Disposed

News Item Published in the Newspaper the Hindu Dated 02.10.2022 Titled Over 6000 Trees Illegally Cut for Tiger Safari Project in Corbett Rese Rve Says Fsi Report vs

NGT19 Nov 2024Review Application No. 7/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review application challenging findings against petitioner in an NGT suo motu case regarding illegal tree felling. Petitioner alleges violation of principles of natural justice as he was not a party. Court held NGT order did not record findings against applicant; committee report not binding on him.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that NGT order does not bind petitioner to findings of the committee; authorities to examine merits before initiating action.

News Item Published in the Newspaper the Hindu Dated… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2024)

¶1

Item No. 18

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Review Application No. 7/2024 In

¶5

Original Application No. 748/2022

¶6

News item published in the Newspaper The Hindu dated 02.10.2022 titled “Over 6000 trees illegally cut for tiger safari project in Corbett Reserve Says FSI report”

¶7

Mr. Sushanta Kumar Pattnaik

¶8

Review Applicant

¶9

Date of hearing: 19.11.2024

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Review Applicant: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Ashish Singh & Mr. Vyom Shandilya, Advs. for Review Applicant

¶12

Respondents: Mr. Kaushal Gautam & Ms. Vanshika Singh, Advs. for the State of Uttarakhand (Through VC)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By this review application, Applicant is seeking review of the order dated 21.10.2022 passed in Original Application No. 748/2022.

¶15

The Original Application No. 748/2022 was registered suo motu on the basis of the newspaper report disclosing illegal cutting of 6000 trees in Corbett Tiger Reserve in Kalagarh Tiger Reserve Division in Uttarakhand.

¶16

On 21.10.2022, the Director General, FSI had produced before the Tribunal a copy of the report dated 06.09.2022 submitted by the FSI titled “Illegal felling of trees for the establishment of Pakhrau Tiger Safari, Uttarakhand.” He had also filed the subsequent communication between the Forest Officers of the Department. The Tribunal after taking note of the material placed before it had held as under:

¶17

¶18

“xxx …………………………..…xxx……………………………………….xxx 4. From the above, it is seen that illegality in cutting of trees is clearly acknowledged. Thus, accountability needs to be fixed for such violations and damage to environment restored, following due process of law.

¶19

5. Accordingly, we constitute a three-Member Committee comprising DG, Forest Department, ADG, Wildlife Department and ADG, Project Tiger to identify the violators and the steps required for restoration of environment. Its report with specific recommendations may be furnished to the Secretary, MoEF&CC within one month and steps for further course of action in the matter be finalised within next one month. Till then the Project may not be allowed to proceed.

¶20

6. The action taken report be filed by the MoEF&CC on or before 31.1.2023 before the Registrar General of this Tribunal by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF. If any further direction appears to be necessary, the Registrar General, NGT may place the matter before the Bench for further direction.”

¶21

The review applicant’s plea is that he was working as CCF, Garhwal Pauri, and had exercised administration over 4 forest circles and 20 forest divisions. Further, he pleads that he was not heard at any stage, either by the NGT or by any authority, but he has been served with the show cause notice by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and has been subjected to criminal investigation, though there is no fault on his part.

¶22

Counsel for the review applicant submits that the report of the three-member Committee formed by the NGT is treated as final, though the applicant had no opportunity of hearing at any stage. On the basis of the said report, the ED served the show cause notice upon the applicant, and the applicant is being subjected to criminal investigation.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the respondent has not disputed the above facts.

¶24

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is noticed that in pursuance to the order of the NGT dated 21.10.2022, the three member joint Committee constituted by the NGT

¶25

¶26

had prepared the report dated 24.02.2023 wherein it had recorded as under:

¶27

“xxx ………………………………xxx……………………………………xxx 4. Construction of buildings at Saneh

¶28

As reported in the report submitted by the IRO, Dehradun, Next to Saneh Forest Rest House an eco-park (0.5 ha) was in existence on forest land. The work was being executed by DFO Kalagarh outside his jurisdiction In more than double the area of the eco park and changed the layout plan for tourism facility at Saneh. Despite objections from DFO Lansdowne and CF (Annexure24) the work permission were granted by Sri Sushant Patnaik, CCF Garhwal. Proposal was to construct four cottages, a dormitory, parking area etc. on the said area. Similarly identical four double storey buildings each having four rooms were under construction at Pakhrau Forest House Complex, Morghatti Forest Rest House Campus and Kugadda Forest Camp, Palean Range, Kalagarh Tiger Reserve.

¶29

Violations:

¶30

Section 26-1 (f) and (h) of Indian Forest Act 1927.

¶31

Section 2(2) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

¶32

Officers Responsible :

¶33

Sri Sushant Patnaik (the then CCF Garhwal) for allowing the execution of work despite objections from DFO and Sri Kishan Chand (the then DFO Kalagarh) who executed the work.”

¶34

In the above joint committee report, the applicant has been found

¶35

to be one of the officers responsible for the violation. The applicant has disclosed that the joint Committee had submitted the report to the MoEF&CC and the said report was considered by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in W.P. No. 178/2021(PIL) and connected PIL wherein the High Court on 06.09.2023 had observed as under:

¶36

“xxx ………………………………xxx……………………………………xxx 17. Considering the gravity of the matter, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi has also took this matter suo motu and registered as Original Application No. 748 of 2022, " In re : news item published in the Newspaper "The Hindu" dated 02.10.2022, "Over 6,000 trees illegally cut for Tiger Safari Project in Corbett Reserve, says FSI report".

¶37

18. The National Green Tribunal had directed to constitute a three member Committee comprising DG, Forest Department, ADG, Wildlife Department and ADG, Project Tiger to identify the violators and the steps required for restoration of environment.

¶38

¶39

xxx ………………………………xxx……………………………………xxx

¶40

23. As per report dated 24.02.2023, Mr. Akhilesh Tiwari, DFO Kalagarh, Mr. Rahul, Conservator of Forests/Director, Mr. Jabar Singh Suhag, Chief Wildlife Warden and then Forest Minister have been found responsible for their illegal works. Apart from these provisions, Mr. Braj Vihari Sharma, Forest Range Officer/SDO, Mr. Kishan Chand, DFO, Mr. Sushant Patnaik , the then CCF, Ga rh wal, Mr. Mathura Singh Mavdi, Forest Range Officer and Mr. L.R. Nag, SDO have also been found responsible.

¶41

xxx ………………………………xxx……………………………………xxx

¶42

27. In view of the serious allegations against the higher authorities of the State, merely suspending some officers and keeping the matter pending by giving charge sheets to them does not come under the purview of concrete action in any way. The State Government, vide letter dated 09.11.2021, has instituted an open Vigilance Inquiry. But, the said Inquiry is still pending. In these circumstances, we cannot remain a mere bystander or spectator.”

¶43

The High Court by the above order had referred the matter to the

¶44

CBI by observing as under:

¶45

“xxx ………………………………xxx……………………………………xxx

¶46

30. Therefore, the present matter is referred to C. B.I. for proper and uninfluenced investigation in accordance with law.”

¶47

It is undisputed that the applicant was not heard by the NGT when the order under review was passed nor he was a party or heard when the High Court of Uttarakhand passed the order dated 06.09.2023. The review applicant has pointed out that the joint Committee had recorded a finding in paragraph 4 against him on the basis of Annexure-24 of the report of the joint Committee, but Annexure-24 does not contain anything to implicate the applicant.

¶48

Counsel for the applicant has referred to the show cause notice dated 08.03.2024 and the recording of reasons under Section 8(1) of the PMLA by the adjudicating authority dated 07.03.2024 and submitted that action has been initiated against the applicant treating the report of the joint committee final based on the NGT order under review.

¶49

¶50

In the above factual background, it is noticed that the review applicant was not a party in OA No. 748/2022. He was not heard by the NGT when the order dated 21.10.2022 was passed, and the threemember Committee was constituted with a direction to submit the report with the specific recommendation to the Secretary, MoEF&CC and further direction to finalise the steps for further course of action within one month.

¶51

Since it has been pointed out that the authorities are treating the report of the three-member Committee as final and binding by virtue of the order of the NGT dated 21.10.2022 passed in OA No. 748/2022, therefore, it is clarified that the NGT in the order dated 21.10.2022 passed in OA No. 748/2022 has not recorded any finding against the review applicant and, therefore, the findings recorded in the report of three members joint Committee dated 24.02.2023 can not be treated as final and binding qua the review applicant on the basis of above order of the NGT. We make it clear that we have not entered into the merits of the controversy. Hence, the concerned authorities will duly examine the merits of the matter and arrive at their conclusion on the basis of the material produced before them.

¶52

The Review Application is accordingly disposed of.

¶53

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶54

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶55

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶56

November 19, 2024 Review Application No. 7/2024 In Original Application No. 748/2022 dv..

¶57

News Item Published in the Newspaper the Hindu Dated 02.10.2022 Titled Over 6000 Trees Illegally Cut for Tiger Safari Project in Corbett Rese Rve Says Fsi Report vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

News Item Published in the Newspaper the Hindu Dated 02.10.2022 Titled Over 6000 Trees Illegally Cut for Tiger Safari Project in Corbett Rese Rve Says Fsi Report vs

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

Gourav Taneja vs Municipal Corporation

Navnath Andre Kankonkar (Gomes) vs Moef

Arun Kumar Sharma vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Nand Lal vs Dharmendra Tomar and Kapil Pandey

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka

Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Other Environmental Issues. vs

Salman Miya vs

Dr Sharad Gupta vs

News Item on India'S Sinking Islands Appeared in the Hindu 19.03.2023 vs

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

M C Mehta vs Union of India

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka

Court on Its Own Motion vs State of Karnataka