National Green Tribunal
News Item Titled "Deforestation For ... vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Registered ... on 28 May, 2025
Item Nos. 19A to 19C Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 59/2024
(IA No. 137/2024, IA No. 136/2024)
News item titled "Deforestation for mining resumes in Hasdeo locals
activists allege detention" appearing in The Hindu dated 22.12.2023
WITH
Original Application No. 128/2024
News Item titled "Activists allege thousands of trees felled in Hasdeo for
coal mining" appearing in www.downtoearth.org.in dated 04.01.2024
WITH
Original Application No. 133/2024
News item titled "हसदे व में पेड़ों की कटाई, टीएस ससिंहदे व ने कहा-सीएम ववष्णुदेव
साय खुद आददवासी, जरूर समझेंगे जल जिंगल जमीन का अस्तित्व" appearing in ETV
Bharat.com dated 26.12.2023
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order: 29.04.2025
Date of Pronouncement of order: 28.05.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Respondent: Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate (Through VC) with Mr.
Kunal Verma, Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha & Ms. Yasha Goyal, Advs. for R
-4
Mr. Upender Thakur, Adv. for MoEF & CC (Through VC)
Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. for the State of Chhattisgarh
Mr. Abhinay Sharma, Ms. Deeksha Prakash & Ms. Parul Khurana, Advs.
for CECB (Through VC)
Ms. Shalini Gera, Adv. in I.A No. 136/2024 (Through VC)
Ms. Shibani Ghosh, Adv. in I.A No. 137/2024 (Through VC)
ORDER
1. This order will govern the disposal of the above three original applications since the issue involved therein is the same. 1
2. OA No. 59/2024 was registered suo motu based on the news item titled "Deforestation for mining resumes in Hasdeo, locals, activists allege detention" appearing in The Hindu dated 22.12.2023.
3. The news item alleges deforestation for mining in the Hasdeo forest in Chhattisgarh and consequential protest in Sarguja District by locals and activists. It also records the claim of the local administration that it had all the necessary permissions to go ahead with the deforestation. The news item clarifies the protest against the cutting of trees by the Forest Department to clear the land for mining in Parsa East Kete Basan (PEKB) Phase-II, which is a coal block allotted to Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam (RRVUN) - the power generation company of the Rajasthan Government.
4. The OA No. 128/2024 was registered based on another news item titled "Activists allege thousands of trees felled in Hasdeo for coal mining"
appearing in www.downtoearth.org.in dated 04.01.2024.
5. The OA No. 133/2024 was registered on the basis of yet another news item titled "हसदे व में पेड़ों की कटाई, टीएस ससिंहदे व ने कहा-सीएम ववष्णुदेव साय खुद आददवासी, जरूर समझेंगे जल जिंगल जमीन का अस्तित्व" appearing in ETV Bharat.com dated 26.12.2023.
6. Since all three original applications are registered suo motu and involve the same issue, therefore, the Tribunal had tagged them together and, by common order dated 21.03.2024 had impleaded the respondents and had issued notices to them. Replies on behalf of the respondents have been received.
2
7. IA No. 136/2024, an intervention application in OA No. 59/2024 were filed on behalf of Hasdeo Aranya Bachao Sangharsh Samiti.
8. Another intervention application being IA No. 137/2024 was filed in OA No. 59/2024 by one Dr. D.S. Srivastava, resident of Jharkhand.
9. The Counsel for the interveners in both the IAs on 04.09.2024 had submitted that they only intended to assist the Tribunal during the final argument in the matter therefore, the Tribunal by order dated 04.09.2024 had kept the IAs pending for that limited purpose by observing as under:
"1. I.A. No. 136/2024 seeking intervention has been filed by Hasedo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti and I.A. No. 137/2024, an application of similar nature has been filed by one Dr. D. S. Shirivastav. Counsels for the applicants in both the I.A. have submitted that they only intend to assist the Tribunal during the final argument in the matter and there is no other prayer. Hence the IA's are kept pending for that limited purpose."
10. An objection has been raised by Counsel for Respondent No. 4 that the same issue is pending before the Chhattisgarh High Court and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and this issue has already been decided by the NGT, therefore, the Tribunal should not go into that issue at this stage.
11. The Counsel for the interveners have opposed it and advanced their arguments.
12. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the aforementioned objections.
13. The issue involved in these OAs has already been considered by the Central Zonal Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 05/2025(CZ) in the matter of Anita & Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. registered on the basis of complaint in a letter petition sent by citizens action group of India 3 complaining about illegal felling of more than 15,000 trees in Hasdeo forest in District Korba and Sarguja in the State of Chhattisgarh for carrying out proposed coal mining project of Parsa East Kete Basan.
14. The Tribunal in OA No. 05/2025(CZ) had constituted a joint Committee with direction to submit factual and action taken report. The Members of the joint Committee had visited the site and submitted the report.
15. The Tribunal while disposing of the OA has considered the report of the joint Committee wherein the requisite permissions were noted by the joint Committee and it was found that the permission for Phase-II coal mining operations was accorded by the MoEF&CC on 02.02.2022 and the State of Chhattisgarh on 25.03.2022 followed by the consequential orders by APCCF (Production) and CCF Sarguja. The Central Zonal Bench of the Tribunal, therefore, reached to the following conclusion in that OA:
"xxx .........................................xxx....................................xxx
6. In view of the above due permission has been taken by the authorities concerned for the project and cutting of the trees. Accordingly, no violation has been reported in the joint committee report thus, no further action is required by this Tribunal. However, we direct the Project Proponent that the necessary plantation must be done to maintain the ecology in the area."
16. Thus, the issue involved in these OAs has already been examined by the Tribunal in the matter of Anita & Anr. (supra).
17. That apart, it is also undisputed that the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510/2023, in the matter of Sudiep Shrivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors. with the following parties and the prayer is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
PARTIES Petitioner:4
1. Sudiep Shrivastava Respondents:
1. Union of India through Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change
2. State of Chhattisgarh
3. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited
4. Parsa Kente Collories Limited
5. Rajasthan Collieries Ltd.
Prayer(s) in Writ Petition (C) No.510 of 2023 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India are as under :-
a) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to Direct the State of Chhattisgarh to notify entire Hasdeo Aranya as conservation Reserve u/s 36 A of the, Wildlife Protection Act 1972;
b) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to stop mining in PEKB Coal Block of the Hasdeo Aranya and to restore the area in its original form;
c) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to quash the Mining Permission Dated 02.02.2021 granted for Phase II PEKB Coal Block of the Hasdeo Aranya by MoEFCC;
d) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to, quash the Mining Permission Dated 25.03.2022 granted for Phase II PEKB Coal Block of the Hasdeo Aranya by State of Chhattisgarh;
e) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to quash the Forest Issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to quash the Forest Land Diversion Order Dated 06.04.2022 granted for Parsa Coal Block of the Hasdeo Aranya by State of Chhattisgarh;
f) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to quash the Stage I Forest Clearance Dated 13.02.2019 and Stage II Forest Clearance Dated 21.10.2021 granted for Parsa Coal Block of the Hasdeo Aranya by MoEF & CC;
g) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to quash the Environment Clearance Dated 10.08.2018 granted for PEKB Coal Block of the Hasdeo Aranya by MoEFCC;
h) Issue an appropriate Writ/Order/Direction to quash the Environment Clearance Dated 12.07.2018 granted for PEKB Coal Block of the Hasdeo Aranya by MoEFCC.5
18. There is yet another writ petition on the same subject matter pending before the Chhattisgarh High Court. The Respondent No. 4 along-with the affidavit dated 21.04.2025 has also placed on record a copy of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1346/2016 in the matter of Forest Right Committee vs. Union of India & Ors. The details of the parties and the prayer clause in that petition are as under:
PARTIES Petitioner:
1. Forest Rights Committee, Ghatbarra (Deleted)
2. Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti
3. Jainandan Singh Porte Respondents:
1. Union of India through Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change
2. Union of India through Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Govt of India
3. State of Chhattisgarh
4. District Level Forest Rights Committee, Surguja
5. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited Prayer(s) in Writ Petition No.1346 of 2016 (As Amended) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Chhattisgarh High Court are as follows:-
(i) Set aside the order dated 08.01.2016 issued by Respondent no.4.
(ii) hold that the Rights granted under The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights Act), 2006 cannot be cancelled or revoked;
(iii) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit be granted;
(iv) Set aside the order dated 02.02.2022 issued by Respondent R-
1, aside the consequential orders dated 25.03.2022 and 05.05.2022 issued by Respondent State Government R-3.
19. A perusal of the copy of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 510/2023 pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a copy of Writ Petition 6 (Civil) No. 1346/2016 pending before the High Court of Chhattisgarh reveals that the issue involved in the present OAs is substantially covered by the issue involved in the writ petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Chhattisgarh. Hence, in such circumstances, the Tribunal would not be justified in taking up the parallel proceedings by examining these OAs on merit.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta & Anr. reported in (2024) 1 S.C.R. 973 :2024 INSC 30, in the case where the NGT had issued directions even though the matter was seized before the High Court in a Writ Petition, has held that:
"xxx .....................................xxx..........................................xxx
109. In view of the settled legal position, we are of the view that the continuation of the proceedings by the NGT during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court was not in conformity with the principles of judicial propriety. Needless to state that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, insofar as its territorial jurisdiction is concerned, has supervisory jurisdiction over the NGT. Despite pendency of the proceedings before the High Court including the one challenging the interim order dated 12th May 2022 passed by NGT, the NGT went ahead with the passing of the second order impugned herein.
110. It will also be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (Member of Parliament) (supra), which read thus:
"13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed out that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the overs passed by the statutory tribunals."
111. It can be seen from the perusal of the orders of the NGT itself that though the NGT was informed about the High Court being in seisin of the proceedings, it went on to hold that the judgment given by it was binding and therefore, the draft development plan, which 7 in its view, was not in conformity with its judgment, was liable to be set aside."
21. Thus, in view of the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also it would not be proper to go into the merits of these OAs by continuing the parallel proceedings.
22. So far as the IA No. 136/2024 is concerned, the submission of Counsel for the intervener is that he is not questioning the forest clearances, but confining the issue to compliance with the clearance conditions.
23. It has been pointed out by Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 that the proposed intervener Hasdeo Aranya Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, is one of the writ petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1346/2016 which is pending before the Chhattisgarh High Court, wherein several IAs were already filed and rejected by the High Court. In any case, the Applicant, being one of the writ petitioners in the pending writ petition before the High Court, has the opportunity to file the appropriate application in that writ petition. Hence, this issue need not be gone into by the tribunal at this stage.
24. Submission of Counsel for the proposed intervener in IA No. 137/2024 is that there is no valid order under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 presently in force. The Central Zonal Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of Anita & Anr. (supra) has already recorded that the due permission was taken by the authorities concerned for the project and for cutting of the trees and no violation was reported in the joint committee. That apart, if the intervener has any such grievance, he can raise the same in the pending writ petition.
8
25. In view of the above analysis, we do not find any justification to proceed with the present OAs. No further orders in the OAs are required.
26. The OAs and pending IA's are accordingly disposed of.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM May 28, 2025 Original Application No. 59/2024 (IA No. 137/2024, IA No. 136/2024) and connected matters dv..
9