FOREST CASE UPDATE
Issue 8, January 2005
CONTENTS
1. CEC Hearing Update, 18.1.2005
2. Godavarman Update: Hearing on 28.1.2005
3. Some Orders in the Godavarman Case: 2.8.2004; 19.11.2004 and
10.12.2004
4. Application No.218 of 2003: Durgesh Kasbekar v/s State of
Karnataka and Ors
CEC Hearing Update: Hearing Dated 18th January 2004
In Flash News 15, we had sent out the details on the matters that were to be heard on
18th January 2005. Below are some details on these applications.

Application No.46 Regarding Protection of Endangered Olive Ridley Sea Turtle in
Orissa by Alok Krishna Agarwal
The CEC highlighted that there a number of hearings have taken place in this case and
the CEC has also conducted a site visit. This is also a top priority case for the CEC, and
more so now as the breeding season of the turtles is likely to begin. There also detailed
directions given by the Orissa High Court, in this matter. The representative of the
state government highlighted a number of steps that have been taken towards
conservation and protection of the sea turtles, including restrictions on fishing
(including no fishing in Gahirmata Sanctuary), licensing of fishing boats, patrolling,
seizures and so on. It was highlighted that the state government is aware of the
sensitivity of the area. The applicant highlighted that very few or none of these
measures are being implemented on the ground, for instance, no seizures have taken
place and boats have not been registered. There is also no deployment of the coast
guards. The applicant highlighted that there is 90% non-compliance in this case. The
CEC directed the state government to file an affidavit with full details of the all the
action taken up by the state government, in two weeks time. They also highlighted that
in this case the applicant and the respondent need to work together.
See: Forest Case Update, Issue 2, July 2004

Application No. 130 by Sudeip Srivastava, Paryavaran Suraksha Manch regarding
large scale illegal felling of trees in Chattisgarh
This case dealt generally with the increase in illegal felling in Chhatisgarh since the
formation of the State. The matter was filed in 2003 and this was the third hearing of
the matter. The CEC highlighted that the application will need to be reexamined by the
applicant highlighting specific instances, as the CEC cannot get into general offences
that have been pointed out. Unless there are specific violations or instances pointed
out the CEC will not be able to issue and directions.

Application No. 324 Regarding Construction and expansion of the VishakapatnamBhimunipatnam road encroaching upon beach habitat by United Forum for
Protection of Environment and Peoples Livelihood Rights and Bahar Dutt
The affidavit of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is still awaited in this
case. It was highlighted that MoEF has taken a view that although there is a nesting of
turtles on the beaches, it is only sporadic. The counsel of the applicant highlighted the
issues relate to Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) in this matter, where a CRZ 1 area was
converted to CRZ III. CRZ I areas are ecologically sensitive areas. The CEC asked
MoEF to expedite their response in this case.
See:
Forest Case Update, Issue 4, September 2004
http://www.indiatogether.org/2004/oct/env-crzcoast.htm

Application No. 337 Regarding Village Lal Dhang in Corbett Tiger Reserve by
Ashok Kumar Senior Advisor and Trustee, Wildlife Trust of India
It was highlighted that in the last hearing in this case, the CEC had asked the
state administration to take up the matter. It deals with the setting up of a Hot
Mix plant was being set up in Aampokhra Reserved Forest and also the illegal widening
of a road into the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The CEC stated that this is a case with a
problem of enforcement and it should have been pursued by the state forest
department. In this light the CEC will take up the matter separately with the state
administration, including a meeting with the Chief Secretary of Uttaranchal, along with
the concerned revenue officials.
See: Forest Case Update, Issue 6, November 2004

Application No. 377 Regarding Direction for Issuance of Saw Mill License by M/s
Woodbond Ply & Board Industries
This was the second hearing in this case. The case highlighted that there is saw mill in
Himachal Pradesh operating on the basis of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted
by the state government. As per the orders of the CEC, no saw mill can operate without
permission from the CEC. On contrary to this the saw mill in question and many others
in Himachal Pradesh have been operating based on a NOC. Therefore the CEC directed
that it needs to be ensured that all wood based industries operating without permission
need to be stopped. The CEC will be taking up the matter of all such units with the
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of the state. Also what needs to be looked at as
to whether there are any restrictions in place in Himachal Pradesh, at all, with
reference to these industries being operated?
See: Forest Case Update, Issue 1, June 2004; Issue 4, September 2004

Application No. 378 by Regarding Direction for issuance of Saw Mill License M/s
Swayam Prabha Agri Gold Projects Ltd.
In this case the MoEF counsel advised the CEC that the unit should be allowed to
operate and encouraged as they are using their own plantations and there is no
dependence on power from outside. It is a non-conventional energy project. The CEC
granted permission to the saw mill on three conditions which include, (i) restrict the
use to subabool, eucalyptus and prosopis species along with agricultural waste; and (ii)
the unit will operate as a captive one for ancillary use in the industry and not for any
commercial use. It was highlighted that this is first saw mill for which a license has
been granted by the CEC.

Application No. 418 Regarding assault to Front Line Field Staff of Forest
Department of Ranthambhore Tiger Reserve and forced grazing inside the park by
World Wide Fund for Nature- India
It was highlighted by the applicant that there needs to be some permanent solution
that needs to be sought for this problem, as it recurs every year. Short term measures
will not be adequate. State government has also been given directions in this matter.
Related problems of the forest department being short staffed, and the problem of
wood cutting in the area was also highlighted. Irrigation projects also need to be
reviewed. The CEC has asked MoEF to respond in the case. It was pointed out that on
behalf of the CEC, Valmik Thapar, member would be in the area from 21st-25th January
2005. A plan will have to be worked out for the occurrence of propospis in the area, as
well as other issues. The CEC highlighted to the state government, that if any
modifications to the 14.2.20001 is required, then submissions could be made to Valmik
Thapar.
While this case was being discussed, it was pointed out that CEC is organizing a
meeting cum hearing on 31st January 2005 in applications 281 and 592 regarding
availability of water to Keoladeo (Bharatpur). This is the first time the CEC has
converted a letter received to an application.

Application No. 543 Regarding Direction to the Respondents regarding the
construction of the Pucca Road in the National Park and to stop further
construction (Khatauli Dhamodar Range) by Manjit Ahaluwalia,
This matter dealt with the construction of a road in Bandhavgarh National Park. There
were detailed arguments in this case. The Director of the National Park stated that
the road was 3m wide and tarred/pucca road, and only repair work has been carried
out. The applicants pointed out that it was false and that the road was not tarred or
pucca, and it is part of the contract for road construction given to a Malaysian
company, 5.8 kms of the road is within the National Park. The CEC directed the State
Government to submit details of PWD records, tender notice and other related
documents to prove that the road was a tarred road within two weeks. Following which
the CEC will direct a site visit.



Application No. 564 Regarding Diversion of the forest land and proposed road
construction in Wildlife Sanctuary in Kalahandi District, Orissa by Biswajit
Mohanty, Secretary, Wildlife Society of Orissa
Application No. 571 Regarding appeal against the illegal bauxite mining on the hills
of Niyamgiri and Kalapat & in Forest area in Kalahandi, Orissa by Prafulla
Samantara
Application No.579 Regarding For Direction in the matter of Setting up of aluminia
refinery by M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. in Lanjigarh in Kalahandi District
and Rayagada District of Orissa in joint collaboration with Orissa Mining
Corporation by Academy for Mountain Environics, Through R. Sreedhar
These three matters were heard together. Details on this were sent out on Flash News
15 on 18.1.2005 on forestcase@yahoogroups.com.

Application No. 569 For Direction in the matter of Development of Sabrimalam
inside the Periyar Tiger Reserve by M. Sunil
In this case the CEC highlighted that the CEC is not a forum to challenge High Court
orders, as has been done. Both the respondents and CEC advised the applicants to
1
No removal of dead, diseased, dying or wind fallen trees, drift wood and grasses, etc
from any National Park or Game Sanctuary or forest
withdraw the case and file it in an appropriate forum, as the series of issues raised in
the application are important. The application was withdrawn with liberty to file a
fresh application.

Application No. 585 For Staying the transfer of land in favour of the Bangalore
University for construction of Tumkur University on the Forest Land by Wildlife
Nature Club, Tumkur.
Matter adjourned in view of the non-response of the State of Karnataka.
Back to Contents
Godavarman Update: Hearings Dated 28th January 2005
The Godavarman Case was heard in Supreme Court on 28th January 2005. The list of
matters was sent out in Flash News 16. Several matters were heard in detail, and
presented below are a few highlights.
One of the IAs listed was I. A. NO. 826 In 566 for recommendations of the CEC in IA
566 and modification of the court’s order dated 30.10.2002. I.A. 566 is regarding creation
of compensatory afforestation fund and charging net present value of forest land diverted
for non forest purpose. The Amicus pointed out that the Affidavit of the MoEF stating
that certain projects be kept out of NPV was objectionable, for example Mining is
proposed to be kept out of the purview and also hydel power projects in view of its non
polluting nature. However, the Amicus raised the issue of the ecological and other impact
of hydel projects. The Amicus Curiae, suggested that it is important that the court keeps
aside one clear day to discuss this and related IAs. It was agreed that the Amicus will
give suggestions on this issue within three weeks time based on aspects should be left out
from NPV (for instance, small schools) and a classification of industries (infrastructure,
hydro power etc). After this areas of difference can be crystallized and one clear Friday
afternoon after about eight weeks can be kept aside only to discuss this matter. The court
agreed to this suggestion.
In IA 930 with reference demarcation of the boundaries of Matheran Ecologically
Sensitive Area, it was highlighted that the government has delayed the process for a year
and there are encroachments in the forest area. In the 15.10.2004 hearing of the
Godavarman case the Supreme Court had granted time till December 2004. The court here
ordered the state government to file a response within one week’s time.
In IA 1243-1244 (Maruti Clean Coke, Chattisgarh) was an Application against the grant of
forestland for non forest purpose without the approval of the Central government. The
CEC in its report had concluded that the said land was forest; however the counsel for the
Maruti Clean Coke as well as the Counsel for State of Chhatisgarh had contended that the
land was not forest land. The Court directed the CEC to reexamine the issue in the light of
these notifications. The CEC on reexamination concluded that the land was not a forest
land as previously concluded and hence no violations were done by Maruti Clean Coke. The
Counsel for Applicant contended that the Court should look into the issue as to how the
conclusion of the CEC was arrived at, since it totally contradictory to their earlier
findings. The Court granted the Applicant (Deepak Aggarwal) to file any objections to the
report of the CEC to be filed within one week and the case is to be listed after two weeks.
The issue of private interest of the applicant was also mentioned and the Court stated
that serious action would be taken if it is found out that private interest are raised under
the garb of Public interest.
Another important case that was heard was with reference to the CEC orders on the
closure of saw mills near Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary in Maharashtra (Application 406 filed
by Bombay Environmental Action Group). Earlier, a site inspection was carried out by the
Regional office of the Ministry of Environment and Forest and it was reveled that certain
number of saw mills had been allowed to function in violation of the order of the Supreme
Court dated 14-7-2003. The counsel representing two of these units (Oriental and Pagoda)
raised several objections to the orders of the CEC directing the closure of the units.
According to the counsel, the units are using only imported timber and make plywood by
peeling machines. There is no impact on the wildlife sanctuary. The state government had
granted them a No objection certificate (NOC) based on which they were operating and
also that the closure was ordered without giving an opportunity to the units to be heard.
Interestingly according to the state government records the unit had been closed in 1999.
The court point out that the operation of the unit is in violation of the Supreme Court’s
orders and also questioned if the unit is indeed using only imported plywood then what was
the need for it to be situated one kilometer from the Tansa Wildlife Sanctuary. It was
finally ordered that the CEC would hear both parties (the Applicant and the State
Government) and the concerned units) and submit a report before 4th February 2005. The
hearing would take place on 1st February 2005. It was ordered that a responsible officer
from the state government be present with the relevant records.
IA 1843 was with reference to the collection of Tendu Leaves in sanctuaries and national
parks in Madhya Pradesh. The court took the view that since the application does not state
what has been the difficulty in the order passed in this regard, four years back, the case
would need to be dismissed.
For IA 1168 in IA 118, the recommendations of the CEC were accepted, and the case was
dismissed
For IA 1169 is reference to the allotment of forestland in Gir National Park in Gujarat for
a pasture land. The CEC has held an opinion that this is in violation of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972. The Amicus suggested that the court direct MoEF to file a reply
on whether any such permission have been granted in any of the National Park and
Sanctuaries as no pasturelands in these protected areas is allowed to be used. The counsel
for the MoEF pointed out that no new permissions have been granted after the 14.2.2000
order of the Supreme Court.
Another matter was with reference to the laying of a transmission line in Tamil Nadu. As
per the clearance conditions, it requires the felling of 4000 trees over 200 odd kilometers
and 100 MW is ready to be transmitted. This case was with reference to the grant of
permission to felling of the trees and laying of the transmission lines. The Amicus pointed
out that there detailed guidelines for laying of transmission lines which have strict
clauses, including that least amount of trees need to be cut. He mentioned the example of
Rajaji National Park where the laying of a transmission line first required cutting 17,000
trees and later with reassessment came down to 14,000 trees and finally only 7,000 trees
were cut. The court finally permitted the diversion of 29.942 hectares of forestland as
per Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act as per order dated 7th May 2004. This is
subject to the applicants adhering strictly to the conditions and ensure that the minimum
number of trees are felled. This will need to be done under the overall supervision of the
Regional Chief Conservator of Forests of the MoEF regional office.
In IA 1240, PIL A/N H 66, 75, 84 (805) with applications for vacating the interim order
and with prayer for interim relief, the Amicus asked for some time to look into the
matter. The Supreme Court by order dated 7.5.2002 in IA No. 502 has issued detailed
directions regarding felling of trees, closure of private saw mills, removal of sand, use of
forest land for non forest purposes and related matters. Some of the directions in this
order were relaxed for 6 months in the light of the relief work that is necessary in
response to the Tsunami disaster. The CEC had passed an order to this effect on 4th
January 2005. The administration that had earlier asked for six months time, wanted it
extended for atleast one year since the relief activities cannot be completed within such
limited time. The Court directed the CEC to examine the same and submit the report to
the Court.
IA 1126 related to regularization of encroachments, was heard very briefly and The
Amicus pointed out that an attempt is being made to regularize the encroachments by
means of an ordinance. MoEF sought more time to file their response. The matter was
adjourned for two weeks.
Back to Contents
Some Orders in the Godavarman Case
Orders: 2nd August 2004
I.A No. 1150 in I.A No. 1010 in I.A No. 670 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995
(Recommendation of CEC in IA Nos. 1010)
I.A. No. 1150:
In terms of decision of this court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (through K. M.
Chinnappa) Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2002) 10 SCC 606] taking note of the factual
background including the recommendations of Central. Empowered Committee (Committee),
Forest Advisory Committee and the legal position, the applicant-company has been allowed

mining till the end of year 2005. It was directed that the modalities for complying with
the directions of this Court be worked out in the manner recommended by the Committee.
It was held that the modalities to be adopted to effectuate the order passed by this
Court and recommendations of the Committee shall be worked out by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, the State Government and the applicant-company under he
supervision and guidance and monitoring of the Committee.
Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the Company to the amendments
made in the Mineral Conservation and Development (Amendment) Rules under notification
dated 10th April, 2003, in particular, to Rule 23-C relating to the submission of final mine
closure plan. Having heard learned counsel; we are of the view that these ruled would not
over-ride the directions as contained in the judgment. The applicant instead of filing this
application ought to have first approached the Committee.
In order to avoid further delay in the matter, we direct that the application and
connected papers be placed before the Monitoring Committee and the question of issue of
the directions, if any would be considered by this Court, if necessary, only after the
matter is first examined by the Committee.
 I.A. No. 989
(Reg Maruti Clean Coke)
An affidavit be filed by the Secretary of the ministry of Forest of the State of
Chhattisgarh, within one week, stating whether the land in question was shown in any
government record as part of the forest area or not.
[Refer Forest Case Update, Issue 3, August 2004; Issue 4, September 2004]
Orders: 19th November 2004

I.A. No. 1167 In I.A. No. 695-696 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995
(Report of CEC relating to Bandhavgarh National Park)
I.A. Nos. 1167 in I.A. 695-696:
In respect of C.E.C. report dated 16th June, 2004 in relation to Bandhavgarh National park,
para records the submission made before CEC by the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is to
the effect that illegal tourism started by the Bandhavgarh Foundation trust has been
stopped by the Forest Department, there is no tourism activity by anybody and that the
reserved forest land of Bandhavgarh Fort continues to be part of the Bandhavgarh
National Park and is in possession and control of the Forest Department. In view of this
stand, no further directions are required to be made at this stage except that the
position shall not be changed by the State Government / Forest Department without the
permission of the Court.
In respect of the observations pertaining to Madhav National Park, we direct issue of
notice to Reliance Telecom Ltd.
[Refer Issue 6, November 2004]
 I.A. No. 1220 In I.A. No. 548 in W.P. (C) No. 202/1995
(Regarding Commercial Exploitation of National Park and Sanctuary)
Issue notice to the State Government/ Union territories directing them to filed response,
if any within eight weeks. Notice shall also be served on the standing counsel.
Mr. Mukesh K. Giri and Mr. S. K. Agnihotri, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of
State of Maharashtra and State of Madhya Pradesh respectively.
 I.A. Nos. 1125 & I.A. No. 909
(Regarding deaths of Elephants)
The observations in respect of respondent No.8, as contained in the report of CEC, dated
12th February, 2004 are accepted. In respect of death of 59 animals due to natural causes
between the period 1.4.2000 and 31.10.2002, we direct that the report be brought to the
notice of the Director of Project Elephant so that it any remedial steps are required to be
taken so as to reduce the elephant mortality in the area, those steps can be taken.
The I.A.s are disposed of accordingly.
[Refer Issue 6, November 2004]

I.A. Nos. 972 in 789, 790, 962, 988, 1038-1041, 1042-45 in I.A. & I.A. 757:
(Regarding Mount Abu, Rajasthan)
By order dated 19th April 2004, the State of Rajasthan was directed to constitute a
committee comprising of three members in consultation with the CEC for the purpose of
grant of permission for carrying out repairs or renovation of the existing structure within
municipal limits of Mount Abu.
Mr. Salve has brought to out notice that on receipt of communication dated 3rd July, 2003
from the State Government, the CEC had sent its view in terms of its letter dated 10 th
August, 2004 to the State Government suggesting modification composition of the
Committee, as indicated in the letter of 3rd July, 2003. Mr. Salve, on instructions, stated
that the letter dated 10th August, 2004 has not been responded to.
Under the circumstances, we direct that the Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan
and the Chairman of C.E.C. shall jointly examine the matter and constitute the Committee
in terms of the order dated 19th April, 2004.
[Refer Flash News 7, Hearing Update, October 29, 2004]
Orders: 10th December 2004
 I.A No 1000 with 982-984, 1026-1028, 1123-1124
(Recommendation of CEC regarding Mining in Jamua Ramgarh Wildlife Sanctuary)
On request of Mr. A.D.N Rao, we direct MoEF to file its response to the Report of the
CEC within four weeks also indicating as to whether temporary permission/permits are
being granted in other areas and details thereof. The original file shall be brought n the
court on the next date of hearing.
[Refer Forest Case Update, Issue 3, August 2004; Issue 4, September 2004]

I.A No 990 In I.A Nos 860 and 863
The affidavit of Shri K.K Mishra, Chief Secretary of the Government of Karnataka is not
satisfactory, it is utterly vague on the requisite aspects. We direct fresh filing of
affidavit within four weeks with map and details also stating therein the steps taken and
intended to be taken.
Back to Contents
Application No.218 of 2003: Durgesh Kasbekar v/s State of
Karnataka and Ors
The application concerns the large scale felling of trees in Karnataka, which threatens one
of the finest rainforests of the Western Ghats.
In July 2003 an application was filed before the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered
Committee (CEC) against large-scale illegal felling inside the proposed Bhimgad sanctuary
in Karnataka’s Belgaum district. And for an immediate stay on non-forestry activities in
the area (including the planting of exotic species). The applicant Durgesh Kasbekar’s main
concern was the detrimental impact of these activities on the endangered Wroughton’s
Free Tailed Bat (Otomops wroughtoni), whose only known breeding habitat in the world is
inside the Barapade caves located in this area. The issue of large scale felling in Malki
lands being done under the provisions of the Karnataka Tree Preservation Act, 1976 was
also raised by the applicant since many of its provisions and its application is totally
contradictory to the Supreme Court decision of 12-12-1996. Kasbekar has been working
towards mobilising national and international support for the conservation of the Western
Ghats.
The matter came up for hearing before the CEC in January, April and July 2004. But it
received no response from any of the respondents, including Karnataka’s chief secretary,
principal secretary (forests, environment and ecology), principal chief conservator of
forests (PCCF) or the Union of India. Meanwhile, Kasbekar along with Shrihari Kugaji
(Belgaum based activist) continued providing the CEC with information on specific
instances of large-scale tree felling in the area.
The case was subsequently heard on September 20, 2004, in Bangalore. During the hearing
the CEC took a very serious view of the forest department’s lack of response to the large-
scale felling, and directed the forest department to immediately survey the area and
report on the extent of the illegal felling. It also ordered that the CEC be kept informed
about the forest department’s plans to provide long-term protection to the area.
Following the hearing, the state government requested B K Singh, chief conservator of
forests, Western Ghats Projects, to carry out field investigations and prepare a status
report.
The subsequent inquiry echoed the petitioner’s concerns, substantiating several instances
of illegal tree felling and mining in the area. The report prompted the PCCF to issue show
cause notices to the concerned officials. Ironically, the report states: “If only the senior
officers regularly visit the area, there will be better check and control and large-scale
destruction can be prevented.” Based on the application and on finding all the allegations
true, the State Government served showcause notice on the three Range Forest Officers,
One Assistant conservator of Forest, the Divisional Forest Officer and even the
Conservator of Forests. The State government through an affidavit also assured the CEC
that it would be ensured that no illegal felling of trees take place.
See:
http://www.infochangeindia.org/EnvironmentItop.jsp?section_idv=6;
http://www.indianjungles.com/011104d.htm
Forest Case Update, Issue 1, June 2004; Issue 4, September 2004
Back to Contents
Editors: Ritwick Dutta and Kanchi Kohli
For further information and clarifications please write to forestcase@yahoo.com
From now on all issues of the Forest Case Update will be uploaded on
http://www.geocities.com/forestcase/forestcaseupdate.html
We would like to acknowledge the kind support of Foundation for Ecological Security
(FES) for this initiative.