Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. A childrens film titled “Raju Chacha” which is to be shot in and around a set erected on an area known as Schoolmund in the Wenlock Downs Reserve Forest in Ooty has become controversial and has resulted in these writ petitions, one by an environment group, which seeks to have the temporary set erected by the producer — Devgan Films, dismantled and the permission based on which the structure was erected cancelled and the other by the producer to set aside the order of cancellation made by the District Forest Officer on 10.12.1999 cancelling the permission which he had given in terms of the agreement dated 7.10.1989 permitting the producer to put up a temporary set over an area of 60 60? metres and to use a similar area around it in Schoolmund for the purpose of film shooting. 2. The records produced by the State show that the Producer Devgan Films had written to the Chief Conservator of Forests of the State on 31.8.1999 informing him of his intention to produce a Childrens Film called “Raja. Chacha” which was to be shot at Ooty. He sought the grant of a No Objection Certificate for shooting, setting/prcp work/rehearsal in North and South Ooty area for any 120 days between the 1 st of October, 1999 and 10th March 2000. On the same day a No Objection Certificate was issued “subject to the conditions to be laid down by Government and the District Forest Officer concerned”. Such certificate was granted by the Director of Information and Public Relations on the basis of the communication received by him from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, who had agreed to the grant of such No Objection Certificate. On the 6th of September 1999, the Chief Co-ordinator of the Producer wrote to the District Forest Officer of South Division, Ooty wherein after referring to the verbal t alks he had with the Officer, he informed the officer, inter alia , that for shooting the film, they., needed to “ construct a set (whose designs have been seen by your goodself)”. The Officer was also informed that the entire set was made in Mumbai and that it would be brought to the location and assembled there. The size of the set was to be 60 - 60 metres. 3. The Officer was also informed that the entire set was made in Mumbai and that it would be brought to the location and assembled there. The size of the set was to be 60 - 60 metres. 3. It was also mentioned in that letter that the Producer had initially planned on shooting the film in the Gulmarg area of Kashmir and that the set had also been made and was ready to go to location when the Kargil war broke and therefore, the shooting of the film had to be postponed. It was stated that the Producer had after going to Ooty and going round the places, had selected Schoolmund area as the right location for their set being the best alternative to the Gulmarg area of Kashmir. It was undertaken in that letter that the Producer would abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Forest Department and “use special technique of scaffolding construction to avoid any damage to the areas. The set will be 5 feet above the ground to conserve grass. “It was further stated in the letter that they would “return the location to you after the shooting, in the condition it is in the present state. The grass will be specially groomed and no holes will be dug”. It was further stated therein that “the set will be on nuts and bolts and as discussed, no steps would be taken without environment in mind”. It is evident from that letter that the District Forest Officer, who subsequently entered into the agreement with the Producer had seen the designs of the set and had been made aware of the kind of technique that would be employed in putting up the set. 4. Thereafter, the formal agreement was entered into between the Producer and the District Forest Officer, who executed that agreement “acting for and on behalf and by order and direction of the Governor of Tamil Nadu”. The agreement contains 19 conditions. After setting out those 19 conditions, the agreement sets out the following:. “Permission is also granted for erection of a temporary set to the size of 60 m -60 m in Schoolmund area of Udhagai South Range. The Company can utilise an additional area of equal extent for allied activities. The site for temporary set may be selected in consultation with the Ranger, Udhagai South Range before erection. “Permission is also granted for erection of a temporary set to the size of 60 m -60 m in Schoolmund area of Udhagai South Range. The Company can utilise an additional area of equal extent for allied activities. The site for temporary set may be selected in consultation with the Ranger, Udhagai South Range before erection. No area other than the permitted one should be utilised”. 5. The provisions set out in the agreement, excluding the one granting permission for putting up a temporary set, are by and large the conditions which the District Forest Officers were empowered to incorporate while issuing permission for film shooting in their divisions, in terms of the Circular is sued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 18.8.1997. That Circular, which is found in the files produced before us by the Government Pleader shows that the subject matter of the Circular is: “Film — Film Shooting — Grant of Permission — Conditions to be stipulated in the orders — Reg.” After referring to certain earlier correspondence, it states that the District Forest Officers are requested to stipulate the conditions set out in that Circular “while issuing permission for film shooting in their divisions in future”. 6. The District Forest Officer, by a letter dated 7.10.1999, apparently written before he signed the agreement, has recorded that it was not within the powers of the District Forest Officers to permit erection of temporary sets and therefore, he had “discussed this matter with the Principal Conservator of Forests over telephone on 4.10.1999 and as agreed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, I have granted permission to the film shooting company to construct temporary set in Schoolmund area by stipulating stringent conditions”. 7. It is thus evident that permission to erect the set, had been granted after the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests had been appraised of the need for erecting such a set for the purposes of shooting this film and he had consciously agreed to permit the erection of such a set. It is only thereafter that the District Forest Officer had proceeded to incorporate the permission in the agreement that was executed with the film company. 8. It is only thereafter that the District Forest Officer had proceeded to incorporate the permission in the agreement that was executed with the film company. 8. This would also show that the permission to erect a set inside a forest is not a normal routine condition that is incorporated in the letters of permission granted by the District Forest Officer to Producers, who wish to shoot films in reserve forest areas. 9. After the execution of the agreement, the assembling of the set on location apparently commenced and proceeded with considerable speed. Such activity went on uninterrupted from 6.10.1999 till 6.12.1999 when the District Forest Officer pursuant to instructions issued by the Collector on 4.12.1999 temporarily suspended the erection of the temporary set until further orders. 10. Prior to issue of that order of 6.12.1999, the District Forest Officer had addressed a letter to the Chief Conservator of Forests, wherein he dealt with certain statements made in a report concerning the location of the set and which had appeared in a Tamil daily newspaper “Dinamalar” on 3.12.1999. The District Forest Officer gave his comments on all the points that had been made in that publication. 11. With regard to the area where the temporary set was being put up, he had this to say” “The Schoolmund area is adjacent to three tribal settlements and is frequently visited by local people and their cattle and a good number of tourists. During my several inspections, I have not come across any wildlife other than occasional wild board. Surroundings of this area is man made plantation over a long stretch. There is no connection of this area either with Mudumalai sanctuary or Mukurthi National Park. Therefore, calling this area as corridor is totally absurd. The film shooting company is not damaging the grasslands in any way. As such, question of giving support by the department to destroy the grassland does not arise. In fact during November to February is a frost season when all the grasslands dry naturally. The film shooting company is resorting to application of bio-fertiliser and irrigation to keep the grasslands green. The set is being constructed on a basement of G.I. pipes which have not been planted into the grassland. Therefore, question of damage to the grassland due to the thousands of G.I. pipes used in the set does not arise. The film shooting company is resorting to application of bio-fertiliser and irrigation to keep the grasslands green. The set is being constructed on a basement of G.I. pipes which have not been planted into the grassland. Therefore, question of damage to the grassland due to the thousands of G.I. pipes used in the set does not arise. The food for the workers is being prepared at Ooty and transported to the site. It is incorrect to say that the company is preparing the food at the location itself. Several sign boards containing conservation messages have been displayed by the film shooting company to create awareness. There is no department board near the location. The film shooting company is not taking vehicles on the grasslands. In fact the forest road which was not motorable has been improved by the company and that road alone is being used by them. The personnel of film shooting company are staying at Ooty. Only a few night watchmen are guarding the site in the night against theft, etc.” Regarding the grassland, the Officer was of the view that the structure that had been temporarily erected by the film company would have no adverse impact on the grassland. In Paragraph 14 of that report, he stated thus: “The Schoolmund site is a grassland. It is common knowledge that the grasslands regenerate through its roots. Even though the grasses dry during frost season, they regenerate during the next monsoon rains. Also the company is not causing any damage to the grasslands as alleged. Therefore, it cannot be said that the grassland will be totally destroyed because of this film shooting and it could not be regenerated later”. 12. The Collector, in his report of 4.12.1999, which is referred to in the order of the District Forest Officer of 6.12.1999, has recorded that, “nearly 95% of the set has been completed. It is to be completed in a day or two”. In that report, the Collector also noted that the site is situated on the Nagapattinam — Gudalur Mysore Highway at a distance of 12 km from Udhagamandalam and at a distance of 750 m from the southern side of the Highway. He has noted that on enquiry, it was found that nearly 100 persons were employed as labourers at Rs. 150/- per day and that there was no complaint from anyone. He has noted that on enquiry, it was found that nearly 100 persons were employed as labourers at Rs. 150/- per day and that there was no complaint from anyone. In that report, after noticing the effect of winter on the grassland, he recommended stoppage of shooting on the ground that fertilizer had been used to grow grass. “In Nilgifis District it is height of winter. Due to the above all the grass automatically wither away and only in May, they naturally regenerate. But they are using artificial fertilizers like urea for growing the grass. This is against nature. Therefore, to carry on shooting activity for 120 days is against nature and to carry on shooting in the place like structure is affecting nature and therefore, it is recommended to the Government to stop the shooting of the film”. It is this view of the Collector that shooting of film is against nature, because artificial fertilizers had been used by the Producer for growing grass that had formed foundation for the order suspending the shooting. The Producer has denied having used artificial fertiliser. On 10.12.1999, the District Forest Officer proceeded to cancel the permission given for erecting a temporary set at Schoolmund and shooting the film on the ground that the Producer had engaged more than 15 persons for the erection of the set, had damaged grasslands in a few places and that the Producer had tapped water from a nearby stream without permission for sprinkling the grassland for which penalty had been levied. 13. The action so taken is in the teeth of the report that had been submitted by the same District Forest Officer on 3.12.1999 wherein he had categorically stated that the film shooting company is not damaging the grassland in any way, that it is resorting to biofertilizer and irrigation to keep the grassland green. On 3.12.1999, the Officer had allowed the Producer to compound and pay a fine for the damage to the grassland, such damage having been caused apparently on account of levying a temporary water pipe line and electrical wires covered in plastic. That such damage was only minor and that area would be fully restored to its original condition had been recognised by the District Forest Officer. 14. That such damage was only minor and that area would be fully restored to its original condition had been recognised by the District Forest Officer. 14. For a better appreciation of the location and of the activity carried on by the Producer therein whether such activity is “against nature” and whether it would cause any significant adverse impact on the environment a sketch of the area, as also photographs of the activity carried on in that area would be helpful. The location sketch furnished by the Producer correctness of which has not been disputed, is annexed to this order. That location sketch shows that the Wenlock Down Reserve forest adjoins the Nagapattinam Gudalur road being State Highway No 8. There is a factory located in the area abutting the eucalyptus plantations which adjoin the Wenlock Down Reserve Forest. There is a forest road coming into the reserve forest from the main road which is used by the tribals and by vegetable merchants for transporting the agricultural produce in lorries. That road leads to the Schoolmund, which we are told is a settlement of about 50 families of the Toda tribe, wherein a school is also said to be situated. That forest road proceeds further and forms a curve. It is at that point that the temporary set has been erected. The distance from that set to the settlements at Schoolmund is 450 m. There is a stream flowing at a distance of about 450 metres from the location of this set. There are manmade pine plantation at distances varying from 100 metres to 500 metres. The distance between this spot and the State Highway is 750 metres. 15. The area is grassland and there is no tree growth on this land. The temporary set is on elevated ground and the slopes around it are covered with grass. It is set in a picturesque setting with plantations at a distance and the grass slopes in front. 16. Photographs showing the close up of the base of the pipes on which the set rests; a frontal close up of the set; the elevation of the set which rests on the pipes at a height of about ten feet from the ground; and a view of the set from a distance which shows the set and its picturesque surrounding are also annexed to this order. There has been no digging of the soil for purpose of erecting the pipes on which the temporary set rests. 17. We had directed the Producer to place before us the details of the structure including the mode of construction. The Art Director of the film Sri Nitin Desai, who has been the recipient of several awards, has submitted a Note. We consider it useful to set out substantial parts of that note. The technology used is stated to be the state of the Art used by Hollywood Art Directors as well for making film sets and other huge stages for Star Shows etc. The method has been described by him thus: “In this method the structure actually rests on a mesh of vertical G.I. pipes which are held together by horizontal pipes tied together with specially made clamps. The pipes have a base which is 6 inches by 6 inches in size to avoid any pipe going inside the ground and it also give it a firm stand so that it does not slip or buckle. The same method is used for building heavy bridges to support the bridge till the concrete sets properly. Even in building industry the scaffoldings are used not only in repairs but to actually support the slabs till they are properly set. Coming to our set, we cover these pipes with plywood and later paint the plywood so that they look like solid walls. For the floor a thicker ply is used. Some places we have used pre-fabricated plaster of paris to give a stone finish look. There is only one structure of the size 60 metres by 42 metres including protruding balconies. The height of the main lower of the structure is 28 metres and the rest of the structure is 15 metres in height including the slopped roof which is made of plywood and covered by a layer of bitumin sheets. The layouts of the set are attached herewith. Other than the main structure, we have some statues made of fibre/POP which would be used at different places during the shooting they are mobile and easily liftable. We have a cut-out made of plywood and fibre which looks like a mans face and is covered by green moss like ma-terial and dried flowers. Other than the main structure, we have some statues made of fibre/POP which would be used at different places during the shooting they are mobile and easily liftable. We have a cut-out made of plywood and fibre which looks like a mans face and is covered by green moss like ma-terial and dried flowers. It is intended to be used as an artificial water fall with water coming out of the mouth and falling to the tank before and therein circulate it. There is a pathway which leads to the, house which was made by placing hessian cloth on the ground and covering it with small coloured pebbles to look like a rainbow pathway to attract childrens attention. At the entrance to the pathway are two windmill like places on either side which are shiftable and cone shaped so that they can be just placed on the ground without any support. One at the balconies of the main house is Piano shaped and even has keys which when stepped on is supposed to make music in the film. “The interiors of the set are designed especially to attract the children and never before a film set has been so elaborately designed with ultra modern interiors”. 18. Details of the material used for making the set have also been given. The set placed on C.X. pipes of 2.9 mm gauge weighing 1 Kg per feet. The lengths vary from 2 feet to 20 feet. The nature of the pipes of different lengths used vary from 53 to 8776. The total number of the pipes used is 10,320. 180 pipes ladders and 32713 pipe clamps have been used to keep the structure stable. The total weight of the pipes which cover the area of 60 metres — 42 metres to 170 tons. The weight of the materials like plywood, plaster of paris, glasses, fibres and other sundry items add upto 205 tons. The total weight of the structure is 438 tons. The weight per square feet of area covered, ascertained by dividing the total weight by total area, works out to 19.09 Kgs, in order to better appreciate the extent of the burden this imposed on the ground. It has been pointed out that this weight of 19.9 Kgs. The total weight of the structure is 438 tons. The weight per square feet of area covered, ascertained by dividing the total weight by total area, works out to 19.09 Kgs, in order to better appreciate the extent of the burden this imposed on the ground. It has been pointed out that this weight of 19.9 Kgs. per square feet is less than one third of the weight of a map who would use the same amount of space to stand on and whose weight would range from 60 Kg to 100 Kg. He has scrupulously pointed out that this weight calculated by him does not include the weight of curtains and furniture. A sketch of the way in which pipes have been used to support the set has been furnished. That sketch shall be annexed to this order. 19. In the petition filed by one Jayachandran, who has described himself in the petition as Joint Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Green Movement, it is contended that this temporary set erected by Producer Devgan Films has a serious adverse impact on the Reserve Forest area and therefore should be removed forthwith and further that the Forest Department be restrained from permitting any shooting of films in the reserve forest areas. 20. It was contended before us by his learned counsel that having regard to the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, more particularly, Section 2, it was incompetent for the State Government or any of its officers to permit the erection of a set on the grassland in the Reserve Forest and the shooting of a film there, which activity would also involve the bringing into forest a large number of men and material. It was submitted that in terms of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which Act prevails over every other law for the time being in force in the States, forests may not be used for any non forest purpose, except with the prior approval of the Central Government and that in this case, the Central Government had neither granted permission nor did it have occasion to do so, as it had not even been approached for the grant of any such prior approval by the State Government. It was further contended by counsel that while interpreting the explanation to Section 2, the words which occur therein after sub clause (b) should be kept in view. It was further contended by counsel that while interpreting the explanation to Section 2, the words which occur therein after sub clause (b) should be kept in view. The submission was that any activity of this kind referred to in those words should be regarded as activities which are not permissible except with the prior approval of the Central Govern ment. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Government also contended that the prior approval of the Central Government is mandatory not only on the ground that the use, though temporary, to which the Schoolmund area has now been put, is a non forest purpose, but also on the ground that the grant of such permission amounts to assignment thereby attracting Section 2 Sub clause (iii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. 22. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act 69 of 1980) reads as under: 2. Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non forest purpose: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing. (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression, “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that state) or any portion thereof shall cease to be reserved. (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non forest purpose. (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government. (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. Explanation: For the purpose of this section “non-forest” purposes means breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants. Explanation: For the purpose of this section “non-forest” purposes means breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants. (b) any purpose other than reafforestation but does not include any work relating to or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, namely the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless, communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes”. 23. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted belatedly, to provide for the conservation of the depleted forest wealth of the country. Almost a century earlier, the Madras Forest Act (Act 5 of 1882), had been enacted to make “provision for the protection and management of forests” in the then Madras Presidency, now State of Tamil Nadu. Section 21 of that Act contains a list of acts prohibited in the forests and also pre scribes penalties therefore. That same provision also provides for exemptions. T he clause providing for exemption in clause (a) is set out below. S. 21 Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit. (a) any act, done in accordance with any rule made by the Government or with the permission in writing of the District Forest Officer or of an officer authorised by him to grant such permission. 24. The Tamil Nadu Forest Department Code issued in the year 1984, in Chapter I Para 15A provides for permission to shoot films inside the Reserved Forests. That para graph reads as under: 15A Permission to shoot films inside the Reserved Forests will be given by the Chief Conservator of Forests or by any Gazetted Officer authorised by him in this behalf. A fee of Rs. 300/- per day will be levied for actual shooting of films inside the Reserved Forests. The grant of permission for shooting films inside the Reserved Forests will be subject to such conditions and restrictions as the Chief Conservator of Forests may impose from time to time”. We have already noticed the fact that the Chief Conservator of Forests had imposed certain conditions, which he had by a Circular, directed all District Forest Officer to incorporate in the permissions granted for film shooting. We have already noticed the fact that the Chief Conservator of Forests had imposed certain conditions, which he had by a Circular, directed all District Forest Officer to incorporate in the permissions granted for film shooting. In this case, he had also authorised the District Forest Officer to include in the agreement the permission to erect a temporary set for the purpose of shooting the film. The permission granted by the District Forest Officer which has also been incorporated in the agreement is, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of the State Forests Act and was within the competence of the authorities who issued the permission. 25. It is the case of the State Government, as also of the Producer of the film that the prior approval of the Central Government in terms of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is not required, as that Section is inapplicable to the erection of a temporary set in the manner done by the Producer, as it does not involve breaking up or clearing of any forest land. The activity of erecting such a temporary set which is to remain on the location for a limited period of about 120 days, after which the grassland would be restored to its original condition does not amount to a non forest purpose and therefore, does not require the prior approval of the Central Government. 26. Counsel for the parties invited our attention to some of the decisions of the Apex Court concerning the environment and the scope of the Forest (Conservation) Act. 27. The Apex Court observed in the case of Ambika Quarry Works vs State of Gujarat (1987) 1 S.C.C. 213 ) that the Forest Conservation Act was enacted “in recognition of the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social menaces, and further deforestation and ecological imbalances should be prevented”. The Court said that, “that was the primary purpose writ large in the Act of 1980”. The Court also observed that “primary purpose of the Act which must subserve the interpretation in order to implement the Act, is to prevent further deforestation”. 28. The Court said that, “that was the primary purpose writ large in the Act of 1980”. The Court also observed that “primary purpose of the Act which must subserve the interpretation in order to implement the Act, is to prevent further deforestation”. 28. In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union of India ( AIR 1997 S.C. 1228 ) the Court reiterated that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 “was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance and therefore, the provision made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land” occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership”. 29. The decision of the Apex Court in the first of the cases referred to above concerned mining in the forest, while the latter decision dealt with cutting of trees in forests and running of saw mill inside the forest. The Court prohibited such felling of trees and running of saw mills within a forest. The State of Tamil Nadu, inter alia was directed to constitute a committee for identifying all forests and not permit felling of any trees in the areas which are forests and not in active use as a plantation. The Court directed that no further expansion of the plantations in any manner is to be permitted. If it involved encroachment by clearing or otherwise of the forest. 30. The Apex Court, in the still later decision in the case of Supreme Court Monitoring Committee vs Massooria Dehradun Development Authority (1997) 11 S.C.C 605 ) observed that the term “forest land” has not been defined under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or the 1980 Act and therefore, has to be understood as including an extensive trace of land covered with trees and undergrowth, sometimes intermingled with pasture, i.e., it will have to he understood in the broad dictionary sense. So understood any area which the State Act considers to be a forest and i.e. governed under that law will also be subject to Section 2(ii) of the 1980 Act”. The Court, in that case, was concerned with the clearing of forest in the erection of buildings for which permission had been granted by the Mussoorie Development Authority. After having permitted the building activity for some time, it sought to cancel those permissions on the ground, that raising of such construction within the forest area is violative of the provisions of 1980 Act. The Central Government as also the State Government, and the very authority which had initially granted permission viz., MDDA contended before the Apex Court that such permission was unlawful. It is in that context the Court held that the building activity which involved the construction of permanent structures on land situated within the forest would amount to non-forest activity, which requires the prior approval of Central Government. 31. In the case of Union of India and others vs Kamath Holiday Resorts Pvt. Ltd. (1996) S.C.C. 774) the Apex Court held that the requirement of prior approval of the Central Government would apply not only to the State Government, but to the Union Territories as well. While so holding, the Court observed, “All current streams of thought lead towards protection of environment and preservation of forest wealth. On the other hand, there are demands in justification of other use telling on the forests. A balance would have to be struck, in a cool and dispassionate manner. 32. There cannot be two opinions about the need to conserve and protect the existing forest wealth of the country. The Forest (Conservation) Act, however is not an act intended to freeze all Forests including forest land in the condition in which they existed at the time of the enactment. The Act empowers the Central Government to permit the use of forests for non forest purpose. It mandates that the use of the forest for non forest purpose as derived in the Explanation to Section 2 shall require prior approval of the Central Government. The Act does not set out the guidelines to be followed by the Central Government while granting or withholding such approval. The object of the Act, namely, conservation has to be the primary guide. 33. The Act does not set out the guidelines to be followed by the Central Government while granting or withholding such approval. The object of the Act, namely, conservation has to be the primary guide. 33. The Act in Section 3 provides for the constitution of a committee to advise the Central Government with regard to grant of approval under Section 2 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules. In exercise of that power, the Forest (Conservation) Rules 1981 have been framed. Rule 2A deals with the composition of the Committee which is to consist of seven members including the Inspector General of Forests, the Additional Inspector General of Forests, the Joint Commissioner (Soil Conservation), Ministry of Agriculture, three eminent environment scientists and the Deputy Inspector General of Forests. Rule 4 of the rules prescribes the procedure to be followed by the State Government or other authority for making a proposal seeking prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2. The form in which the approval is to be sought, is also prescribed. That form inter alia , requires statements as to the details of the project, its location, the details of the forest land involved, the details of the displacement if any, of people due to the project details of compensatory afforestation scheme details regarding transmission lines and of irrigation, in the case of transmission line and irrigation project proposal details regarding road and railway lines for railway line proposals, details regarding mining proposals for mining proposals only, “the cost benefit analysis”, whether clearance from environment angle is required, whether any work in violation of the Act has been carried out and any other information. Detailed opinion of the Chief Conservator of Forests is also required to be given inter alia , dealing with the timber and fuel wood availability in me area and a certificate that all other alternative for the purpose has been explored and the demand for the required area is the minimum demand for forest land. 34. Detailed opinion of the Chief Conservator of Forests is also required to be given inter alia , dealing with the timber and fuel wood availability in me area and a certificate that all other alternative for the purpose has been explored and the demand for the required area is the minimum demand for forest land. 34. After having prescribed such an elaborate form in which the proposal is to be made, the Rules deprive the Committee constituted in accordance with the Rules of the authority to deal with a proposal involving less than 20 hectares and leaves it to the Conservator of Forests or Chief Conservator to deal with “all proposals involving forest land upto 20 hectares”. The Central Government is not under an obligation or a duty to refer such proposals of extents less than 20 hectares to the Advisory Committee. Rule 5(1) provides that the Central Government shall refer every proposal received by it under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 4 to the committee for its advice thereon, if the area of the forest land involved is more than 20 hectares. No guidelines have been set out for the Conservator or the Chief Conservator to enable him to form a sound judgment regarding the advisability or otherwise of granting permission. While the recommendation made by the expert committee is entitled to great weight, the opinion of an Officer of the middle level is not entitled to the same weight. We have referred to these aspects only to draw the attention of the Central Government to the lacuna that now exists in the Rules. 35. The real question here, however, is as to whether the words “breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof are applicable to the activity under taken by Producer in the Schoolmund area. The activity that has been permitted is the erection of a temporary set for and shooting a film, which set is to remain on the land for a period of about 120 days. The technology used in erecting the set does not involve digging the earth for support. The set rests on the base of the G.I. pipes. The bas e of the G.I. pipe merely rests on the ground and is not embedded therein. The set is to be re moved within a matter of few months. The technology used in erecting the set does not involve digging the earth for support. The set rests on the base of the G.I. pipes. The bas e of the G.I. pipe merely rests on the ground and is not embedded therein. The set is to be re moved within a matter of few months. On such removal, the grass will admittedly re generate after the winter. The forest land is to be restored to its original condition. No part of the forest land is lost as would be the case if a structure involving digging of foundations were to be constructed. For the duration of about 120 days the land cannot be used for other purposes. The land is free of tree growth. Admittedly, no trees existed or exist on this land and no tree has been cut. The land is grassland, the land is located very close to a main Highway, the plantations which exist at a distance of about 450 metres are manmade plantations. There is a settlement with a School also at a distance of about 450 metres. Close to the location is a forest road, through which equipment has been apparently brought to the site by the Producer. 36. According to the Producer, the State Government has consistently been permitting the shooting of films in this area. In the counter-affidavit filed by one Kumar Mangat, who holds a Power of Attorney from the Producer, it is stated that several films have been shot in this area. He has mentioned the names of certain films Betabi in 1997, Deewana in 1992, Allan in 1995, Sadak in 1995, Khubsoorat in 1999, Hum in 1980s, Jigar in 1992, Tridev, Ravanraj etc. He has also stated that he had reliably learnt th at permission had been granted by the Department earlier to one Padmalaya Films, Madras to erect sets of a dimension of 300 ft - 300 ft in adjoining area of Paimund on Old Mysore Road at Udugai, South Range in the year 1995. The State Government has not disputed the fact that this area has been made available in the past to Producers as a location for their films. The State Government has not disputed the fact that this area has been made available in the past to Producers as a location for their films. In fact the Tamil Nadu Forest Department Code specifically contemplates the grant of such permission and also sets out the authority competent to grant the permission and the power of that authority to impose such conditions and restrictions as may be considered appropriate by the Chief Conservator of Forests. 37. The portion of the land on which the set has been erected or any other portion of the forest land has not been assigned to the Producer. Permission or licence to use the land for a specific purpose, for a limited period of time subject to specified condition does not amount to assignment, as there is no transfer of interest in the land here. The permission granted does not amount to assignment within the meaning of that term as used in Section 2(iii) of the Act. 38. The fact that the activities pertaining to conservation, development of forests and management of wild life are not to be regarded as ”non-forest purpose” does not imply that any activity which is not undertaken for conservation or development of forest or for management of wild life, will amount to “non-forest purpose” even where no breaking up or clearing of forest land is involved. What has already been excluded in the opening part of the Explanation cannot be regarded as having been included, by relying upon the enumeration of some of the activities involved in the conservation or development of forests or the management of wild life. 39. “Breaking up” referred to in the Explanation involves activity such as extensive digging over a substantial area or to considerable depth or for a purpose which is of long duration. Digging wells or foundation for houses or tilling the land for purposes of cultivation in a forest may amount to breaking up the forest land. The breaking up should be such as to have some degree of permanence. All activity on the forest land does not amount to breaking up the forest land. Resting the support for a temporary set for a few months on the forest land does not amount to breaking up the forest land. The breaking up should be such as to have some degree of permanence. All activity on the forest land does not amount to breaking up the forest land. Resting the support for a temporary set for a few months on the forest land does not amount to breaking up the forest land. So also the laying of a water pipe of relatively small diameter or of electric wires covered with plastic, a little below the surface, for a short period cannot be regarded as amounting to breaking up the forest land, especially when at the end of that period of few months, the pipes and wires are to be removed and the grass will regenerate over that area. 40. The interpretation of the provisions of any enactment must be reasonable and consistent with the test and context of the enactment. Words used in an enactment must be understood consistent with the object sought to be achieved. If the object of conservation is not prejudicially affected, the words of exclusion viz., activities not involving breaking up or clearing, must be construed in a reasonable manner. Every minor and temporary usage of forest land, as for example, placing a narrow water pipeline o r electric wires for a few months just below the surface, for the purpose of making effective use of the temporary set for film shooting in an area like Schoolmund area in the winter season when natural grass will not grow and where no clearing is involved and no deforestation will occur, cannot be regarded as amounting to “breaking up” the forest land so as to attract the condition requiring prior approval of the Central Government. The remedy proposed in the Act to deal with the mischief, namely, preventing deforestation, and conserving existing forests extends to the degree to which it is necessary to make it effective for suppressing or preventing that mischief and promoting the object of the Act and no more. 41. The shooting of a film per se in a Reserve Forest cannot be regarded as a non-forest purpose as defined in Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act. 41. The shooting of a film per se in a Reserve Forest cannot be regarded as a non-forest purpose as defined in Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act. Nature is meant to be enjoyed, at the least, visually and not merely kept in a frozen state, unless there are very special reasons for preventing entry of people into special areas, which are sensitive and delicate and whose preservation in their current state is for good reasons regarded as essential. The Apex Court has had occasion to consider the provisions of the Act largely in the context of claims that mining activity should be allowed to continue or that trees should be allowed to be cut or that forest land be allowed to be leased or that buildings be allowed therein. In all such cases, where deforestation was the evident consequence, approval of the Central Government was held to be mandatory. There is no danger of deforestation by the erection of a temporary set rested on or the base of G.I. pipes which merely rest on and are not rooted in the earth. 42. The use of the forests for purpose of shooting a film also serves a socially useful purpose. Not every citizen or resident of the country is capable of travelling to every other part, where nature is at its best and enjoy the beauty of this large country. The beauty and majesty of the forests can be brought home to people all over the country and elsewhere by exhibiting films set in a forest locale. It would be a short sighted policy to drive the film Producer in this country in search of locations in Switzerland or Austria or elsewhere by denying to them access to the forests in India, the aesthetic appeal of which is as good as, if not better, than what is found in locales abroad. So long as breaking or clearing of forest area is not involved, the user of forests for the purpose of film shooting must be regarded as permissible, subject to reasonable restrictions to be imposed by the concerned State Government or Union Territory. 43. In this case, we have reports of the Collector and the District Forest Officer. According to the Collector, in the winter months grass automatically withers away and that only in May, they will naturally regenerate. According to the District Forest Officer, the winter ends in February. 43. In this case, we have reports of the Collector and the District Forest Officer. According to the Collector, in the winter months grass automatically withers away and that only in May, they will naturally regenerate. According to the District Forest Officer, the winter ends in February. Permission given to the Producer here is only upto the period which expires long before the month of May begins and grass will begin to regenerate naturally. Moreover, the minimal damage caused to the grass is undertaken to be repaired by the Producer, who even according to the States Officers, has been maintaining the grass. 44. Having regard to the facts of this case, which we have set out in considerable detail in the earlier part of our order, we are riot persuaded to hold that the prior approval of the Central Government in the circumstances was essential before the Producer could have proceeded to put up the temporary set at the Schoolmund area or that such permission is necessary for shooting the film in the forest. 45. We do not belittle in anyway, the genuine concern of the environmentalists for the preservation of the forest and forest land in the area. The granting of permission to erect sets is not a part of the standard conditions subject to which permission is to be granted for filming in the area. The details regarding the extent of the area to be occupied by a temporary set its weight etc. were not made known by the Producer to the Principal Chief Conservator or to the Director of Information, when he first applied. That application as we have seen is a bad one. It is only when he approached the District Forest Officer, that details were made known. The District Forest Officer, in turn, had only secured permission and concurrence of the Principal Chief Conservator over telephone for incorporating permission to put up the set in the agreement. We cannot say that the Producer has been fair to the State in the manner in which he secured permission for putting up a set of this magnitude. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had compounded alleged offences regarding the drawing of water from a water source at some distance for the purpose of watering the grass in and around the structure. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had compounded alleged offences regarding the drawing of water from a water source at some distance for the purpose of watering the grass in and around the structure. He had also compounded an offence for damaging the grass in some parts, the extent of the damage is not known. Having regard to the amount of fine that has been levied and collected, it could not have been substantial. 46. Having regard to this conduct of the Producer and also having due regard to the need for ensuring that no damage is done to the forest land we consider it appropriate to appoint a Commissioner at the cost of the Producer to supervise all further activity of the Producer in Schoolmund. The Commission may at his discretion associate such other persons as he may regard as being possessed of special knowledge and experience of the area or of ecology and administration in his work. 47. The Producer has obtained the right to use of this land, though for a limited period, for a nominal fee, which does not in the least represent the proper value of what he has been allowed to use. The budget for the film is said to be Rs. 10 crores. It has been stated by him in correspondence that he has incurred an expenditure of about Rs. 4 crores for the erection of the set. Keeping in view this and other relevant considerations, we direct the Producer of the film to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs only) in this Court within a period of one week from today. That amount shall be utilised for the activities concerning the protection and improvement of the environment and the forest in and around Udhagamandalam and also for programme for creating a greater awareness of the need to preserve the environment and of the methods to be employed in that regard. The disbursal of that amount shall be subject to further directions to be made by this Court after receiving the reports from the Commissioner appointed by this Court who shall consult all such experts as he may consider to be capable of giving well informed expert view on the forests and ecology in and around Ooty. 48. The disbursal of that amount shall be subject to further directions to be made by this Court after receiving the reports from the Commissioner appointed by this Court who shall consult all such experts as he may consider to be capable of giving well informed expert view on the forests and ecology in and around Ooty. 48. The conditions imposed by us in this order have been imposed also in the light of the submission that was made by Mr Parasaran, learned senior counsel for the Producer that the Producer would abide by any condition that this Court may deem fit to impose for allowing the Producer to complete the set and the shooting of the film. 49. Mr V Krishnan, Advocate and Former Secretary to the Government of India is appointed as the Commissioner. The Producer of the film shall furnish to him all such information as may be regarded as necessary by him, shall make all the travelling arrangements required for his periodical visits and his stay and carry out all such instructions as he may give during the period from now till the completion of the film, the evacuation in the area and restoration thereof to the condition in which it existed before the activity commenced. All further activity at this location shall be under the overall supervision of the Commissioner. The remuneration of the Commissioner shall be fixed by a separate order. 50. The State Government, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the Collector, District Forest Officer and all other authorities of the State Government shall provide to the commissioner all such facilities, information, assistance and help as he may require for the successful completion of the task now assigned to him. 51. In view of the order now made and subject to compliance by the petitioner with the directions given by us in this order and the directions which the Commissioner may give during the period between now and the completion of the shooting and the restoration of the area to its original condition, we set aside the order of the District Forest Officer dated 10.12.1999 cancelling the agreement dated 7.10.1999. We find that the extreme step of cancellation of the agreement on the grounds stated therein was no t in the circumstances justified. The employment of about 125 persons for erecting the set was only to be expected having regard to its size. We find that the extreme step of cancellation of the agreement on the grounds stated therein was no t in the circumstances justified. The employment of about 125 persons for erecting the set was only to be expected having regard to its size. The District Forest Officer had not objected to the employment of that number till 95% of the set at a cost of over Rs. 2 crores had been completed, though he was aware of the size of the set and the number of persons employed. Moreover the relevant clause in the agreement advisedly used to the term “about” and did not prohibit the employment of persons in excess of a specified number. The persons employed were, according to Collector paid Rs. 150/- per day and there was no complaint from anyone. The use of water for sprinkling the grass and marginal damage to grass had been compounded and were not such serious breaches of the agreement as to warrant its cancellation. 52. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered to the Court in this matter by Mr. Parasaran, learned senior counsel who appeared for the film producer, by Mr Sriram Panchu, learned senior counsel, who appeared for Mr. Jayachandran, by Mr. D Murugesan, learned Government Pleader who appeared for the State Government and its functionaries and by Mr. Kannan the Central Government Standing Counsel, who appeared for the Central Government. 53. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs. 54. After we dictated this order learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner presently has a serious liquidity problem on account of the stoppage of the activity on this location for the last fortnight. He, therefore, pleads for time within which to make the deposit. He undertakes to deposit a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs immediately and seeks permission to recommence work on the location. He undertakes to deposit a further sum of Rs. 15 lakhs within a fortnight from the date of the first deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs and the remaining Rs. 20 lakhs within 20 days thereafter. We permit him to do so. After initial deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs immediately and seeks permission to recommence work on the location. He undertakes to deposit a further sum of Rs. 15 lakhs within a fortnight from the date of the first deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs and the remaining Rs. 20 lakhs within 20 days thereafter. We permit him to do so. After initial deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs, the authorities shall permit the Producer to resume the work on the location, complete the set and proceed with the shooting of the film under the supervision of and subject to the control of the Commissioner. Registrar is directed to receive the draft for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs immediately after it is brought to him by the counsel for the petitioner. 55. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, W.M.Ps. are dismissed.