JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 574 1. In this application, the applicant M/s. South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. wants permission to fell trees standing on the forest land which has been released in its favour for the purpose of carrying out mining operations. According to the applicant, by order dated 13th October, 1998 and 25th January, 2000, 160,234 hectares in West Chirmiri Colliery in District Manendragarh and 9.6 hectares in West Chirmiri. Colliery in District Manendragarh were permitted to be utilised for carrying out opencast mining operations. One of the conditions of the permission granted was that compensatory afforestation should be carried out on 89 hectares of degraded forest land and 125.734 hectares of non-forest waste land. According to the applicant, the amount of expense involved has been deposited with the State of Madhya Pradesh who is taking steps to comply with the requirement of reforestation and, therefore, the permission sought for should be granted. 2. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 places a restriction on de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes. This restriction which is placed can be removed if prior approval of the Central Government is obtained. Whenever the State Government is of the opinion that the forest land should be de-reserved and non-forest activity permitted, it is required to get the prior permission of the Central Government. An application in respect thereof has to be made under Rule 4 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981. The Form prescribed under Rule 4 gives the details of what the application should contain. Apart from the details of the forest land involved which is required to be de-reserved, Clause 6 of the Form requires details of compensatory afforestation scheme to be given. The area which is identified for compensatory afforestation has to be indicated, maps in respect thereto on which afforestation is to take place have to be annexed and total financial outlay specified. We are not referring to the other particulars which are required to be given. But all that we wish to emphasise is that the provisions of the Rules as well as the information which is sought for by the Form have to be complied with and given before the Central Government takes up the proposal under Rule 5 of the said Rules. 3. But all that we wish to emphasise is that the provisions of the Rules as well as the information which is sought for by the Form have to be complied with and given before the Central Government takes up the proposal under Rule 5 of the said Rules. 3. When an application is received from the State Government, the Central Government under Rule 5 is required to refer such proposal to a. Committee for advice if the area of forest land involved is more than 20 hectares. Where, however, the proposal involves clearing of naturally grown trees in forest land or portion thereof for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation, then the matter is not referred to the Committee for advice. After the advice of the Committee is received, the Central Government may under Rule 6, after making such further inquiry as it may consider necessary, grant approval to the proposal for de-reservation with or without conditions or it may reject the said proposal. 4. As we see it, even though the proposal for de-reservation is mooted by the said State Government, as far as the Government of India is concerned, this is done because of an application for de-reservation which is received from an industry like the applicant in the present case. The Central Government while granting permission specifies the area on which compensatory afforestation is to take place. The question which arises is whether the present practice, which is being followed, namely, of the applicant depositing money with the State Government and requiring it to carry out the afforestation is satisfactory or not and whether that is in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 5. We prima facie feel that in order to ensure reforestation by reason of the release of reserved forests, the primary responsibility of carrying out the afforestation should be of the applicant concerned, the party which is going to use the de-reserved forest, M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in the present case. Mr. K.N. Raval, the learned Addl. Solicitor General states that the Rules and guidelines which have been framed will be upgraded in the light of the experience so far. Mr. K.N. Raval, the learned Addl. Solicitor General states that the Rules and guidelines which have been framed will be upgraded in the light of the experience so far. In this connection, it appears that not only should it be mandatory for the Rules and the Form provided therein to be complied with but while granting permission the Central Government must specify the period within which the afforestation must commence and be completed. Furthermore, there should be a requirement of environmental audit in order to ensure that after the saplings have been planted the survival rate is high. The Government might consider requiring each applicant who is under an obligation to carry out the afforestation to publish the results of the environmental audit every year in a newspaper and forward the same to the Central Government. It should be specified that if the survival rate of the trees planted is not upto a specified percentage, the permission which is granted shall automatically cease and the non-forest activity will have to be stopped. In other words, the applicant is not only to be responsible for planting trees but it should be its responsibility to look after and maintain the same and ensure its survival and full growth. The Union of India before granting permission to de-reserve the-forest should be satisfied that the applicant to whom the permission is ultimately being granted is such who will be in a position to carry out the afforestation as prescribed. 6. It should be one of the conditions imposed that if at any point of time there is non-compliance with the Rules or Regulations or terms of the conditions, then the permission granted under Rule 6 by the Central Government would stand withdrawn. 7. It has been brought to our notice that in paragraph 3.5 of the existing guidelines the State Government is required to create a special fund to which the individual user agency is to make deposit for compensatory afforestation. Inasmuch as the primary responsibility of carrying out the afforestation programme is to be of the individual user agency, perhaps it will not be necessary for any such deposit to be made. If, however, in a particular case circumstances exist where it may not be possible for the individual user agency to carry out the afforestation itself, such cases should be very exceptional and not the norm. If, however, in a particular case circumstances exist where it may not be possible for the individual user agency to carry out the afforestation itself, such cases should be very exceptional and not the norm. Then the money which is deposited with the State Government should not form part of the general budget but should be kept in a separate account to be utilised as and when required without undergoing any undue formalities. 8. Learned Addl. Solicitor General wants eight weeks' time to take appropriate action of considering and amending the Rules and guidelines. Time is granted. 9. As far as the present application is concerned, the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh states that pursuant to the filing of the affidavit on behalf of the State Government, on the entire area except for 20 hectares the plantation has been effected and in respect of 20 hectares of degraded forest land the site preparation will be completed in the year 2000-2001 and afforestation will be completed in 2001-2002. It is further stated that the afforested area would be maintained for the next five years. As we have already noticed, the user agency in this case is the applicant M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. It is their responsibility to see that the afforestation takes place in accordance with the permission which has been granted by the Union of India. The State Government will be at liberty to give the task of maintenance and looking after of the afforested area to M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and in case there is no proper maintenance or looking after and the survival rate of the trees planted is less than 75 per cent, the Central Government will be at liberty to give notice and cancel the permission granted. The permission sought for is granted subject to the aforesaid condition. As far as the balance 20 hectares is concerned, this will be the immediate responsibility of M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. to carry out the afforestation itself or through its agent. 10. Before concluding, we would like to observe that the Government should consider as to what safeguards should be ensured in order to see that after the permission is granted, a project is not abandoned after the cutting of the trees. 11. I.A. to come up for further orders along with I.A. 566 after eight weeks. 10. Before concluding, we would like to observe that the Government should consider as to what safeguards should be ensured in order to see that after the permission is granted, a project is not abandoned after the cutting of the trees. 11. I.A. to come up for further orders along with I.A. 566 after eight weeks. The State of Madhya Pradesh as well as M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. will also file an affidavit indicating what is the survival rate of the trees so far. I.As. 600-601 12. Allowed as prayed for. Remaining Us 13. List on 22nd September, 2000.