CITATION

AIR 1996 Ker 362

FACTS

Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary is a representative unit of the Western Ghats exhibiting a complex mosaic vegetation ranging from dry deciduous plants to the ever-green composition of tropical rain forests. Forest Department carved three zones for operational facilities — core zone, buffer zone and tourism zone — in the said sanctuary.

The State Government made a proposal to construct a “Forest Lodge” in the buffer zone of the sanctuary. As the proposal registered fast progress, appellant, who claims to be a bird watcher and committed to conservation, filed the Original Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of prohibition against construction of the Forest Lodge in the Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The proposed construction of the lodge is without prior approval of the Central Government and is hence violative of Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

It was admitted by the defendant that some trees have felled. In the strict sense clearance of forest land will take place even by cutting down one tree therefrom. The defendant’s contended that there will be no act of breaking up or cutting of forest land and that the construction of forest lodge is a work ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife.

JUDGEMENT

As per Section 2 of the Act, any forest land can be used for “any non-forest purpose” with the prior approval of the Central Government. Non-forest purpose refers to the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion for cultivation of tea, coffee, crops or medicinal plant; any purpose other than reforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation and so on.

The defendants relied on Section 2(4). However, after reading the clause it is seen that “other purposes” refer to the construction which needs to be similar to the activities stated in the statute.

It is evident that whatever be the number of trees involved, clearance of forest land is necessary for constructing the proposed Forest Lodge.

It cannot be overlooked that prior approval of the government is a must and punishment for it cannot be relaxed otherwise it would lead to fast depleting forest wealth of the nation. Clearance of forests can be only allowed as a stark exception. And those exceptions need to be approved by the Central Government.

The alternative contention adopted by the opposite party was that Ext. R 1(a) which is a communication sent by the Government of India need to be treated as the approval accorded by the Central Government for satisfying the condition imposed in Section 2 of the Act. The letter basically communicates the decision of that department regarding sanction of more than twelve lakhs of rupees for construction of the Forest Lodge at Parambikulam.

To take the above rule, few conditions need to be satisfied. State government needs to seek prior approval to send its proposal to the Central Government. Approval can be granted by the Central Government only after considering the advice of the Committee and after conducting such further enquiry as it may consider necessary. Since, this condition has not been fulfilled, thus Ext. R1 (a) cannot be regarded as prior approval envisaged in Section 2 of the Act.

CONCLUSION

Construction of the Forest Lodge is prohibited by the government.