T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 982 · Decided: 12-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
T.N. GODAVARMAN THJRUMULKPAD ETC. 
, 
\ 
\~' 
v. 
· UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 12, 1996 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Forest Conservation Act, 1980: Section 2. 
Applicability and Object of Act-Held object is to check deforestation 
C which ultimately results in ecological imbalance-Therefore, the provisions 
made therein for the conservation of forests and for niatters connected 
therewith apply to all forests i"espective of the nature of ownership or 
classification thereof-Expression 'forest' covers all statutorily recognised 
forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose 
of Section 2(i) of the Acr-Expression 'forest land' includes not only 'forest' 
D but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record imspective of 
the ownership-l'rior approval of the Central Govemmrmt is required fa,r any 
non-forest activity within the area of any ''forest''-Running of saw "!ills of 
any kind including veneer or ply-wood mills, and mining of any mint+al are 
non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval 
E of the. Central Government. 
< 
Ambica quarry Works and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., [1987] 1 
SCC 213; Rural Litigatiori and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [1989] 
Supp. 1 SCC 504; Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussorie Deh-
radun Development Authority and Ors., W.P. (C) No. 749/95 decided on . 
F 29.11.1996 and State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Ors., [1985] 3 SCC 
643, referred to. 
Environmental Law-Protection and Conservation of forests-Direc-
tions by Supreme Court of India for maintenance of ecological balance and 
• 
G preservation of bio-diversi~omplete ban on felling of any kind trees in the 
tropical wet ever green forests of Tirap and Changlang in Arunachal 
Pradeslt-All saw mills, veneer mills and ply-wood mills in Tirap and 
4 -
Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh and within a distance of 100 kms. from its 
border, in Assam, should also be closed immediately-Felling of trees in all 
forests to remain suspended except in accordance with the Working Plans of 
H the State Governments as approved by the Central Government-Complete 
982 
• 
' 
T.N.GODAVARMAN1HIRUMULKPAD. v. U.0.1. 
983 
ban on the movement of cut trees and timber from any of the seven North-
A 
Eastern State to any other State of the Country-Ban not applicable to the 
movement of certified timber required for defence or other Government 
purposes. 
Direction to each State Government (i) to constitute Expert Committee 
to identify forests and forests which stand now degraded (ii) to file report 
regarding number of saw mills, veneer and plywood mills operating; their 
licensed capacity and proximity to forests; (iii) to constitute Expert Committee 
to assess sustainable capacity of the forests qua saw mills and optimum 
distance from the forest qua that State at which the saw mills should be 
located; (iv) to constitute Committee to oversee compliance of Supreme 
Court's order and file status reports. 
B 
c 
Environmental Law-Directions to State of J&K, Himachal Pradesh, 
Tamil Nadu, Hill Regions of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal--Ban on felling 
of trees-Exceptions to and conditions for applicability of exceptions 
specified. 
D 
Environmental Law-Protection of forests-Direction by Supreme 
Court for closure of saw mills and wood based industry-Furtner direction 
that the workers employed in such units will continue to be paid their full 
emoluments due and shall not be.retrenched or removed from service for this E 
reason. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Appeal No. 
202 of 1995 etc. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Ashok Desai, Attorney General, N.N. Goswami, H.N. Salve, Rajiv 
Dhawan, Shanti Bhushan, A.S. Nambiar, T.L.V. Iyer, A.K Ganguli, P.S. 
Potti, M.S. Nargolkar, Jayant Das, S.N. Choudhary, Avadhbihari Rohtagi, 
F 
K. Amareshwari, D.P. Gupta, A.D.N. Rao, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Anil G 
Katiyar, V. Krishnamurthy, A. Mariarputham, Dayan Krishnan, Ms. B. 
Sunita Rao, Ms. N.N. Saikia, Ms. U. Hazaricka, S.R. Hegde, P.H. Pari;kh, 
· E.R. Kumar, Indu Verma, KJ. John, Mahendar Vyas, P.K. Manohar, 
Arvindh, V. Balachandran, T.V.S.N. Chari, Nikhil Nayyar, G. Prakash, 
Gopal Singh, S.M. Jadhav, J.P. Verghese, S.R. Setia, V. Balaji, A.T.M. 
Sampath, V.G. Pragasam, S.K. Agnihotri, Raj Kumar Mehta, H.S. Munjral, H 
984 
SUPREME COURT REP OR TS (1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Tyagi, B.S. Chahar, Ashok Mathur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.