Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2005 DIGILAW 1869 (SC)

Centre For Envir. Law, Wwf-I v. UOI

2005-11-23

C.K.THAKKER, P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, Y.K.SABHARWAL

body2005
ORDER : Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI. I.A.Nos. 13 1. List the application after six months. I.A.Nos.27: 2. On 26th July,2005, the Union of India was granted four weeks' time to file its response which has still not been filed. As a last opportunity, the MoEF is directed to file the same within four weeks. I.A.Nos.33: 3. Learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra prays for and is granted one week's time to file a joint affidavit of the Water Resources Department and Forest Department of the State. I.A.Nos.53: 4. The minutes of meeting of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life dated 6th April, 2005 recommends the rejection of the proposal for diversion of 0.1532 hectares of forest land from Rajaji National Park to lay a pipeline for drinking water along the briddle path route of Neelkanth Mahadev Temple by Uttaranchal Pey Jal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam Ltd. The copy of the said minutes may be obtained by learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttarachal from either Mr.A.D.N.Rao or Mr.Raj Panjwani. The State is granted four weeks' time to file an affidavit on the issue. 5. Adjourned I.A.Nos.36 6. MoEF is directed and granted four weeks' time to file the affidavit, in terms of order dated 26th July, 2005. I.A.Nos.54, 55: 7. Copy of the minutes of meeting of the Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life dated 6th April, 2005 may be obtained by learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttarachal from either Mr.A.D.N.Rao or Mr.Raj Panjwani. The State is granted four weeks' time to file an affidavit on the issue. 8. Adjourned I.A.Nos.57 9. As per t he office report, the report of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life has not been filed. Let it be filed within eight weeks. 10. Adjourned I.A.Nos. 37: 11. The Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life as per the minutes dated 6th April, 2005 has recommended the acceptance of the proposal subject to seven conditions. On request of learned counsel for the State, the application is adjourned for eight weeks. Response, if any, may be filed in the meanwhile. I.A.Nos.52: 12. As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to file additional affidavit to place on record the upto-date position. 13. List this application along with I.A.Nos.34. I.A.Nos.63: 14. On request of learned counsel for the State, the application is adjourned for eight weeks. Response, if any, may be filed in the meanwhile. I.A.Nos.52: 12. As prayed, two weeks' time is granted to file additional affidavit to place on record the upto-date position. 13. List this application along with I.A.Nos.34. I.A.Nos.63: 14. On 6th December, 2004, it was stated that the matter would be placed before the Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life in its next meeting. But since the report was not filed placing on record the decision that may have been taken by the Board and to await the report, the matter was adjourned in terms of order dated 26th July, 2005. The report has still not been filed. Let it now be filed within four weeks. I.A.Nos.69-72: 15. Besides the report of the Standing Committee, we have also perused the affidavit dated 24th September, 2005 filed by the Director, Rajaji National Park, and heard the learned counsel. There is no merit in the applications. 16. The applications are dismissed. I.A.Nos.65 and 73: 17. Mr.A.D.N.Rao, learned counsel, states that the matter was probably taken up by the Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life in its last meeting but he is yet to get the report/minutes. As prayed, the matters are adjourned to be listed after four weeks. I.A.Nos.74: 18. The letter dated 10/11th June, 2005 sent by the MoEF to the Government of Uttaranchal informing the State Government about the recommendation, agreeing in principle, for diversion of the land subject to the conditions stated therein has been filed in the Court. Learned counsel for the State of Uttaranchal, as prayed, is granted one week's time to take instructions and file affidavit in response. 19. Adjourned for two weeks. I.A.Nos.75: 20. The response of the National Board for Wild Life as well as of the Central Empowered Committee has still not been filed. Let that be filed within three weeks. 21. List after four weeks. I.A.Nos.78-79: 22. The applications are referred to the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wild Life for consideration and recommendation. I.A.Nos.80: 23. The application is referred to the Central Empowered Committee for consideration and recommendation. I.A.Nos.81: 24. To be taken up along with I.A.Nos.34. I.A.No.... 25. As prayed by learned counsel for the State of Haryana, one week's time is granted to rectify the defects. I.A.Nos.80: 23. The application is referred to the Central Empowered Committee for consideration and recommendation. I.A.Nos.81: 24. To be taken up along with I.A.Nos.34. I.A.No.... 25. As prayed by learned counsel for the State of Haryana, one week's time is granted to rectify the defects. After the needful is done, the application may be placed for orders before the Court, after serving its copies to Mr.A.D.N.Rao and Mr.Raj Panjwani, learned counsel. I.A.Nos.83, 84 and 85: 26.I.A.No. 85, application for exemption from filing O.T., is allowed. 27. I.A.Nos.83 and 84 are referred to the Central Empowered Committee for consideration and recommendation. I.A.No.2: 28. On 22nd August, 1997, this Court after noticing that even though notifications in respect of sanctuaries/national parks have been issued under section 18/35 in all States/Union Territories, further proceedings as required under the Act i.e. issue of proclamation under section 21 and other steps as contemplated by the Act have not been taken, and thus all the State Governments/Union Territories were directed to issue the proclamation under Section 21 in respect of the sanctuaries/national parks within two months. It was further directed that the process of determination of rights and acquisition of land or rights as contemplated by the Act shall be completed within a period of one year. 29. Mr.Panjwani states that though proclamations under section 21 were issued, but it appears that the process of determination of rights and acquisition of land or rights as contemplated by the Act still remains to be completed by many State Governments/Union Territories despite lapse of nearly seven years, having regard to the time granted in the order dated 22nd August, 1997. Learned counsel has taken us through various provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act in relation to obligation of completing the process of determination, as directed by this Court. 30. Under these circumstances, we direct the State Governments/Union Territories to file affidavits, placing on record, the status as existing on 1st November, 2005 in relation to compliance of the aforesaid direction. 31. This order be communicated to the State Governments/Union Territories, through Chief Secretaries, and status report be filed within four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. 32. List these matters after six weeks. I.A.Nos.35 and 82: 33. The project in question has been recommended for implementation on the basis of presentation, discussion and inspection, subject, however, to certain conditions. 32. List these matters after six weeks. I.A.Nos.35 and 82: 33. The project in question has been recommended for implementation on the basis of presentation, discussion and inspection, subject, however, to certain conditions. We accept the recommendation but making it clear that diversion would be only on fulfillment of the conditions that have been imposed and mentioned in the affidavit filed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. The applications are disposed of accordingly. I.A.Nos.67: 34. The Central Empowered Committee (C.E.C.) [I.A. No.76], in its report dated 30th June, 2005, has recommended that the permission sought by the Krishna Valley Development Corporation for construction of minor irrigation tank involving diversion of 7.76 hectares of forest land inside Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary may be rejected and the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra may be asked to fix the responsibility for undertaking the work in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act and the orders of this Court dated 14th February, 2000, and to ensure that projects involving use of forest land should be implemented in the State only after obtaining necessary approval under the Act and if the land falls within a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary, only after obtaining the permission of this Court. The report also takes a note of the submission of the Forest Department, inter alia, to the effect that the work started and continued in spite of repeated objections raised by the Forest Department against taking the work in violation of the Act and without seeking permission of this Court. In that regard, various letters were placed before the C.E.C. Those letters have been filed along with the Report of the C.E.C. The Corporation has filed its response dated 22nd September, 2005, to the recommendation of the C.E.C. Copy of the response/objections shall be sent to the State of Maharashtra, Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra and the C.E.C., who may file their responses/comments to the response/objections of the Corporation dated 22nd September, 2005, within four weeks of the receipt of the copy of the order of this Court. I.A.Nos.34 and connected applications: 35. The written submissions have not been filed by the applicants though copies thereof have been supplied to Mr. Raj Panjwani, learned counsel. Let the same be filed in this Court within one week. 36. List these applications in the month of January, 2006, on a non-miscellaneous day.