Anil Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The present application is filed by Sri Anil Kumar Singh, a resident of Harmu Housing Colony, Po: Doranda District, Ranchi, Jharkhand State who is a Range Forest officer in Social Forestry Range at Chauparan, Hazaribag District in Jharkhand State.

The applicant has sought for direction to the Govt. respondents No. 1-21 for implementation of the forestry works strictly as per the prescriptions of the working plan duly approved by the Govt. of India for which office order has been issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jharkhand in its office order vide Memo No. 1792 dated 15.04.14.

The facts of the case as seen from the averments in the application is that the Chief Conservator of Forest, Development, Bihar issued an office order vide No. 92 dated 19.12.1995 constituted different committees for regions like Ranchi, Singhbhum, Palamu, Hazaribag, Tug, Muzaffarpur etc. with a direction that site where the forest related plantation work is required to be undertaken will be decided by the respective regional committee.

The aforesaid office order was amended by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jharkhand vide order No. 59 dated 15.04.14 constituting separate committees region-wise with a specific direction that the plantation works being carried out in forest land in different forest divisions as selected by the committees shall confirm to the working plan approved by Govt. of India. The order further states that no Divisional Forest Officer is authorised to start the afforestation work without getting the site being approved by the respective committees.

During 2008, the Govt. of Jharkhand, Dept. of Forest and Environment issued Letter No. 1183 dated 10.04.08 to the Principal Chief Conservator of forest, Jharkhand and Deputy Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Development (upper) Jharkhand wherein it is stated in Para- 6(III) that Forest Range wise physical target of the works to be fixed in such a manner that development works in all the ranges of the State are performed in equitable and proportionate manner and employment may be generated for unemployed rural persons in an equitable manner. The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Development, in Letter No. 977 dated 10.08.07 issued order to fix the financial targets for each forest division first followed by fixing the physical target.

It is the allegation of the applicant that from the financial year 2014-15 ending with 2017-18 sites for Soil Conservation-cum-Afforestation Schemes (other expenditure) have been finalised for the plantation on degraded forests as well as for Lac plantation in different forest division against the respective physical target but this physical target has not been distributed equitably between different divisions which is the basic policy of the Govt. of Jharkhand. Following table reveals such unequitable distribution of plantation work.

Sl No.

Forest Division

Deggraded Forests (Ha.)

Lac Plantations (Ha.)

1

Medininagar Forest Division, Medininagar.

300

100

2

Gorhwa North Forest Division, Garhwa

100

3

Garhwa South Forest Division, Garhwa

150

4

Latehar Forest Division, Latehar

50

100

5

Social Forestry Division, Garhwa

300

6

Social Forestry Division, Latehar

100

7

Social Forestry Division, Koderma

340

Total:

1340

200

For plantation in forest land, the fund withdrawal is subject to the approval of sites by the respective committees. However, the applicant would state that although working plan for the Koderma forest Division which consists of four forest ranges has not been approved as yet, but the physical target has been fixed.

The other allegation of the applicant is relating to the approval of Plantation site of the Social Forestry Division, Koderma by the Committee headed by the Regional Chief Conservator of Forest, Hazaribag. A question has also been raised by the applicant is that as per the resolution of the State Government it is the mandate of the Social Forestry using of the Forest Department to execute the forestry works outside the notified area, but the authorities are allotting the funds to the Social forestry wing for plantation works inside the notified forest areas (protected forests) for personal gain. His allegation is against one Divisional Forest Officer, named Sri Ramesh Prasad Kamal, Social Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Koderma, the Respondent No- 20 who, in complete violations of the office orders of the State Government and authorities is distributing the work of physical targets between forest ranges under him with sole motive of getting his illegal gratification fulfilled from the Ranges under his Jurisdiction and neglects the Chauparan range where the applicant is a Range officer, as the applicant is not obliging Mr. Kamal for illegal gratification.

The applicant further alleged that silvi-cultural works allotted to the territorial Forest division by the Respondent No. 4 has no prescription by the respective working plans.

It is the categorical submission by the applicant that any plantation/afforestation activities without following the provisions of the working plans is in contravention to the National Forest Policy, 1982 and any forestry work or afforestation works undertaken in contraventions of the provisions, prescribed in the working plan or without any working plan must be declared as violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

With the pleadings aforesaid, the applicant has made the following prayers for necessary order.

"a. To order for special audit by the Respondent No-21 of the records (specially relating to the objections if any made by the respondents no-13 to 18) and to see whether the orders of the State Government as contained in the Letter No-1183, Va.Pa. Ranchi, dated 10.04.2008 and further order of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Development, Jharkhand as contained in his Letter No- 977 dated 10.08.07 and Letter No-261 dated 17.03.09 for distribution of the forestry works between the forest ranges are done in an equitable manner or not?

b. To order for special audit by the Respondent No-21 of the records (specially relating to the objections made by the respondents no-13 to 18) from the respondent authorities and to see whether the orders of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jharkhand as contained in his Office Order No-59, Ramchi-2 dated 15.04.14 vide Memo No-1792, Ranchi; dated 15.4.14 is being followed or not?

c. To fix the responsibility amongst the officers for acts of commission or omission of the Government Orders and the orders of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Development, Jharkhand and that of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jharkhand leading to violations of the provisions of the Working Plans, National Forest Policy, Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and for distributions of the forestry works between the forest ranges in an arbitrary manners.

d. To issue direction/orders to the respondents to take disciplinary action against the wilful disobedience of the orders of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jharkhand, Ranchi/Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jharkhand, Ranchi/State Government leading to violations of the provisions of the Working Plans, National Forest Policy and/or Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

e. To issue the direction/orders to the authorities to ensure that the forestry works are allotted between the Forest Divisions/Ranges in an equitable manner so that, no regional imbalance be created in the matter of the development works.

f. To issue the direction/order not to post a forest officer to post having not any substantial forestry work to perform.

g. To issue the direction/orders to the authorities to ensure that no forestry work (including Plantation and Silvi-cultural Works) is carried out in the forests which is not in consonance with the prescriptions of the approved Working Plan.

h. Any other order/direction or reliefs as the tribunal may deem fit and proper.

i. To pay the cost of litigation. "

In response to the OA, the State respondents No. 1-21 filed one MA. No. 25/2015/EZ raising following preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the OA.

"i.Section 14 (1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 provide that " (1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all the civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. I, most respectfully state and submit that in view of such provision as laid down in section 14(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the Petitioner has not produced any order or document of the State Government of Jharkhand or Forest Department Jharkhand which indicate the implementation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and as such instant original Application is not at all maintainable and should be dismissed in limini at the admission stage with heavy costs.

ii.I most respectfully state and submit that the petitioner of the aforesaid original application herein is a Gazette officer and employee of the State Government of Jharkhand and working as Range Officer of the Forest Department Government of Jharkhand as he himself has indicated in the aforesaid original Application.

The petitioner of the aforesaid Original Application is governed by the Bihar Government Servants Conduct rules, 1976, which has been also adopted by the Government of Jharkhand.

The Rule 3(iii) of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 provides that "every government servant shall at all times do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government Servant."

Further the Rule 10 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 provides that, " criticism of government - no government servant shall in any radio broadcast or in any document published anonymously, pseudonymously or in his own name, or in the name of any other person or in any communication to the press, or in any public utterance make any statement of fact or opinion (i) which has the effect of an adverse eroticism of current or recent policy or action of the Government of India or the Government of any State."

In this background I most respectfully state and submit that the matter raised by the petitioner of the aforesaid Original Application has neither being raised by the petitioner before the controlling officer/higher officers of the Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand nor he has raised it before the State Government of Jharkhand before filing of the aforesaid original application.

The matter raised in the aforesaid Original Application by the petitioner is not at all concerned with his personal service matter.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances I most respectfully state and submit that the aforesaid Original Application filed by the Petitioner is violative of provisions of Rule 3(iii) and 10 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976.

I further state and submit that all such employees of the State Government file similar cases against the Employer State Government or Central Government, then it will be impossible for the government to perform its duties and as such the instant Original Application is not at all maintainable in this Hon'ble Tribunal and should be dismissed in limine at the Admission stage with heavy costs.

A Xerox Copy of the Rule 3(iii) of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 is annexed herewith and marked as annexure "R-1".

iii.I further state and submit that the Petitioner of the aforesaid Original Application has also being pursuing and appearing personally and regularly in another Original Application No. 14 of 2014/EZB Ram Lakhan Singh - versus- State of Jharkhand and Ors in the National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata.

The Petitioner of the aforesaid Original Application has personally appeared on behalf of the Petitioner of Original Application No. 14 of 2014/EZB Ram Lakhan Singh - versus-State of Jharkhand and Ors, in this Hon'ble Tribunal on 08-09-2014, 14-10-2014, 26-11-2014, 16-12-2014, 06-01-2015 without informing and taking permission of the Controlling Officer and without taking leave from the controlling Officer.

I further state and submit that the Petitioner of the aforesaid Original Application has also not informed the Controlling Officer about his such absence on 08-09-2014, 14-10-2014, 26-11-2014, 16-12-2014, 06-01-2015 from his Official Duty.

I further state and submit that the Petitioner of the aforesaid Original Application has claimed his Salary for the aforesaid absence on 08-09-2014, 14-10-2014, 26-11-2014, 16-12-2014, 06-01-2015 from his Official Duty by fraud as claiming himself to be on duty.

iv.That I, most respectfully submit that in a similar case the Hon'ble High Court, Allahbad Lucknow Bench vide its order in Misc. Case No. 2761 of 2014 dated 09-04-2013 has held that, "we direct the Registry of the High Court, not to entertain any Writ Petition in public interest by any serving public servant including the Petitioner No. 1- Amitabh Thakur in future either in person or through counsel without enclosing written permission given by the competent authority in the state Government. "

The applicant of OA filed the reply to the aforesaid MA objecting to filing such MA by the respondent No. 20 on behalf of the State respondents who has been declared as non-est by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in LPA No. 168/2013. He has also refuted to the other submissions in MA citing the provision of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 and the provision in the Indian constitution.

After hearing both the parties on maintainability the Hon'ble Tribunal dismissed the MA on 18th May 2015 after passing the following reasoned order.

"MA 25/2015/EZ: In this MA filed by the respondents, the state of Jharkhand, raised the issue on maintainability of the OA mainly on two fold grounds - (1) no breach of environmental law has been asserted in the petition with supporting documents; (2) The applicant being a State Govt. servant is not legally entitled to file this application assailing the environmental issue under the Forest Conservation Act before this National Green Tribunal in its Eastern Zonal Bench.

So far as point No.(1) is concerned, it is the subject matter of the OA which is to be dealt with on merit at the time of final hearing. So far as point No. (2) is concerned on maintainability of the Misc. application, it is contended in the MA that rule 3(iii) of Bihar Govt. Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 clearly stipulates that no Govt. servant will do anything which results unbecoming of a Govt. servant. Therefore, applicant is not entitled to file this application which and it will be viewed as misconduct. Similarly, under rule 10 of the ibid rules, no Govt. servant is entitled to criticise the Govt. adversely. By challenging the State action through this petition, the applicant has violated rule 10 and hence he is liable for action for misconduct. Copies of the ibid rules 3(iii) and 10 of Bihar Govt. Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 have been annexed at annexure-R1.

It has been asserted further that if all employees are allowed to challenge State Govt. Actions, then it will be impossible for the Govt. to perform its duties. In support of such submission, ld. Adv. has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in the case : Misc. Bench 2761 of 2014 (Amitabh Thakur & Anr ) dt. 9.4.2014 .

On a bare reading of the judgement it appears that it was a public interest litigation filed by one serving police officer and the issue was relating to strike by the advocates, a basis for filing such PIL. The Hon'ble High Court observed that that applicant was not a busy body or that any substantial public interests involved in the writ petition. It was also observed that the applicant was inter-meddler as he did not had any concern with the cause espoused in the writ petition. It has been observed further as under:-

"We have strong doubt about the bona fide of the petitioner No. 1 in filing so many writ petitions in public interest. He appears to be busy to popularise himself and see his name in the newspapers whenever an order is passed by the Court. The tendencies of seeking such popularity by serving police officer should not only be discouraged but should be treated as an act of misconduct on his part."

It is quite clear that factual parameters and legal issues were different in that judgement as compared to the case in hand. The ratio decidendai of a judgement depends upon the legal issues as reflected from factual matrix involved therein. In the instant case the factual parameters is completely different. Here environmental law is involved and the applicant as a citizen of India has every right to agitate the issue because environmental protection is a constitutional duty of every person/citizen under Article 51(A)(g) of the Constitution of India and there is no distinguishing feature or reason to create two classes, viz. Govt. servant and a private individual to discharge that environmental protection liability. Environment policy does not discriminate this.

In the rejoinder to the MA, the applicant has referred to the Apex Court judgement in contradicting the argument of ld. Adv. for the State of Jharkhand by relying on a Judgement reported in (2014)10 SCC 589 (Vijay Shankar Pandey - Union of India & Anr). He has drawn our attention to paras 43, 44, 46, 47 and more particularly and emphatically to para 50 which reads thus :-

" The right to judicial remedies for the redressal of either personal or public grievances is a constitutional right of the subjects (both citizens and non-citizens) of this country. Employees of the State cannot become members of a different and inferior class to whom such right is not available. The respondents consider that a complaint to this Court of executive malfeasance causing debilitating economic and security concerns for the country amounts to inappropriate conduct for a civil servant is astounding."

In that case before the Apex Court, the appellant Vijay Shankar Pandey, in the cadre of Indian Administrative Service, was charge-sheeted for certain misconduct under rule 8 of All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1968 against which he moved the court. Initiation of departmental proceeding was unsuccessfully challenged in the Allahabad High Court and ultimately it was laid before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above.

Rule 7 of the AIS Conduct Rules is pari materia with Rule 10 of Bihar Govt. servants Conduct Rules, 1976 which are being followed by the State of Jharkhand to discipline their employees. This rules speaks about "Criticism of Government"

The Apex Court in the judgement did not find any ingredients or materials for initiation of disciplinary proceedings on grounds of misconduct. Further, the Apex Court went on to explain the concept of right of a citizen irrespective of his status, whether he is Govt. employee or not by holding that right to judicial remedies for the redressal of either personal or public grievances is a constitutional right on the subjects(both citizens and non-citizens) of this country. Employees of the State cannot become members of a different and inferior class to whom such right is not available.... vide para 50 of the judgement quoted above.

Besides such ld. counsel for the State of Jharkhand emphasized the point further that the applicant Shri Anil Kumar Singh being an employee of the State of Jharkhand master and servant relationship exist and as such he is debarred from contending anything against the master viz. the State Government alleging inaction to follow the environmental law and steps for protection of forest in terms of the forest conservation. This argument is not legally sustainable having regard to the status of the government employee in a democratic country having existence of rule of law and the protection under written constitution. The concept as advanced by the ld. counsel is an old concept which has been obsolete today. In this point the origin of the said doctrine master and servant relationship and the constitutional protection of the government employee was discussed at length by the Apex Court in detail in the case of The Manager, Government Branch Press and Anr. Vs. D.B. Belliappa, reported in AIR 1979 SC 429. The judgment of three judges Bench is profitable to quote for applicability and the logic therein advanced in the instant case though the said case was relating to termination of the government employee without assigning any reason. The paragraph 25 of the said judgment reads as such:-

"25. Another facet of Mr. Verrappa's contention is that the respondent had voluntarily entered into a contract of service on the terms of employment offered to him. One of the terms of that contract, embodied in the letter ofhis appointment is that his service was purely temporary and was liable to termination at the will and pleasure of the appointing authority, without reason and without notice. Having willingly accepted the employment on terms offered to him, the respondent cannot complain against the impugned action taken in accordance with those mutually agreed terms. The argument is wholly misconceived. It is borrowed from the archaic common law concept that employment was a matter between the master and servant only. In the first place, this rule in its original absolute form is not applicable to Government servants. Secondly, even with regard to private employment, much of it has passed into the fossils of time. "This rule held the field at the time when the master and servant were taken more literally than they are now and when, as in early Roman Law, the rights of the servant, like the rights of any other member of the household, were not his own but those of his pater familias." The overtones of this ancient doctrine are discernible in the Anglo-American jurisprudence of the 18 century and the first half of the 20th century, which rationalized the employee. "Such a philosophy", as pointed out by K.K. Mathew J. (vide his treatise: "Democracy, Equality and Freedom", page 326)" of the employer's dominion over his employee may have been in tune with the rustic simplicity of bygone days. But that philosophy is incompatible with these days of large, impersonal, corporate employers." To bring it in tune with vastly changed and changing socio-economic conditions and mores of the day, much of this old, antiquated and unjust doctrine has been eroded by judicial decisions and legislation, particularly in its application to persons in public employment,, to whom the constitutional protection of Arts. 14, 15, 16 and 311 as available. The argument is therefore overruled."

It is settled law now that "access of justice" is a basic fundamental right arising out of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference is made to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) Vs. S.C. Sekar and Ors., reported in 2009(2) SCC 784.

Having regard to the clear verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue, the judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Thakur case (supra) as relied upon by the ld. Adv. for the State of Jharkhand, in our view, is not applicable to the present case. Besides other points, the factual materials and legal questions involved as raised in this OA before this Tribunal are entirely different than the Thakur case (supra) Environmental law and its jurisprudence are completely of different magnitude, dimension and concept. Environment is required to be protected by everyone and under Art. 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, every citizen has a duty and obligation to protect environment. Art. 51 A(g) reads thus :-

"It shall be the duty of every citizen of India -

a)

*** ***** ***

g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures;....."

Art. 48-A of the Constitution mandates that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment to safeguard the forest, lakes, rivers and wildlife of the country. Art. 51-A(g) mandates that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures. These two articles are not only fundamental in the governance of the country but also it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws and further these two articles are to be kept in mind in understanding the scope and purport of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution including Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and also various laws enacted by the Parliament and the State Legislatures.

The responsibility of the State to protect the environments is now a well-accepted notion in all countries. This has now been accepted as the principle of "State Responsibility". This responsibility is clearly enunciated in the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm 1972 (Stockholm convention) to which India was a party. It was held that "the natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate". Therefore, great responsibility is bestowed upon the Govt. to protect and preserve the environment.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Intellectuals Forum -vs- State of AP, (2006) 3 SCC 549 has very elaborately dealt with various issues relating to environment protection including the issue of "Public Trust Doctrine". In that case the Apex Court referred to earlier views expressed in the case of M.C.MEHTA -V- Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, M.I. Builders (P) Ltd -vs- Radhey Shyam Sahu, (199) 6 SCC 464 and the judgement of Supreme Court of California in National Audubon Society Superior Court of Alpine Country , 33 Cali 419, also known as Mono Lake case. Hence, inaction of State to follow constitutional mandate to protect environment could be raised to any court of law/tribunal for remedial measures by any citizen of India irrespective service status.

Having regard to the findings and observations, particularly the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Shankar Pandey's case (supra), we are of the confirmed view that the applicant is entitled to move this OA before this Tribunal for protection of environment and challenging the breach of environment laws and being a Govt. servant his right to seek remedy with regard to environmental protection which cannot be taken away in the name of discipline. As is enshrined in the Constitution and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court right to environment is a constitutional right available to all citizens equally be he a private citizen or a Govt. servant. By being a Govt. servant his status cannot be lowered down and no restriction can be imposed upon him to exercise his right to seek remedy before court of law to protect environmental breach. No disciplinary action is called for against him by the Govt. for his such action in accordance with law nor Bihar Govt. Servant Conduct Rules can be invoked for the purpose.

In view of the observation, the MA filed by the State of Jharkhand stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs. "

Subsequently the State respondents filed a supplementary affidavit refuting the contention of the applicant as false and misleading. On the allegation on fall of productivity of forests in the State of Jharkhand, the respondents would submit that forest cover during 2011-2013 has grown by 496 sq.km as per Forest survey of India's biannual report. The allegation about felling of the trees in the Forest is also refuted as in the State of Jharkhand no felling is being done by the forest department without the approval of the Central Government. Regarding bringing uniformity on plantation as contended by the applicant, the State respondents would submit that the Central Government does not provide any specific prescription about the plantations for the purpose of bringing uniformity across the country. It is also their submission that the afforestation and plantation of trees is being done on the forest land which is either blank or barren or vacant forest land and the portion of forest land which is having trees is never used for planting of trees. They further clarifies that any plantation activity which don't involve clear felling of the trees is not prohibitive as per the provision of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The Govt. respondents would further clarify that clearing of unwanted bushes and other shrubs for undertaking plantation is not a violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 nor of any direction of the Supreme Court as Forest (Conservation) Act provides for restriction of felling of trees only. With regard to the contention of the applicant that Social Forestry work cannot be undertaken in Forest area, the respondents would submit that the Govt. resolution No. 1879 dated 29.04.2013 doesn't prohibit Social Forestry division to work in forest area. It is also their submission that the provision of a Chapter in working plan for plantation work doesn't mean that it cannot be done without prior approval of Central Govt. Plantation activity in a forest land without involving any cutting of tree is not at all a violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

In their further supplementary affidavit filed by the State respondents on 08.11.15, they have annexed the approval of the Union Govt. vide letter No. 12(31)26/2014/_FCE/168 dated 06.11.15 of the working plan prescriptions of the Koderma Forest Division for the year from 2013-2014 to 2022-23.

Having heard the applicant and the respondents and having perused the documents annexed we are of the view that we have only the Jurisdiction in the matter of violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and any other matter contended by the applicant not related to the provision of Forest (Conservation) Act doesn't become the part of our adjudication process.

The provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, at Paragraph 2 restrict the dereservation of Forests or use of Forest land for Non-forest purpose which reads as under.

"Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing-

(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;

(iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;

(iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. Explanation - For the porpose of this section, "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for-

(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants;

(b) any purpose other than reafforestation; but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes."

Therefore, as per 2(IV) no naturally grown trees shall be allowed to be cleared in a forest land for the purpose of using it for afforestation.

At no point of time, the applicant has alleged that there is felling of trees in the forest area for undertaking plantation work thereby violating the provision of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980. The submission of the applicant that there is no approval of working plan of Koderma Forest Division is now negated with the approval from 2013-14 to 2022-23. The content of the letter of approval to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of Jharkhand being Letter No. 12(31)26/2014-FCE/168 dated 6th November 2015 reads as under.

" Sub: Approval of Working Plan of Koderma Forest Division for the year 2013-14 to 2022-23 Ref: PCCF letter No.2756 dated 20.08.2015 Sir, With reference to the above I am directed to convey the approval of the Central Government in accordance with the powers vested under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in respect of Working Plan prescriptions of the Koderma Forest Division for the period 2013-14 to 2022-23 with the following General and Specific Conditions.

The approval of the Working Plan shall be for a period of 10 years i.e. from 2013-14 to 2022-23.

All the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and various Rules and Guidelines issued under the Act shall be strictly enforced.

All the prescriptions prescribed in the working plan regarding regeneration, protection and development of the forest area will be strictly complied with and any change in the prescriptions of working plan will be treated as deviation for which prior approval of competent authority will be obtained.

All the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or other courts as applicable shall be strictly complied with.

Any prescriptions or operations at variance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India shall be kept in abeyance till the order is in force or otherwise modified.

No felling shall be carried out without allocating necessary fund for implementation of regeneration operation so as to make regeneration commensurate with felling. In the event of failure in regeneration or any shortfall in carrying out regeneration operation, no further felling shall be undertaken until the failure/shortfall is made up.

No clear felling system should be followed for raising new plantation areas.

Geo referenced maps of the different working circles should be prepared and the same to be submitted at the earliest.

Plantation details of the last ten years have been given in Appendix-X. However, the current status (conditions of plantation and survival) may be provided. The GPS surveyed boundary locations shown on a map or geo referenced maps may be submitted, so that chances of mismanagement, confusion, encroachment and problem of identification of the sites are reduced.

All new future plantation details in year wise breakup with 10 years period along with geo referenced maps or GPS/DGPS readings in the index/management map may be submitted. The areas under RDF and ANR may also be incorporated in the working plan with map.

Places of continued failure of natural regeneration of more than 1.00 hectares shall be re-stocked by artificial methods coupled with suitable soil/moisture conservation measures.

The Department should prepare a programme for DGPS survey of forest boundaries and/or prepare geo-referenced maps with important administrative and management details.

In the rehabilitation working circle no sequence for rehabilitation has been fixed. The area should be rehabilitated in a block during a particular year to be selected by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer after proper survey keeping in view the conditions of forests/availability of funds and other local conditions.

In some cases it is observed that RF/PF notification is still pending. Action should be taken to complete the notification process in a time bound manner.

In working circles where no felling has been prescribed, only salvage felling of dead trees, thinning and singling of stock and cutting and resizing of deformed or pollarded rootstock will be permitted with sound silvicultural principles.

No non forestry activity will be done without obtaining prior approval under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The rainfall data is given for last 10 years. However, the number of rainy days in each month of the last 10 years may also be provided and the same is to be incorporated in the working plan.

General Conditions:

Implementation of the Working Plan shall be in strict compliance to Hon'ble Supreme Court of India's order in W.P.No.202/95, Godaverman Therumulkpad Vs Union of India and related Interlocutory applications.

Further, in strict compliance with Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 22.09.2000, the State Govt. of Jharkhand shall ensure that regeneration of forest is commensurate with felling, if any permitted to be carried out under the present working plan. Consequently no felling should be carried out without making allocation of requisite funds for undertaking regeneration operation in order to ensure regeneration is commensurate with felling. In case of failure of regeneration or any shortfall in reaching the target of regeneration, further harvesting shall remain suspended till failure/shortfall in regeneration is made up.

List of all felling i.e. removals from the forests including that of dead, dying and diseased trees as well as that of meeting demands under "Right and concession" granted to people and all illicit felling shall be complied annually. The stand volume of trees so felled shall be estimated with the help of volume table that has been used for estimating grown stock. This report shall be prepared annually working circle and compartment wise by the Working Plan Officer and shall be submitted to the Conservator of Forests, Working Plan within two months at the end of control year in a proforma to be prescribed by the Conservator of Forests, Working Plan for that purpose.

The State Government shall ensure availability of the required fund for all operations prescribed under Working Plans prior to the beginning of working season shall provide the required fund to the Forest Department by the beginning of the financial year.

Specific Conditions:

The prescriptions under the proposed working circles i.e. Coppice with Standard working circle, Rehabilitation working circle, Plantation working circle, Protection working circle, Wildlife Conservation (overlapping) working circle, NTFP (Over lapping) Working circle, JFM (Over Lapping) working circle are approved with observations stated above and with specific condition that:

"No forest bearing, naturally grown trees shall be clear felled for any purpose what so ever.

If any felling operation is carried out in forest area by the department or corporation, benefit as per JFM resolution of the State of Jharkhand will be strictly implemented."

Central Govt. reserves the right to review, modify or withdraw this approval at any time if any of the conditions of approval are not implemented or relevant modifications in the Working plan is required so as to keep it in conformity with the orders, circulars and guidelines issued by the Central Govt. under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or any other statute and National Forest Policy.

The State Government shall ensure the compliance of conditions No. 8, 10, 12 and 14 within a period of one year. "

A bare reading of this letter of approval clearly reveals that the Central Government is vested with powers under Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 in respect of working plan prescriptions and the prescriptions prescribed regarding regeneration, protection and development of the forest area will be strictly complied with. Any change in the prescriptions of working plan will be treated as deviation for which prior approval of competent authority will be obtained. There are also general & specific conditions which are to be mandatorily followed & implemented by the State authority. Thus it is clear that whenever and wherever there is working plan approved by the Union Government, the working plan prescriptions along with other terms & conditions are to be mandatorily followed and implemented by the State. In the absence of any approval of working plan of a forest division, the provision of Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 along with the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court if any, in the matter of forest management are mandatory.

With the above observation the OA is disposed of. No order as to cost. The applicant is at liberty to approach the tribunal in the event of any violation of the approval order of the Union Government or direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Thus the Application is allowed to the extent discussed above and disposed of. No order as to costs.