BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE APPLICATION No. 135/2013(WZ)
CORAM:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.R. Kingaonkar (Judicial Member)
Hon’ble Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande (Expert Member)
B E T W E E N:
Smt. Shobha Phadanvis, Aged about 58 years, Member Of Legislative Assembly, Bazar Chowk, Mul, District Chandrapur. ….Applicant
A N D
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through : Its Chief Secretary, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Bombay – 32. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya, Bombay – 32 3. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Nagpur. ………Respondents
Counsel for Applicant: Absent - Nemo
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 1
Counsel for Respondents : Absent - Nemo
DATE : 13th January, 2014
J U D G M E N T
1 In pursuance of the order of transfer of original Writ
Petition No.1277/2000 by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Nagpur
Bench this application is taken on file. The Applicant has filed this application to protect the forest cover of Maharashtra, particularly in the forest area of District Chandrapur and
Gadchilori by way of prohibiting/preventing the illegal cutting and smuggling of seasonal wood. The Applicant was Member of State
Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) when the Application was filed and she tried to bring the issues raised in this Application on floor of the State Legislature through various legislatives methods.
However, she could not get the required responses and hence filed this Application. The Applicant submits that in the month of
November 1999 she received a complaint that there was illegal cutting of the forest involving teak and seasonal wood in Chimur-
Wahangaon compartment No.57 of 536 Hectare. Upon verification, she found that this illegal activity was going on the site. She further submits that she raised this issue in the
Legislature and was not satisfied with the reply of the Government and therefore, she personally went to the site with prior intimation to the Government officials on 29th December 1999 and a
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 2
panchnama was made about the forest cutting which is part of the record.
2 The Applicant also submits that she visited the depot of forest department wherein it was noticed that countless pieces of wood without hammering, re-numbering are deposited which are left over after material portion of the tree is removed and therefore, she came to know that there is huge illegal cutting of forest wood. She further submits that she immediately gave the information of said fact to the Chief Secretary and the Forest
Secretary who also conducted the inspection through the
Department officials. During such inspection they noticed that in the forest depot, wood is being deposited without there being any number or hammer. The Applicant, therefore, claims that important part of the teak and forest trees were taken away and rest of the balance is deposited in the forest depot showing there is as if, nothing that has happened. She also submits that detailed representation along with videography has been submitted to the Government. However, no substantial action has been taken so far.
3 She has raised important observations of this visit to high-light the illegality in cutting of the forest tree:
a) In Sironcha Forest, old “Matruvruksha” trees are
illegally cut and smuggled out. Similar wood cutting is
observed in “Wakshan” compartment. In Ankisa depot,
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 3
forest woods have been stored without any number and
without following any due procedure.
b) Artificial conflagration is caused so that the entire
bottom of the tree is destroyed in order to destroy the
evidence.
c) Without there being marking, hammering and
ascertaining the length and breadth of the tree, the trees
which are lying on the spot, after important and costly
middle portion is removed, are deposited in the forest depot.
4 The Applicant, therefore, approached the Hon’ble High
Court and sought to save remaining forest by adopting immediate measures for the sound forest management activities. The
Applicant further submits that the State Government is collecting funds under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Forest Department Act
1983. Inspite of collection of such funds, there is no proper utilization thereof for protection of the Forests.
5 The Applicant further submits that the State has sufficient resources of funds for the Forest protection and development activities as the State is collecting tax on sale of forest produce under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Forest
Department (Tax on Sale on Forest Produce by Govt. or Forest
Development Corporation) Act 1983. This tax amount is recoverable and that tax, after deducting the expenses for its collection, has to be used for the purpose of protection and development of the Forest. The Applicant claims that by
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 4
November 2001, the State of Maharashtra had collected about
Rs.125 crores under this tax head, but has not used the same towards protection and development of Forest. The Applicant has also raised various technical issues, such as non preparation of appropriate working plans for the forest areas, non preparation of the master plan for conservation of forest for a period of 30 years, non availability of detailed forest maps by carrying out detailed survey and also marking of the Forest boundaries. The Applicant has prayed for suitable directions to implement an integrated master plan for protection and development of Forest. The
Applicant has also further claimed that the conflagration is one of the reasons for destruction of fire. It is claimed that the artificial forest fires are set specially in the month of March and April to facilitate the Tendu leaves collection by the Tendu Contractors.
The Applicant has also raised issue of safety of the forest personnel and the issue of restricted mobility due to non availability of the transport vehicles for the forest personnel for effective monitoring and vigilance. The Applicant has sought involvement of the local people in the forest management which can also provide them employment and also, develop a sense of responsibility amongst the local people towards forest protection and development. The Applicant has given several suggestions for consideration while preparing the master plan including suitable legislative amendments, administrative delegation of powers, preparation of working Manuals, Development of intelligence cell,
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 5
removal of encroachment over the forest lands, sample census of forest areas, and settlement of revenue of forest records. The
Applicant has finally prayed for various reliefs towards the protection and development of the forest areas in the State which are summarized in brief as below :-
a) Formation of the Expert committee to inquire the entire matter.
b) The State be restrained from using the funds collected under section 6 of the Maharashtra Forest Department (Tax on sale of forest Produce by Government or Forest Development Corporation) Act 1983 for any other purpose except development of forest in the area of destructions of Chandrapur, Gadchiroli and Bhandara.
c) Direct the State to give details of utilization of the above said tax amount collected so far.
d) Direct the State Government to frame master plan for Protection and Development of Forest and disclose the implementation status of the said master plan from time to time.
6 This petition was heard by the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench and several directions have been issued from time to time for implementation. The important orders and directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court are referred hereafter for highlighting the importance given by the
Hon’ble High Court to this Application which is mainly for the protection and development for Forest area in the State of
Maharashtra and the steps taken by the Government upon those
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 6
directions. On 20th July 2000, the Bench had expressed its surprise on the contents of the Affidavit filed by the Intervener
Association which made specific allegations regarding the tree cutting, mainly due to the fact that though the Court was ceased of the matter and had issued directions to the Government to take immediate steps in the matter, still illegal felling of the trees is going on without any obstruction and the Forest Department, except for registering preliminary offence report, has not been able to prevent such illegal felling of trees. The Court also directed the
State Government to constitute High Power Committee consisting of Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary, Forest Secretary, Home
Secretary, Director General of Police, Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Conservator of Forest (Protection). This
Committee was directed to implement immediately the measures suggested by SIT which was constituted by Order dated 20th April
2000. The Court in its order dated 10th October 2000 has taken on record the Report of the High Power Committee and also noted that the suggestions and recommendations stated in the Report need to be implemented in a time bound and effective manner and therefore, the Court decided to continue hearing the matter to ensure the effective implementation with this High Power
Committee Report. The Court in its order dated 4th May 2001 has recorded that:
“Mr. Kaptan, learned counsel appearing for Maharashtra Forest Rangers Association, one of the intervener in the matter submitted that he has personally visited the forest area in
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 7
Sironcha, Alapalli, Bhamragad in Gadchiroli Region and found that illicit felling of timber in various area continues unabated. It is submitted that in case the Revenue and Forest Department undertake an exercise to demarcate their respective land i.e. the forest land and revenue land, it will go long way in regulating the steps to prevent the illicit felling of timber. It is also suggested that the two departments should also carry out the tree census around the area having human habitation in respect of their lands, as these areas are prone to illicit felling of timber and that can also act as a check in detecting the illicit felling of timber.
Our attention is also drawn to the fact that the transport of illicit fell timber from the Forest Region still continues unabated through rivers passing through there namely Godavari, Pranhita and Indrawati and unless as effective patrolling is made by the speed hosts and round the clock surveillance is kept, it will be difficult to check the same.”
7 The Court in its order dated 27th April 2002 has noted that:-
“Though this Court has been feeded with lot of information and material on the subject, but still it finds that High Power
Committee appointed by this Court has not taken any concrete steps to implement various interim orders passed by this Court from time to time….. ”
8 The Court in its order dated 3rd May 2002 has noted that :-
“Our anxiety is to see that the State take up the programme of implementation as per the National Wild Life Action Plan and pursuant to the forest report on the State of forest in the State of
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 8
Maharashtra and dire need on the part of the State to protect and preserve it when we refer to forest which includes (wild life) and
National Forestry Action Programme for management, so far as to regain the lost forest for carrying out a forest station in a phased manner. It is with this anxiety and as a first step, we are calling upon the State to at least make available basic-necessary funds to the Forest Department, so that at least the Forest Department get activated and take immediate measures required for preservation and protection of forest, from all its aspect as this is the main reason that the Forest Department feels helplessness in the protection and conservation of forest.”
9 The Court further directed the Principal Chief Conservator of
Forest (PCCF) to prepare a white paper by way of action plan for implementation of the High Power Committee Report and also interim orders passed at various occasions. The Court further directed the PCCF to prepare a comprehensive and Integrated
Action Plan, even making it clear that the service in Forest
Department is not inferior to that in the Police Department, and is rather very challenging. The Court further directed all the
Judicial Authorities and Courts to take up the cases involving
Forest Offences on priority basis. The Court further directed the
Chief Conservator of Forest not to renew any new Saw Mill licenses and cancel all such licenses of Saw Mills in Sironcha area and further not to permit any Saw Mill to operate in a Region as it is detrimental to the interest of Forest. The Court on 30th April
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 9
2004, passed an order that directing the State to comply with the
Policy decision taken by Central Government for Protecting environment and therefore, restricting felling of trees within 10
K.M. area notified as eco sensitive area from the boundaries of
National Park or Sanctuary. On 4th October 2004, the Court further clarified that if the Court is furnished all the necessary data and steps taken by the State Government in taking up the matter with the competent Authority, it may be possible to consider the applications filed by Intervener as well as the State
Government for the review. The Hon’ble High Court further noted that State Government has failed to furnish any official data as to the state of affairs relating to the forest cover or report of any committee constituted under the directions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to appreciate the concerns raised. The Court in its order dated 27th April 2005 has emphasized that the Court was required to pass the order dated 30th April 2004 on the application filed by the Interveners in CA-3045/2004. Thereafter, the State Government has not come before the Court with a comprehensive plan in order to make any commitment to as to what steps it is going to take in order to preserve the Eco-sensitive and Eco Fragile Zones around the National Parks and Wild Life
Sanctuary. On the other hand, persons affected have sought intervention which was considered by the High Court on its individual merits and appropriate orders came to be passed. The
Court also made it clear that the order dated 30th April 2004 has
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 10
to be read in context of the Notification dated 26th April 2005 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and in cases,
State Government has got clearance to carry out non-forest activities from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, they can bring it to the notice of this Court and proceed in accordance with the working plan sanctioned by the Central Government.
10 The Court in its order dated May 3, 2012, extensively dealt with subject of the incidents of forest fires.
“The respective Amicus Curie appearing in this matter have voiced concerned on growing number of fire incidents which are taking place in and around reserved forest. In two of the matters, the reserved forest i.e. Tadoba, Andheri Tigre Reserve Chandrapur is involved while in the third matter, the grievance is general.”
Mr. C.S. Kaptan, the Learned Amicus Curie however, had urged that even grass, small shrub/plants constitute and contribute environment and damage to them affects biodiversity which disturb ecology in the area. The High court further noted that, “From the details of the suspects who have been caught as mischief mongers, it appears that the local persons residing in some of the villages have created the problem. This cannot be said with certainty as investigations into the same are still going on. However, as the residents of such persons in various forest areas are inevitable for some time in future, a mechanism needs to be evolved to monitor their movements so as to prohibit them from causing such fires. This will also help honest villagers in
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 11
undertaking their day-to-day activities without any fear.” The
High Court in its order dated 5th July, 2002 had raised concern by referring MoEF letter dated 26/11/2001 regarding unutilized
Forest development tax amount and also, inadequate fund allocation to forestry sector in the State.
11 We have heard Learned A.G.P. for the State. None appeared for the Applicant. We are at loss to, therefore, to know whether the Applicant desired to add anything further than what is stated in her Application/petition.
12. The Government authorities have submitted Affidavits and Progress Reports in this Writ Petition on several occasions.
The Special Investigation Team had submitted the Report dated
16th June 2000 as per the Court orders and have proposed several measures for effective protection of the forest. The report of
Special Investigation Team is on record. Chief Secretary, Govt. of
Maharashtra filed an Affidavit on 26th June 2002, elaborately explaining the efforts being taken by the State Government for protection and development of the forests in the State. The
Affidavit further gives details of the revenue collected on account of Forest Development Tax and its utilization through the budgetary appropriations which reveals that till the year 2002, a sum of about Rs.196 crores was collected as Forest Development
Tax and the expenditure incurred was about Rs.60 crores. This action plan seems to be submitted in 2002 but copy of the same is
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 12
not available on record, which is also mentioned in High Court order dated 29/06/2007.
13. It is also submitted in the Affidavit that although the expenditure incurred through appropriations is shown to be below the tax collection, this is mainly because the expenditure refers to expenditure under certain specified schemes mentioned in the budget that have been advanced from the tax collected under the
Act. It is claimed that work of plantation and other allied activities are undertaken through many other schemes also and since, these schemes are financed from the Consolidated Fund and therefore, the actual amount expended on the work of plantation and allied activities is much greater than the expenditure referred to above. The Affidavit further refers to various efforts being made to get additional funds available for the forest protection and development activities either through
Central Government or through lateral agencies. The Affidavit further mentions that the Forest Department is being provided with the required man power and the Forest Department has been advised to prepare an action plan as per the Court’s order.
14 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest has filed a detailed Affidavit on 18th June 2007 and has submitted pointwise progress on the various directions given by the Hon’ble High
Court. Some of the important aspects of the submissions are as follows :
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 13
i) The State is attempting to increase involvement of the villagers in prevention and suppression of fires through Joint Forest Management Programme. However, the necessary co- operation from the villagers is not forthcoming due to various reasons, including criminal intentions, inadequate powers to the Forest Staff and lack of employment opportunities for the villagers.
ii) The work of shifting of villagers from the sanctuaries is still continuing. In order to reduce the forest fires, special measures like round the clock vigilance, special squads, wireless network etc. have been initiated.
iii) The several difficulties and shifting of villagers and villages have been listed in the Affidavit.
15 The Forest Department has also filed an Affidavit dated
16th June 2007 mentioning that two Committees were appointed by Government of Maharashtra, one for Vidarbha Region and another for Western Maharashtra to suggest recommendations for effective control of fires. The recommendations made by the above
Committees have been accepted by the State Government.
16 We have referred to the various points raised in the petition, more particularly, the illegal cutting of the Forest Trees, improper Forest Management for exploitation of the Forest
Produce and depleting forest cover due to forest fires. We have also perused through the Affidavit filed by the Respondents and more particularly the Forest Department. We have also gone through the various orders and directions issued by the Hon’ble
High Court, Bombay, Nagpur Bench. This Bench of the National
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 14
Green Tribunal has already delivered a Judgment in one of the similar Application No.135/13 (WZ).
17. Since 1996, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has assumed the role of the principal decision maker so far as issues relating to forests and wildlife are concerned. This has been mainly due to Supreme Court's intervention through the following cases:
1. The T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs Union of India
and ors (WP No 202 of 1995) concerning the
implementation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
2. The Centre for Environmental Law (CEL), WWF vs Union
of India and ors (WP No 337 of 1995) concerning the
issue of settlement of Rights in National Parks and
Sanctuaries and other issues under the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972.
18 These cases are being heard for the last nine years and are a part of what is termed as "continuing mandamus", whereby the Courts, rather than passing final judgments, keeps on passing orders and directions with a view to monitor the functioning of the executive. They have led to fundamental changes in the pattern of forest governance and decision making.
Some examples include:
a) By virtue of the Supreme Court's order dated 13.11.2000
in the CEL WWF case (W.P. No. 337 of 1995), no forest,
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 15
National Park or Sanctuary can be de-reserved without the
approval of the Supreme Court.
b) No non-forest activity is permitted in any National Park
or Sanctuary even if prior approval under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 has been obtained.
c) The interim order dated 14.2.2000 prohibited the
removal of any dead or decaying trees, grasses, drift wood
etc. from any area comprising a National Park or a
Sanctuary notified under Section 18 or 35 of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972. It was also directed that if any order
to the contrary has been passed by any State Government or
other authorities the operation of the same shall be stayed.
In order to advise the Supreme Court on the various issues
concerning forest and wildlife conservation, the Central
Empowered Committee (CEC) was set up as an authority
under Section 3 (3) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986
to adjudicate on forest and wildlife related issues. Despite its
wide impact and implication on forest management and
governance most environment, human rights and activists
groups and also the Government are not generally aware of
the current developments in the Courts.
19 The Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in The T.N
Godavaram case AIR 1997 S.C.1228 states that the word
“Forest” must be understood according to dictionary
meaning. The term Forest land will not only include “Forest”
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 16
as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area
recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of
the ownership. It further says “The felling of trees in all
forest is to remain suspended except in accordance with the
working plans of the State Govts. as approved by central
Govt.” The above definition/criterion is applicable to the
strip forests which have been notified as protected forests in
Govt. records for last 30-35 years. These are being worked /
managed as per working plan/approved felling programmes.
Forest Conservation Act (69 of 1980) S.2- Non Forest
activity- Running of Saw Mills of any kind including veneer
of plywood mills and mining – Area non forest activities – For
doing such activity in forest prior permission of Central Govt.
is necessary.
20 In “Tirupur Dyeing Factory Owners Association Vs.
Noyyal River Ayacutdars Protection Association & Ors., (2009)
9 SCC 737” the Supreme Court considering the question of
water pollution by the dyeing industries, relying upon the
precautionary principles as accepted being part of law of the
land and the environmental law. In Vellor Citizens' Welfare
Forum Vs. Union of India, “(1996) 5 SCC 647” and further
explained in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India, “(2004) 12 SCC
118”, the Apex Court observed:- "requires anticipatory action
to be taken to prevent harm. The harm can be prevented
even on a reasonable suspicion. It is not always necessary
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 17
that there should be direct evidence of harm to the
environment."
21 The Supreme Court, thereafter, observed in
paragraphs 26 and 27 as follows:-
"26. The concept of "sustainable development" has been
explained that it covers the development that meets the
needs of the person without compromising the ability of the
future generation to meet their own needs. It means the
development, that can take place and which can be
sustained by nature/ecology with or without mitigation.
Therefore, in such matters, the required standard is that the
risk of harm to the environment or to human health is to be
decided in public interest, according to a "reasonable
person's" test. The development of the industries, irrigation
resources and power projects are necessary to improve
employment opportunities and generations of revenue;
therefore, cannot be ignored. In such eventuality, a balance
has to be struck, for the reason that if the activity is allowed
to go, there may be irreparable damage to the environment
and there may be irreparable damage to the economic
interest. A Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in
T.N. Godavaram Thirumulpad (104) vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (2008) 2
SCC 222; and M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 6
SCC 142”.
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 18
22. Natural resources are the assets of entire nation.
It is the obligation of all concerned including Union
Government and State Governments to conserve and not
waste these resources. Article 48A of the Constitution of
India requires the State shall endeavour to protect and
improve the environment and to safeguard the forest and
wild life of the country. Under Article 51A, it is the duty of
every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment
including forest, lakes, rivers and wild-life and to have
compassion for living creatures. In the present case, the
question is about conservation, preservation and protection
of forests and the ecology. When forest cover is depleting due
to various reasons, what measures are required to be taken
to compensate for loss of forest land and to compensate
effect on the ecology, is the main question under
consideration. Forests are a vital component to sustain the
life support system on the earth. Forests in India have been
dwindling over the years for a number of reasons which is
well documented.
23 Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated
6/7/2011 in W.P. No. 202 of 1995, commonly known as
Lafarge Case, has given several directions for improved forest
management emphasizing the importance of National Forest
Policy and also, role of Independent monitoring to regulate
Forest clearances. Some of the recommendations of MoEF
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 19
given in their affidavit dated 29/4/2011 have been
incorporated in Court directions and are related to;
(a) “Creation and regular updating of a GIS based decision
support database, tentatively containing inter-alia the district-
wise details of the location and boundary of (i) each plot of
land that may be defined as forest for the purpose of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; (ii) the core, buffer and eco-
sensitive zone of the protected areas constituted as per the
provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; (iii) the
important migratory corridors for wildlife; and (iv) the forest
land diverted for non-forest purpose in the past in the
district. The Survey of India toposheets in digital format, the
forest cover maps prepared by the Forest Survey of India in
preparation of the successive State of Forest Reports and the
conditions stipulated in the approvals accorded under the
Forest (Conservations) Act, 1980 for each case of diversion of
forest land in the district will also be part of the proposed
decision support database.
(b) Completion of the exercise undertaken by each State/
UT Govt. in compliance of this Court's order dated
12.12.1996 wherein inter-alia each State/UT Government
was directed to constitute an Expert Committee to identify the
areas which are "forests" irrespective of whether they are so
notified, recognized or classified under any law, and
irrespective of the land of such "forest" and the areas which
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 20
were earlier "forests" but stand degraded, denuded and
cleared, culminating in preparation of Geo-referenced district
forest-maps containing the details of the location and
boundary of each plot of land that may be defined as "forest"
for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980”.
24 Considering foregoing discussion, we are of the
opinion that the Application will have to be partly allowed in
order to protect Environment and ecology, as well as the
Forests area. Consequently, we partly allow the Application
and give following directions:
1. The interim orders given by Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay, Nagpur Bench, on 30/4/2004 referred in
para-9 above shall continue to operate, as the state
government has not submitted the necessary data
and reports on the present status of forest and an
updated action plan to increase the forest cover in
the state to the desired level and also,
comprehensive statement of the compliance of
various directions of Apex court and High Court,
issued in this regard. The Tribunal is required to
continue the interim orders on Pre-cautionary
Principle basis in the absence of above information
and Tribunal is willing to reconsider the position if
the state government approaches the Tribunal with
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 21
necessary data, reports and action plan. The said
interim orders shall be part of this final order.
2. The Respondents shall make available necessary
funds to forestry sector in the state, and especially,
the required funds for rehabilitation of affected
villagers/Tribals for relocation to the new habitats,
without any delay, and in any case, they shall be
provided with new accommodation with the required
facilities, within a period of six (6) months hereafter.
3. The Respondents shall prepare a Disaster
Management Plan (DMP) for protection of Forests
and shall make available more number of G.P.S, fire
beaters, fire brooms, fire rakes, Motor vehicle sets,
Watch Towers by evolving particular standards
based on scientific study and data collected, in
accordance with the area of the Forests. So also, the
Respondents shall provide Forests Guards, if
necessary, on adhoc basis by way of stop gap
arrangement by giving seasonal appointments, as
part of Disaster Management Plan, to protect the
Forests from untoward incidents of artificial fire
caused by mischief mongers or due to accidents,
particularly between onset of summer season and
commencement of rainy season.
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 22
4. The Respondents may fix liability on the Licensees of
Tendu leaves, for the forest fires if any, under the
Public Liability Insurance Act,1991, at the time of
giving licence while accepting licence fee.
5. The Respondents shall increasingly adopt advance
remote Surveillance Techniques like satellite based
web applications and GIS for developing decision
support database, tentatively containing inter-alia
the district-wise details of the location and boundary
of (i) each plot of land that may be defined as forest
for the purpose of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980; (ii) the core, buffer and eco-sensitive zone of
the protected areas (iii) important migratory
corridors for wildlife and (iv) the forest land diverted
for non-forest purpose in the past in the district. The
remote sensing tools can also be adopted for
identifying the fires, among various Forest
Management aspects.
6. Forest department shall place on record the report of
expert committee formed in compliance of Hon’ble
Supreme Court Direction dated 12.12.1996 wherein
each state government was directed to constitute an
Expert Committee to identify the areas which are
‘forests’ irrespective of whether they are so notified,
recognised or classified under any law, and
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 23
irrespective of land of such ‘forest’ and the areas
which were earlier ‘forests’ but stands degraded,
denuded and cleared. This report shall be submitted
within 3 months and also, shall be made available
on Forest department’s website.
7. In addition to above measures, the Respondents
shall comply with the standing orders of the Apex
Court and High Courts regarding Forest protection
and development, and may take any other steps,
which are found necessary to conserve and protect
the Forests in the State of Maharashtra.
8. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, shall display the
complete information about, the number of incidents
of fires in the Forest areas, area of Forest affected by
such fires and any other related information in
respect of the entire state, on the Department’s
website, which shall be updated on quarterly basis.
9. The Application is accordingly disposed of.
10. No costs.
……….…………….………………., JM (Justice V. R. Kingaonkar)
….…...……….……………………., EM (Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande)
(J) Application No.135(THC)/2013 (WZ) 24