1. Vinod Kumar Sharma @ Brijmohan v. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secreatry

NGT2 Jan 2025Original Application No. 200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench noted illegal saw mills in Rajasthan violating Supreme Court guidelines on forest conservation and deforestation. It observed repeated inaction by the State and directed a transfer of the matter to the Principal Bench in New Delhi for pan-India policy consideration.

What the court decided

AI extract

1. Vinod Kumar Sharma @ Brijmohan vs State of Rajasthan… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶4

Vinod Kumar Sharma Applicant(s)

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of Hearing: 02.01.2025

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

For Applicant(s): Mr. Naveen Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Devesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ankita Parmar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sagar Jindal, Adv. Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shoeb Hasan Khan, Adv.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Issue raised in this application is running of illegal Saw Mills in the villages of Tehsil – Lalsot, District - Dausa, Rajasthan which is giving rise to felling of trees both in forest area as well as in the revenue area as several saw mill owners are continuously flouting the settled environmental principles by illegally carrying out sawing activities in the area in question.

¶12

It is further alleged that these saw mills are operating illegally without the permission of the concerned authorities. The electricity connections have also been obtained by these saw mills illegally and there has been a massive cutting of trees damaging the forest and green cover.

¶13

Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Civil Original Jurisdiction Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 12.12.1996 considered the term Forest as defined

¶14

¶15

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶16

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶17

in Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance directed the authorities as follows:-

¶18

We further direct as under:-

¶19

I - GENERAL

¶20

1. In view of the meaning of the word “forest” in the act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any “forest”. In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on- going activity within any forest in any state throughout the country, without the prior approval of the central government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are nonforest purposes and are, therefore not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Accordingly any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith.

¶21

2. In addition to the above, in the tropical wet evergreen forests of Tirap and Changlang in the State of Aurnachal Pradesh, there would be a complete ban on felling of any kind of trees therein because of their particular significance to maintain ecological balance needed to preserve bio-diversity. All saw mills, veneer mills and plywood mills in Tirap and Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh and within a distance of 100 Kms. from its border in Assam should also be closed immediately. The State Governments of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam is to ensure compliance of this direction.

¶22

¶23

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶24

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶25

3. The felling of trees in all forests is to remain suspended except in accordance with the Working Plans of the State Governments as approved by the Central Government. In the absence of any Working Plan in any particular State such as Arunachal Pradesh, where the permit system exists, the felling under the permits can be done only by the Forest Department of the State Government or the State Forest Corporation.

¶26

4. There shall be a complete ban on the movement of the cut trees and timber from any of the seven NorthEastern States to any other state of the country either by rail, road or water-ways. The Indian Railways and the State Governments are directed to take all measures necessary to ensure strict compliance of this direction. This ban will not apply to the movement of certified timber required for defence or other Government purposes. This ban will also not affect felling in any private plantation comprising of trees planted in any area which is not a forest.

¶27

5. Each State Government should constitute within one month an Expert Committee to :

¶28

(i) Identify areas which are “forests” irrespective of whether they are so notified, recogniged or classified under any law, and irrespective of the ownership of the land of such forest;

¶29

(ii) Identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared and

¶30

(iii) Identify areas covered by plantation trees belonging to the Government and those belonging to private persons.

¶31

¶32

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶33

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶34

6. Each State Government should within two months, file a report regarding –

¶35

(i) the number of saw mills, veneer and plywood mills actually operating within the State, with particulars of their real ownership;

¶36

(ii) the licenced and actual capacity of these mills for stock and sawing;

¶37

(iii) their proximity to the nearest forest; (iv) their source of timber.

¶38

7. Each State Government should constitute within one month, an Expert Committee to assess:

¶39

(v) the sustainable capacity of the forests of the State qua saw mills and timber based industry;

¶40

(vi) The number of existing saw mills which can safely be sustained in the State;

¶41

(vii) The optimum distance from the forest, qua that State, at which the saw mill should be located.

¶42

Modernisation, industrialization and phenomenal increase in human population have augmented the demand for wood and wood-based products. Being dependent upon wood they create direct or indirect pressure upon trees and forests. So to regulate their operation and to check their excessive proliferation several laws, rules, enactments and guidelines have been framed. All of them have their bases in the provision of Indian Forest Act, 1927. Different States have framed separate set of rules pertaining to them. Proper control and regulation over saw mills and woodbased industries is necessary for Sustainable Forest Management and Environmental balance.

¶43

¶44

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶45

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶46

It is a settled rule that no person shall establish, erect or operate any sawmill or machinery for converting or cutting timber and wood without obtaining a license from the Divisional Forest Officer concerned. The rule makes use of the word timber, which as per the interpretation Clause 2(6) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 includes trees when they have fallen or have been felled and all woods, whether cut up or fashioned or hollowed out for any purpose or not. The rules also lay down that within the limits of any reserved or protected forest and within the radius of Eighty kms. of such limits, no person shall establish, erect or operate any existing sawmill or machinery for converting timber and wood without obtaining a license from the Divisional Forest Officer concerned.

¶47

Despite all the rules and strictures most of the States faced the problem or possibility of mushrooming of illegal sawmills, which was considered detrimental to the cause of Forest Conservation and Vegetative cover. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed a landmark Interim Order in its hearing in Writ Petition (Civil) no. 202 of 1995 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad versus U.O.I. and others [with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 171/96]. Making specific observations upon non-execution of orders of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 it ordered on 12-12-1996 as follows:-

¶48

“In view of the meaning of the word "Forest" in the act it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non- forest activity within the area of any "Forest". In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all ongoing activity within any forest in any State throughout the country without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are therefore not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Accordingly any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the

¶49

¶50

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶51

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶52

Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith.

¶53

Para 6

¶54

Each State Government should within two months file a report regarding-

¶55

(i) the number of sawmills, veneer and plywood mills actually operating within the State with particulars of their real ownership.

¶56

(ii) the licenced and actual capacity of these mills for stock and sawing.

¶57

(iii) their proximity to the nearest forest. (iv) their source of timber.

¶58

Paragraph 7

¶59

Each state government should constitute within one month, an Expert Committee to assess:

¶60

(i) the sustainable capacity of the Forests of the State qua saw mills and timber based industry.

¶61

(ii) the number of existing saw mills which can safely be sustained in the State.

¶62

(iii) the optimum distance from the forest qua that State at which the saw mill should be located.”

¶63

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Interim Order passed on 04-03-1997 in Writ Petition (Civil) 202/1995 titled T.N. Godavarman Vs Union of India & Ors. ordered as follows:

¶64

"All unlicenced sawmills, veneer and plywood industries in the State of Maharastra and the State of Uttar Pradesh are to be closed forthwith and the State Government would not remove or relax the condition for grant of permission/licence for the opening of any such saw mill, veneer and plywood industry and it shall not grant any

¶65

¶66

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶67

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶68

fresh permission/licence for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of the State will ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks."

¶69

The Role of the Central Empowered Committee On 30-10-2002 the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order as follows:

¶70

"No State or union Territory shall permit any unlicenced saw mill, veneer, plywood industry to operate and they are directed to close all such unlicenced units forthwith. No State Government or Union Territory will permit the opening of any saw mills, veneer or plywood industry without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee. The Chief Secretary of each State will ensure strict compliance of this direction. There shall also be no relaxation of rules with regard to the grant of licence without previous concurrence of the CEC. It shall be open to this court for relaxation and or oppropriate modification or orders qua plantations or grant of licences."

¶71

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its hearing in W.P. (C) no. 202/1995 held on

¶72

30-10-2002 ordered as follows:

¶73

“No State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicenced sawmill, veneer, plywood industry to operate and they are directed to close all such unlienced units forthwith. No State Government or Union Territory will permit the opening of any sawmills, veneer or plywood industry without permission of the Central Empowered Committee. The Chief Secretary of each State will ensure strict compliance of this direction. There shall also be no relaxation of rules with regard to the grant of licence without previous concurrence of the CEC. It shall be open to apply to this Court for relaxation and or appropriate modifications of orders qua plantation or grant of licences.

¶74

The Central Empowered Committee in its report dated 01-09-2005 submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court recommended as follows:

¶75

¶76

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶77

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶78

(a) a seniority list of plywood/veneer units operating in the State of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal (part of undivided UP) on the strength of "No Objection Certificate" issued by the Forest epartment prior to 04-03-1997 may be prepared after verifying the validity and genuineness of such No Objection certificate.

¶79

(b) after accessing timber availability qua capacity of existing licenced saw mills depending upon the availability of timber the existing plywood/veneer units may be granted licence on the principle of first come last go. The units found not eligible for grant of licence may be closed.

¶80

(c) the electricity connection of all unlicenced units shall be disconnected their machinery shall be dismantled and the various registration etc. issued to such units shall be cancelled by the respective authorities.”

¶81

Important orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) 202/1995 T.N. Godavarman Vs U.O.I. & Ors. are as follows:-

¶82

Sl *No.*	*Date of Hon'ble* *SupremeCourt's* *order*	*Case reference*	*Order* in *brief* *(pertaining to U.P.)*
1.	12-12-96	Writ petition (C) No. 202 of 1995	Ban was imposed upon felling in forest.
			All those forestry
			works which had not been approved by the
			Central Goernment
			were ordered to be stopped. The meaning of "Forest Land" and the word "Forest" was
			clarified. The State
			Govts. were ordered
			to constitute Expert

¶83

¶84

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶85

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶86

			Committees. Each
			State Govt. was directed to file within two months a report regarding the number of saw mills and plywood mills actually operating within the State with particulars
			of their real
			ownership, their
			proximity to the
			nearest forest, their source of timber.
2.	04-03-97	writ petition(C)	All unlicenced saw
		No. 202 of 1995	mills, veneer and
			plywood industries in
			the State of
			Maharashtra and the
			State of U.P. are to be closed forthwith and
			the State would not
			remove or relax the
			condition for grant of permission/licence for
			the opening of any such saw mills, veneer and plywood industry
			and it shall also not grant any fresh
			permission/licence for this purpose. The Chief Secretary of the State will ensure strict compliance of this direction and file a compliance report within two weeks.

¶87

¶88

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶89

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶90

3.	08-05-97	writ petition(C)	P.C.C.F. may, on a
		No. 171 of 1996	case to case basis
		and 597 of 1996	consider grant of
			permission to an existing licenced saw mill to relocate itself,
			provided that the relocated site is not within 10 Kms. of any existing forest. The Forest Corporation may with prior permission of PCCF remove dead or dry trees for supply in the same manner in
			depot to people residing in these
			areas. The Forest Corporation shall undertake such activity itself without engaging outside agencies.
4.	05-05-98	IA Nos. 60, 166, 291, 276,	Trees along road and railways to be
		385	excluded from Forest's
			definition for
			relocation. The State Govt. was allowed to
			amend the relevant rules in accordane with the law keeping in view of various orders
			and directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time.
5.	24-01-2002	Jawahar Lal	The appeals are
		Sharma and others Vs DFO,	allowed and disposed of by directing that the

¶91

¶92

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶93

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶94

		U.P. and others	prayer for renewal of
		with civil appeal no. 669 of 2002 (Arising out of SLP (c) dd No. 4694/2001)	the licence made by each of the applicants shall be dealt with by the competent authorities of the State in accordance with law. In doing so, the authorities shall keep in view the directions issued or which may
			be issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India from time to time.
6.	30-04-2002	I.A. No. 664	The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside
			amendment of the Establishment and Regulation of Saw Mill
			Rules made by the
			State on June 26,
			1998 in so far as it
			exempted saw mills
			using mechanical
			devices up to 3 H.P. from obtaining licence.
7.	09-05-2002		Order of Notification for Constitution of Central Empowered Committee.
8.	22-10-2002	IA. No. 301, 382held by various saw mills of U.P. Many of them had deposited	The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the IAs treating such saw mills as unlicenced saw mill. While dismissing the IAs the
		the licence fee	PCCF, U.P. Forest
		from time to time	Department was

¶95

¶96

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ) Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶97

		but were not	directed to file the
		issued	details of the saw
		any licence.	mills which have been closed and dismantled.
9.	29/30-10- 2002	writ petition(C) No. 202 of 1995	No State or Union Territory shall permit
			any unlicenced saw
			mill, veneer, plywood
			industry to operate
			and they are directed
			to close all such
			unlicenced units
			forthwith. No State
			Govt. or Union
			Territory will permit the
			opening of any
			sawmills, veneer or
			plywood industry
			without prior
			permission of the
			Central Empowered
			Committee. The Chief
			Secretary of each State
			will ensure strict
			compliance of this
			direction. There shall
			also be no relaxation
			of rules with regard to
			the grant of licence
			without previous
			concurrence of the
			CEC. It shall be open
			to apply to this Court for relaxation and or appropriate modifications of orders
			qua plantation or grant
			of licences.
10.	06-05-2003	IA No. _129, _	The I.A.s were

¶98

¶99

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶100

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶101

		132, 135, 139,	dismissed by the
		175, 178, 447-	Hon'ble Supreme
		452, 461 & 464 filed by the various saw mills of the State of U.P. against the closure of the	Court.
		saw mill in purported compliance of the Hon'ble
		Court's order dated 04-03-1997
11.	01-08-2003	I.A. 946	The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed PCCF, U.P. to file fresh affidavit giving saw mill wise details of each of the saw mills closed pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 04-03-97.
12.	25-08-2003	I.A. No. 942 (Recommendation s of CEC in I.A.s	The Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected all the applications observing that the exemption
		Nos. 822 &	provided under Rules
		919and IA No. 937	12 does not entitle the applicants to use
		(recommendation S of CEC in	powered saws which are nothing but saw
		IA Nos. 211,	mills for sawing of
		214, 216, 455,	timber irrespective of
		468, 140, 153,	their claim that this is
		505,508 and	to be used only for
		179-183)	carpentry purposes and

¶102

¶103

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ) Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶104

			not for commercial purposes.
13.	01-09-2006	I.A. No. 1399	Most of the
		andIA No. 1569 withI.A. No. 946 in I.A. Nos 301- 382in writ etition (c) 202/95	recommendations made by CEC through letter dated 01-09- 2005 accepted. "In this view we direct the suspension of all
			1607 saw mills in
			respect of which
			licences were renewed after 4th March 1997. The State Government would ensure that the saw mills do not operate."
			"A seniority list of plywood/veneer units operating in the State of Uttar Pradesh and
			Uttaranchal (part of undivided U.P.) on
			the strength of 'No Objection Certificate'
			issued by the Forest
			Department prior to
			04-03-1997 may be
			prepared after
			accessing timber
			availability qua
			capacity of existing
			licenced saw mills
			depending upon the
			availability of timber
			the existing
			plywood/veneer units
			may be granted
			licence on the
			principle of first come

¶105

¶106

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶107

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶108

			last go. The units
			found not eligible for
			grant of licence may be closed. the
			electricity connection of all unlicenced units shall be disconnected, their machinery shall be dismantled and
			the various registrations etc
			issued to such units shall be cancelled be the respective authorities"
14.	18-05-2007	IAs 1399 in	The matters relate to
		946in 301-	Saw mills and
		382 and	Plywood and
		IA 9 in SLP	veneer. The CEC has
		(c) 24951-	considered the
		24954/2005	availability of wood
			forindustries which
			was assessed as
			43.70 lakh cu.mt.
			from trees outside
			Forests and 2.00
			cu.mt. from
			Government Forests.
			It also assessed the
			units into four
			categories. We accept
			the CEC’S
			recommendations. The
			saw mills may be
			permitted on the
			basis of recommendations
			made by the CEC.
			Licences may be
			given on the basis

¶109

¶110

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶111

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶112

			of recommendations
			made by the State
			Level Committee. If
			there are any
			objections regarding
			grant of licences,
			the parties would be at
			liberty to submit their
			applications before
			the CEC for
			consideration.
15.	27.07.2007	I.A. No.	Those saw mills which
		I.A.1873	have been functioning
		1399 in	right from 1983 and
		petition	some of them who
		202/95	claim to be
			functioning from
			1985 to 1997 and
			which are included in
			category IV of the
			CEC report, may
			submit fresh
			applications before
			the appropriate
			authorities for
			running their saw
			millsand the
			appropriate authorities
			shallconsider the
			availability of wood
			and if sufficient wood
			is available they
			may be granted
			fresh licences,
			subject to such
			terms and conditions
			as are and/or may
			be prescribed.
16.	21.11.2008	I.A Nos. 2160-	The applicants are

¶113

¶114

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶115

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶116

2161 in 1399,	transferees of saw
2185 in I.A.	mills which were
728,2248-2249	either not given
in 1694,2254,	licences or these saw
2280, 2284-	mills were not being
2286,2314-	operated. CEC has
2315, 2316-	filed a report and has
2317, 2323-	suggested that along
2324, 2325-	with other
2327, 2376-	applications received
2377, 2383-	for renewal, subject to
2385, 2393-	availability of timber
2394 in W.P. (c)	in the State of U.P.
No. 202/1995	and after meeting the
WITH W.P. (C)	requirement of licence
NO. 23/2008,	of wood based
W.P.(C) NO.	industries in the units
24/2008, W.P.	covered by CEC
(C) NO. 33/2008	report dated
W.P. (C) NO.	6.5.2008 in
131/2008, W.P.	I.A. No. 2185 in 728
(C) NO.	of the wood based
522/207, W.P.	industries and in
(C) NO.	terms of the orders
116/2007	passed by this Court
	on 18.5.2007 and
	27.7.2007, these
	applications will also
	be considered. The
	applications for
	licence may be
	considered by the
	CEC within a period of three week

¶117

In the case in hand in the State of Rajasthan there are repeated reports by the Forest Department to the Electricity Department to stop the connection

¶118

of electricity of those persons who are operating the illegal sawmills without

¶119

¶120

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶121

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶122

any permission from the competent authority, but the action has not been taken.

¶123

It is further reported that more than 274 sawmills are in operation without any authority in the Tehsil-Lal Sot District-Dausa and there are more in other districts also but no steps are being taken by the state authorities and matters requires consideration for a similar parameter applicable to all the states (Pan-India level) in view of the orders and guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, matter requires to be considered by Principal Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chairperson for considering to transfer this case at Principal Bench, New Delhi and to take it as a matter of policy to be applicable pan-India level.

¶124

In view of the importance of the matter and grievance of some of the group of the respondents, we further request Hon’ble the Chairperson to take up the matter as policy matter at Principal Bench, New Delhi. Parties are directed to remain there as directed by the Principal Bench or on 03^rd February, 2025.

¶125

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶126

Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶127

02^nd January, 2025 O.A. No. 200/2023 (CZ) PN

¶128

¶129

O.A. No. 200/2023(CZ)

¶130

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.

1. Vinod Kumar Sharma @ Brijmohan v. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secreatry

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

1. Vinod Kumar Sharma @ Brijmohan v. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secreatry

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srinivas M Mehta vs State of Goa through the Chairman Goa State Pollution Control Board

Omveer Singh vs Purvanchal Projects Private Limited

Sushil Chaudhary vs

Kamlesh Singh vs

News Item Titled "Air Quality Alert Gujarat Has 15 SO2 Hotspots" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 03.12.2024 vs

Akhilesh Kumar vs District Collector

Jay Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Muheeudeen vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Dr Srikanta Samanta vs State of West Bengal

Jugal Maheshwari vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Sonu Pandey vs State of Madhya Pradesh