Disposed

Uday Education and Welfare Trust through Its Authorized Signatory v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT14 Oct 2022Original Application No. 118/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribunal considered application against illegal tree cutting by chipper machines. Reviewing joint Committee report, it found activities involved lops and tops of Eucalypts/Popular trees, classifying them as fuel material, not saw mills. No interference ordered; Committee recommendations to act upon.

What did the court decide?

No interference; directions to Forest Department to act upon Joint Committee recommendations.

Uday Education and Welfare Trust through Its Authorized… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2022)

¶1

Item No. 02

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Original Application No. 118/2022 (I.A. No. 208/2022)

¶6

Uday Education & Welfare Trust

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of U.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 14.10.2022

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

Applicant: Mr. Brijender Chahar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ankit Verma, Advocate

¶13

Respondents: Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocates for UPPCB

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Grievance in this application is against illegal operation of chipper/cutter machines by respondent Nos. 5 to 37 and other unknown persons in District Muzaffarnagar, UP having the effect of illegal cutting of trees and illegal running of saw mills.

¶16

According to the applicant, the said respondents as well as others are using such machines for converting round timber into small chips and pieces to make the raw material for MDF/HDF and particle Board Units, without following regulatory regime under U.P. Saw Mill Rules, 1978, as amended upto 2017. The statutory authorities have failed to

¶17

¶18

take remedial action as per MoEF&CC Guidelines dated 11.11.2016. 40 HP power engines are used in the process which requires obtaining of license from the Forest Department.

¶19

Vide order dated 23.03.2022, the Tribunal sought a factual report in the matter from a joint Committee of Commissioner, Saharanpur, DIG, Saharanpur, State PCB, and PCCF (HoFF), U.P.

¶20

In pursuance of above, a report of the joint Committee has been filed on 04.08.2022, after undertaking field visits to the concerned units. The Committee found that only Eucalypts/Popular trees have been cleared. It is found that to remove the branches and twigs of Eucalypts/Popular trees in the form of wood logs and Chipper/Cutters, farmers cut the branches and twigs into the pieces which is sold to industries as a fuel and cleared wood logs are sold to timber merchants/wood-based industries. Recommendations in the report are as follows:-

¶21

“Recommendations:-

¶22

The nominated joint committee visited the site and based on the field Observation/Interactions with the representative present during visit, the following is recommended:-

¶23

1. The fixed Chipper machines are also called as "Kutti" Machines by local farmers. Eucalypts/Popular Trees are grown by farmers in their field and the lops and tops of these trees are cut to small pieces through these chipper machines and sold to local industrial unit. These are not categorised as saw mills and may not be regularized.

¶24

2. Chipper/Cutter Machines that are used to cut round logs of the dia more than 10 centimetre and using high power Engines/Motors required to be inventorised and regulated through a guidelines made by Forest Department .”

¶25

We are of the opinion that having regard to the nature of activity found, no interference by this Tribunal is called for except that the recommendations of the Committee may be acted upon by the Forest Department of UP.

¶26

¶27

The application is disposed of.

¶28

I.A. No. 208/2022 also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

A copy of this order be forwarded to PCCF (HoFF), UP by e-mail for

¶30

further action in accordance with law.

¶31

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶32

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶33

Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶34

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶35

October 14, 2022 Original Application No. 118/2022 (I.A. No. 208/2022) SN

¶36

Uday Education and Welfare Trust through Its Authorized Signatory v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Education and Welfare Trust through Its Authorized Signatory v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saral Kumar Parida vs State of Odisha

Narayan Vasantrao Kharade vs Om Sai Ram Steels and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Kakali Pal vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Palwal Jithender Reddy vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change

Amit Sharma vs Vivekanand School

Hari Prasad Sharma vs

Vikram Singh Meena vs

Shrikrishna Yadav vs

Ms Amaan Tannersunit 2 vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Ms Amaan Tannersunit 2 vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Ishhita Foundation through Ms Pragya Singh Alias Vanshika Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Pragati Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Its Chief Secretary

Pragati Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Its Chief Secretary

Uday Education and Welfare Trust through Its Authorized Signatory vs State of Uttar Pradesh