. This respondent being a Government enterprise, naturally there is an in-built mechanism of auditing to find out the irregularity, if any, committed by the officials. Needless to say, the respondent shall comply with all legal formalities before the cutting of trees is fully implemented. So I do not think that the respondent University should be restrained from proceeding with Ext. P. 1 notification for cutting and removal of the trees standing' in the farm area. The O. P. is dismissed. Petition dismissed.