JUDGMENT ALOK ARADHE, CJ. - Mr. M. Sudershan, learned Government Pleader for Forests appears for the appellants in W.A.No.708 of 2006 and respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.A.No.927 of 2010. Ms. G. Sudha, learned Standing Counsel for National Thermal Power Corporation Limited appears for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.708 of 2006 and the appellant in W.A.No.927 of 2010. Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appears for Union of India. 2. W.A.No.708 of 2006 has been filed by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh whereas W.A.No.927 of 2010 has been filed by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). Since both these appeals emanate from an order dtd. 5/4/2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12512 of 1992, the same were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. 4. The Corporation is a Government Company within the meaning of Sec. 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Corporation is engaged in the business of generation of electricity. The Corporation needed large extent of land for setting up of a power generating station. One of the requirements of the thermal power plant was establishment of an ash pond to minimize the air pollution, which is generated on account of burning of the coal in the plant. 5. The Corporation therefore approached the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh for allotment of land for construction of the ash pond. Thereupon, the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh by G.O.Ms.No.1926 dtd. 31/12/1979 alienated the land measuring Acs.115.01 guntas in Survey Nos.1/2, 13, 14 and 22 situate at Mogalpahad Village, Peddapalli Taluk, Karimnagar District, in favour of the Corporation, for a consideration of Rs.1,15,025.00. Thereafter, by another G.O.Ms.No.1340 dtd. 3/4/1980, the land measuring Acs.590.00 in Survey Nos.360, 369, 431, 453, 479, 483, 486, 465, 469, 472, 484 and 378 situate at Kundanapalli Village, Peddapalli Taluk, Karimnagar District, was alienated in favour of the Corporation subject to payment of market value of Rs.6,00,925.00 and also S.D. fees, demarcation charges, S.V. and Tree value and Land Revenue. 6. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1980 Act') was enacted with an object to provide for conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. 6. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1980 Act') was enacted with an object to provide for conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. The 1980 Act came into force with effect from 27/12/1980. 7. A notice dtd. 29/8/1986 was issued by the Forest Range Officer, Manthani, Karimnagar District, to the Officers of the Corporation on the ground that the Officers of the Corporation were interfering with the forest land. The erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh subsequently realized that part of the land in question allotted to the Corporation forms part of the reserved forest. Thereupon, the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh sent a proposal for diversion of 152 hectares of forest land for construction of ash pond by the Corporation. The Central Government by an order dated 06/7/4/1988 had permitted for diversion of 152 hectares of forest land. 8. In the light of permission granted by the Central Government and in view of mandate contained in Sec. 2 of the 1980 Act, the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.172 dtd. 25/5/1988 and permitted for diversion of the land subject to following conditions: 1. The National Thermal Power Corporation shall pay to the Forest Department the value of tree growth if any existing therein and also the capitalized value of the Forest land. 2. They shall also pay to the Forest Department the cost of felling, logging and transport of forest produce to the Forest Depots, if any; 3. The legal status of the land will remain unchanged. 4. No residential colonies or construction of buildings and roads will be allowed in the area. 5. They shall abide by any other conditions that may be imposed by the Forest Department from time to time for the protection and improvement of flora and fauna in the area; 6. The National Thermal Power Corporation authorities should transfer and handover the compensatory area to the Forest Department and also deposit the required amount for raising plantations and its maintenance as assessed by the Forest Department; 7. Compensatory afforestation should be raised in twice the non-forest area with mixed species. There should be no plantation of Eucalyptus. Additional Non-forest area for compensatory afforestation should be identified and afforested; 8. Cost estimates for compensatory afforestation should be updated. 9. The Corporation thereupon filed W.P.No.12512 of 1992 in which following prayer was made. Compensatory afforestation should be raised in twice the non-forest area with mixed species. There should be no plantation of Eucalyptus. Additional Non-forest area for compensatory afforestation should be identified and afforested; 8. Cost estimates for compensatory afforestation should be updated. 9. The Corporation thereupon filed W.P.No.12512 of 1992 in which following prayer was made. "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or a Writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from claiming compensatory afforestation twice the non-forest land and also Rs.15,000.00 per acre towards afforestation and injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land by the petitioner pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and injunction restraining the respondents from claiming compensatory afforestation twice the non-forest land and also Rs.15,000.00 per acre towards afforestation pending disposal of the above W.P. and pass such further or other orders." 10. Thereafter, the Corporation filed an application for amendment by which the following prayer was substituted. "Under the above mentioned circumstances, it is just and necessary that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue an order direction or a writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.172 dtd. 25/5/1988 and consequential orders No.8-259/87-FC dated 6/7/4/1988 and 29-April/6/5/1992 issued by the first respondent are illegal and arbitrary and discriminatory in nature and consequently direct the respondents to approve the occupation of 380 acres of land for non forest use as per the provisions and guidelines issued under the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980 and do all such acts necessary by receiving land for compensatory afforestation as per 3.2.1 guidelines on Forest Conservation Act 1980 i.e. 1:1 (land to land) ratio and direct the fifth respondents to transfer the monies received as land acquisition compensation by them as compensatory afforestation to the appropriate authority and pass such further or other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper. 11. Thus, from perusal of the amended prayer made by the Corporation, it is evident that the Corporation was aggrieved by the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.172 dtd. 25/5/1988 and the orders dated 6/7/4/1988 and 29.4./6/5/1992 issued by Union of India. 11. Thus, from perusal of the amended prayer made by the Corporation, it is evident that the Corporation was aggrieved by the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.172 dtd. 25/5/1988 and the orders dated 6/7/4/1988 and 29.4./6/5/1992 issued by Union of India. The Corporation sought a direction to approve the occupation of land for non-forest use and a direction was sought to the respondents to permit compensatory afforestation as per clause 3.2.1 of the guidelines issued under the 1980 Act. 12. The learned Single Judge by an order dtd. 5/4/2006 inter alia held that the learned counsel for the respondents in the Writ Petition were unable to point out the authority of law under which the guidelines under the 1980 Act were issued. It was further held that the State Government is vested with the power to reserve an area for reserved forest as well as to de-notify the same. It was also held that the Corporation is not entitled to any relief. However, the respondents were directed to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000.00 each to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. Liberty was also granted to Union of India as well as the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh to collect the aforesaid amount from anyone of the Officers or all of them who are responsible for the litigation. 13. In the aforesaid factual background, W.A.No.708 of 2006 has been filed by the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh and its officers (respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.P.No.12512 of 1992) being aggrieved by the direction to them to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 by way of costs to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. W.A.No.927 of 2010 has been filed by the Corporation. 14. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the learned Single Judge ought not to have directed respondent Nos.2 to 4 to deposit the costs of Rs.1,00,000.00 as the aforesaid Writ Petition was dismissed and the Corporation was not found entitled to any relief. It is further submitted that the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh had imposed a condition with regard to afforestation of the land in question which was in consonance with the conditions prescribed by the Central Government permitting the diversion of land in view of Sec. 2 of the 1980 Act. It is further submitted that the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh had imposed a condition with regard to afforestation of the land in question which was in consonance with the conditions prescribed by the Central Government permitting the diversion of land in view of Sec. 2 of the 1980 Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in directing respondent Nos.2 to 4 to pay costs of Rs.1,00,000.00 each to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. 15. Learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that though the findings have been recorded by the learned Single Judge in favour of the Corporation, yet, the Writ Petition has been dismissed. It is further submitted that neither the Central Government nor the State Government has any power to impose conditions while permitting diversion of the forest land. It is also urged that the land in question is a revenue land and it is not a forest land. It is therefore submitted that G.O.Ms.No.172 dtd. 25/5/1988 insofar as it pertains to the imposition of the conditions enumerated therein be quashed. 16. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. 17. In exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 4(1) of the 1980 Act, the Central Government had framed the Rules, namely, Forest (Conservation) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Rule 5 of the Rules provides for Committee to give advice on proposals received by the Central Government. Rule 6 of the Rules provides for action of the Central Government on the advice of the Committee. Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules are extracted below for the facility of reference. "5. Committee to advise on proposals received by the Central Government :- (1) The Central Government may refer entry 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 twenty hectares. Provided that proposals involving clearing of naturally grown trees in forest land or portion thereof for the purpose of using it for reafforestation shall not be referred to the Committee for its advice. Provided that proposals involving clearing of naturally grown trees in forest land or portion thereof for the purpose of using it for reafforestation shall not be referred to the Committee for its advice. (2) The Committee shall have due regard to all or any of the following matters while tendering its advice on the proposals referred to it under sub-rule (1), namely:- (a) whether the forest land proposed to be used for non-forest purpose forms part of a nature reserve, national park, wildlife sanctuary, biosphere reserve or forms part of the habitat of any endangered or threatened species of flora and fauna or of an area lying in severely eroded catchment: (b) whether the use of any forest land is for agricultural purposes or for the rehabilitation of persons displaced from their residences by reason of any river valley or hydro-electric project; (c) whether the State Government or the other authority has certified that it has considered all other alternatives and that no other alternatives in the circumstances are feasible and that the required area is the minimum needed for the purpose; and (d) whether the State Government or the other authority undertakes to provide at its cost for the acquisition of land of an equivalent area and afforestation thereof. (3) while tendering the advice, the Committee may also suggest any conditions or restrictions on the use of any forest land for any non- forest purpose which, in its opinion, would minimize adverse environmental impact. 6. Action of the Central Government on the advice of the Committee:- The Central Government shall, after considering the advice of the Committee tendered under Rule 5 and after such further enquiry as it may consider necessary, grant approval to the proposal with or without conditions or reject the same." 18. Thus, from a perusal of Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules in conjunction, it is evident that under Rule 5(3) of the Rules, the Committee may also suggest any conditions or restrictions on the use of any forest land for any non-forest purpose which in its opinion would minimize the adverse environmental impact. The Central Government is empowered to provide for details of compensatory afforestation scheme. 19. In exercise of aforesaid statutory powers, the Central Government by an order dated 06/7/4/1988 had imposed the following conditions. (i) The legal status of the land will remain unchanged. The Central Government is empowered to provide for details of compensatory afforestation scheme. 19. In exercise of aforesaid statutory powers, the Central Government by an order dated 06/7/4/1988 had imposed the following conditions. (i) The legal status of the land will remain unchanged. (ii) Compensatory afforestation should be raised in twice the non-forest area with mixed species. There should be no plantation of Eucalyptus. Additional non-forest area for compensatory afforestation should be identified and afforested. (iii) Cost estimates for compensatory afforestation should be updated. 20. The Central Government which is the competent authority under the 1980 Act has imposed the conditions and had directed that compensatory afforestation should be raised in twice the non-forest area with mixed species. The aforesaid conditions have been imposed in exercise of statutory powers granted to the Central Government under the 1980 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It has been followed by the State Government. 21. Insofar as the contention that the compensatory afforestation has to be as per the guidelines framed under the 1980 Act is concerned, suffice it to say that the learned counsel for the Corporation is unable to point out the provision under which the aforesaid guidelines have been framed. In any case, the Rules framed under the 1980 Act shall prevail over the guidelines framed under the 1980 Act. 22. The contention urged on behalf of the Corporation that the findings have been recorded in its favour by the learned Single Judge is misconceived. 23. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any ground to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. However, since the Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the respondents in the Writ Petition to pay the costs of Rs.1,00,000.00 each to the Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Authority. 24. Therefore, the impugned direction contained in the order dtd. 5/4/2006 passed in W.P.No.12512 of 1992 is set aside. 25. In the result, W.A.No.708 of 2006 is allowed whereas W.A.No.927 of 2010 is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.