Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. Heard. 2. All that has happened on a bunch of petitions which are referred to in the impugned order dated 5.12.2002 [reported in 2003 (1) PLJR 343 ] is that instead of permitting the Saw Mills to operate indiscriminately, conceptually the learned Judge has directed that the petitioners must appear before the Committee and place their grievances so that between the demand of the Saw Mills, an aspect of mass concern for cutting wood and the protection of the forest itself, there ought to be an ecological balance to preserve the environment. The submissions so made before the court are clearly that the Committee be avoided. 3. The contention made on the petition is that if the petitioners were to appear before the Committee then the report of the Committee ultimately will be placed before the Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumalpad case. 4. The court fails to understand what is wrong with this. Indiscriminate logging by cutting forests in any case cannot be permitted. Caring for the environment has come a long way. Even the Constitution had to be amended in 1977 by the 42nd amendment. Prior to this amendment, there was only a guidienline for the State that should they enact laws and pay heed to Article 48A on the protection and improvement of environment and safegurding of forests and wild life. Apparently, the environment did not stand protected with guidelines given in the Directive Principles of State Policy. 5. Noticing the state of the environment and ecology, the Constitution of India itself was amended and protecting the en vironment became a fundamental duty.Talking about protecting the environment and ecology in drawing-rooms and conferences will not do. If it is a part of an obligation as a fundamental duty imposed by the Constitution of India then it is as much the duty of the court, also, to ensure that the environment is protected, no matter what price has to be paid for it. Article 51A(g) in no uncertain terms says that it shall be the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. Forests and trees are ecology and part of environment, and all put together the entire spectrum has to be taken as spelled out in sub-clause (g). 6. Forests and trees are ecology and part of environment, and all put together the entire spectrum has to be taken as spelled out in sub-clause (g). 6. The court is reminded of certain following decisions of the Supreme Court on the protection of environment and concern for the ecological balance. 7. In the matter re. M.C. Mehta V/s. Union of India and others ( AIR 1997 SC. 734 ), the Supreme Court was considering the re-allocation and shifting of 292 industries operating within Agra. May be the purpose was to prevent polluted atmosphere affecting the Taj Mahal, but, the dominant purpose which engaged the attention of the Supreme Court was that the environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation". The onus of proof is on an industry to show that its operation with the aid of coke/coal is environmentally benign." 8. In the matter re. S. Jagannath V/s. Union of India and others ( AIR 1997 S.C. 811 ), the Supreme Court was expressing its concern on preservation of sea coast and beaches of coastal India. The Supreme Court termed the sea coast and beaches as a gift of nature to mankind, with an obligation that the aesthetic qualities and recreational utility of the said area has to be maintained. "Any activity which has the effect on degrading the environment cannot be permitted". 9. In the matter re. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad etc. V/s. Union of India and others ( AIR 1997 S.C. 1228 ), the Supreme Court showing concern for the forests has virtually gave a direction, to the effect, that for running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills and mining prior permission of the Central Government is necessary. The Supreme Court further held that all States be directed to ensure total cessation of any unproved activity forthwith. The Supreme Court was showing its concern in preserving the environment which the forests create and retaining the ecological balance between forest and man made activities arising out of it. 10. In another matter re. State of H.P. and others V/s. Ganesh Wood Products and others [ (1995) 6 S.C.C. 363 ], the Supreme Court declared that the right to establish forest based industries is not absolute and, first, regard must be had to ecology, applicable laws, policy matters and public interest before establishing such industries. 11. 10. In another matter re. State of H.P. and others V/s. Ganesh Wood Products and others [ (1995) 6 S.C.C. 363 ], the Supreme Court declared that the right to establish forest based industries is not absolute and, first, regard must be had to ecology, applicable laws, policy matters and public interest before establishing such industries. 11. In the circumstances, the court can hardly certify that the learned Judge has committed any error in directing the petitioner-appellant or others who were up before the Honble Judge in a writ petition by Saw Mills engaged in logging that, first, they all lay their grievance before the Committee. 12. Thus, the court is not inclined to interfere by this appeal. 13. Dismissed. 14. Let a copy of this order be kept on every writ petition which was decided as a bunch. These are CWJC. Nos. 9701,10053, 10064, 10090,10095,10112,10416, 10458, 10663 and 11079 of 2002. R.N.Prasad, J. 15 I agree.