CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 968 · Decided: 16-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 968
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6497-6498 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 16, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT
AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act 2010: s.14, s.16 – Appellant had
earlier moved a petition under Art.32 of the Constitution to challenge
the Stage-I Forest Clearances (FC) – This Court had by its order
reserved the liberty of the appellants to adopt appropriate
proceedings by moving the National Green Tribunal to challenge
the Stage-I Forest Clearances – Appellant filed O.A. before the
Tribunal invoking its jurisdiction under s.14(1) of the NGT Act –
Tribunal declined to entertain challenge, primarily on the ground
that the appellants had attempted to ‘circumvent’ its appellate
jurisdiction under s.16 by invoking its original jurisdiction under
s.14 instead – In the instant appeal, contention of appellant was
that on 11.09.2021, an application was moved before the Divisional
Forest Officer (DFO) under the RTI Act seeking a specific disclosure
of information on whether any permission for the felling of trees
had been granted – Response of the DFO to the query was that
there was no order for the felling of trees – However, in the
additional documents filed on behalf of the respondents, order dated
27.08.2021 of the DFO, permitting the felling of trees, was placed
on the record – Thus, an extensive exercise of tree cutting was carried
out without placing order dated 27.08.2021 in the public domain,
despite the mandate of the circular dated 28.08.2015 and as a result,
not only the appellant but the other parties were precluded from
moving the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction – Held:
The provisions of s.2 of FC Act contemplate passing of an order by
the State Government with the prior approval of the Central
Government so as to, inter alia, permit the conversion or use of
forest land for non-forest purpose – Therefore, unless an order has
been passed or a decision is made, the appellate remedy before the
Tribunal would not be available – Circular dated 28.08.2015 was
issued by MoEF&CC to prescribe a simplified procedure for the
968
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
969
grant of permissions for felling of trees standing on forest land to
be diverted for execution of linear projects – Clause (i) of paragraph
2 of the circular indicates that in order to facilitate the expeditious
execution of projects involving linear diversion of forest land,
including laying of new roads, an in-principle approval of the
Central Government under the FC Act would be deemed as working
permission for tree cutting and commencement of work subject to
certain conditions – The DFO misled the appellants by furnishing
incorrect information in response to the RTI query – The purpose
of placing the permission in the public domain is to ensure that
persons aggrieved would have a right to challenge it – There is no
rebuttal to this grievance of the appellant – This lack of transparency,
leading to a lack of accountability, is in stark contrast to the
“environmental rule of law”, which is crucial for good governance
– In terms of the provisions contained in circular dated 28.08.2021,
the order for tree cutting and commencement of work of linear
projects is to be treated as an order under s.2 of the FC Act –
Evidently, therefore, order dated 27.08.2021 is amenable to the
remedy of an appeal, which would now lie before Tribunal under
s.16(e) of the NGT Act – Since order dated 27.08.2021 is amenable
to an appellate remedy under s.16(e) of the NGT Act, as well as
under the provisions of s.2A of the FC Act, when read in the context
of circular dated 28.08.2015, it would be appropriate to grant liberty
to the appellant to do so – The Tribunal was moved by the appellant
by invoking the jurisdiction under s.14, under which it has
jurisdiction to entertain civil cases where a substantial question
relating to the environment, including enforcement of any legal right
relating to the environment, is involved and such question arises
out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I
– The enactments which are specified in Schedule I include the FC
Act – Thus, where a substantial question relating to the environment
is raised involving the implementation of the FC Act, even the original
jurisdiction of the Tribunal under s.14 could have been invoked –
Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.