National Green Tribunal
Daniel Sukumardas vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2021
Bench: K Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No.3:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 129 of 2021 (SZ)
&
I.A. No. 88 of 2021(SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Daniel Sukumardas
....Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondent(s)
th
Judgment Pronounced on: 30 September, 2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.
Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw for Mr. Darpan K.M for R3
& R4
Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay for R5
ORDER
Judgment pronounced through Video Conference. Application is disposed of with directions vide separate Judgment. All pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of, in view of the disposal of the Application.
.................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) .............................E.M. (Shri. Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No129/2021(SZ)& I.A. No. 88 of 2021(SZ) 30th September, 2021. AM.
1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI Original Application No. 129 of 2021 (SZ) & I.A. No. 88 of 2021(SZ) (Through Video Conference) IN THE MATTER OF:
Daniel Sukumardas Aged about 52 years, 42, 3rd Mail Road, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore- 560060 ... Applicant(s) With
1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bag Road, New Delhi- 11003
2. MoEF Regional Office (SZ) Through Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (C) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change 4th Floor, E&F, Wings, Kendriya Sadan 17th Main road, Kormangala II Block Bangalore- 560034 .
3. State of Karnataka Through Chief Secretary Room No. 320 3rd Floor, Vidhanasoudha Bangalore- 560001
4. Karnataka Forest Department Through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoEF), Aranya Bhavan Malleswaram Bengaluru
5. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited Through Chairperson Opposite Railway High School (EM), 2 Gadag Road, Hubli, Dharwad, Karnataka- 580020 ..Respondent(s) For Applicant(s): Mr. Ritwick Dutta For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.
Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw for Mr. Darpan K.M for R3 & R4 Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay for R5 Judgment Reserved on: 23.09.2021 Judgment Pronounced on: 30.09.2021 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER JUDGEMENT
1. The grievance in this application is regarding cutting of huge number of trees along the forest land without complying with the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for Kulem-Mudgoan Railway Doubling Track in Karnataka State by the 5th respondent.
2. It is alleged in the application that the 5 th respondent had applied for conversion of 14.045 ha. forest land in Devalli, Kalambuli and Konaset Villages Joida Taluk of Uttara Kannada district, Karnataka State (Haliyal Forest Division and Kali Tiger Reserve) for doubling of Tanaighar-
Castlerock-Carzon railway line and 1.9089 ha. of private land for Kulem Madgaon Railway Doubling track and 120.875 ha. of forest for Castlerock to Kulem Railway Doubling track and 15.6077 ha. of forest land for Kulem- Mudgoan railway doubling track.
3. According to the applicant, the conversion of land cumulatively for this purpose would come to 148.8416 ha. across Karnataka and Goa States for 3 doubling the track of Tanaighar-Castlerock-Carzon railway of South Western railways in the pristine wet evergreen Western Ghats forest and the MoEF&C had issued four stage-I Forest Clearance dated 04.02.2021 for this purpose which was produced as Annexure-A-1 series. Out of this 148.8416 of forest land 10.45 ha. is situated in State of Karnataka and the remaining area is situated in Goa State.
4. According to the Learned Counsel for the applicant the destruction of Castlerock landscape which is the water catchment of many rivers like Mahadayi (Mandovi), Dhudhganga, Malaprabha and Ghataprabha and this will have impact on millions of people in North Karnataka and Goa. The proposed construction of this railway lines passes through Bhagawan Mahaveer National park and Wildlife Sanctuary in Goa and Kali Tiger Reserve in Karnataka (declared as World Heritage Site as per UNESCO under Man and the Biosphere Programme) and both are protected areas under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. As per the notification issued by MoEF&CC under Forest Conservation Act, 1980 dated 14.03.2014, Regional Office shall seek prior clearance of MoEF&CC whenever the proposal involves clear-felling of forest land involving tree felling above 10ha. in hilly region and consent of the grama sabhas under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Since, the project is passing through notified Eco Sensitive Areas of the Western Ghats, the said project requires clearances under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
5. The granting of Stage-I clearance dated 04.02.2021 under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 does not confer any right upon the project proponent to fell and clear trees. As per the Guidelines issued by the MoEF&CC vide letter dated 28.08.2021, linear projects after Stage-I clearance still require an order of the State Government before commencing work of felling trees. So, 4 according to the applicant mere granting of Stage-I clearance granted to the project would not entitle the project proponent to fell over 1.2 lakhs heritage trees from the project area across Karnataka and Goa by using articulated machineries to enable the double tracking of the railway line.
6. It has been held by this Tribunal in Milind Pariwakam Vs. Union of India and Ors- O.A. No. 52 of 2015 that "no non-forest activity in the Forest Area that is covered under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 would be permitted to be carried on in any manner whatsoever unless an order has been passed by the Competent Authority of the State Government and put in the public domain by putting it on its website and complying with other requirements in accordance with law". In Vimal Bhai & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.- Appeal No. 7 of 2012 vide order dated 07.11.2012 has stated that activities carried out without the order of the State Government are void ab initio and observed as follows:
However, a party cannot be remediless, a person who is aggrieved by the Approval/Clearance granted by the Central Government has to avail an opportunity to assail the same. In the aforesaid scenario it can safely be concluded that after receiving a Stage - I and/or Stage - II Clearance, thereby granting a consent 35 to permit use of forest land for non-forest purposes, from the Central Government, it is incumbent upon the State Government to pass a reasoned order transferring and/or allowing the land in question for being used for non forest purpose. It is needless to be said that bereft or such order no forest lands can be put to use for non-forest purpose. Further, all activities done without such orders would be ab initio void. An Appeal can be filed against the said order of the State Government under Section 2 (A) of FC Act and/or under Section 16 (e) of the NGT Act. In the event such an Appeal is filed it would be open for the person aggrieved, to assail the order/Clearances granted by the Central Government under Section 2 of the Act which forms an integral part and sole basis of the order passed by the State Government.
(Emphasis Added)
7. According to the applicant, permission granted was in violation of the National Forest Policy of 1988 and against the orders in T.N. Godavarman Thirumalapad Vs. Union of India and Ors. (M.A. No. 1167 of 2015 (I.A. No. 3620/2013) in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995) the authorities have not considered the impact of the project on the eco-sensitive zones and also the directions issued by the 5 Government in respect of the ecological sensitive areas of Western Ghats in the year 2013 produced as Annexure- A-5.
8. According to the applicant the forest clearance was granted against the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. So, the applicant filed this application seeking following reliefs:
i. Direct the respondents to not commence felling of trees until the concerned authority of the State Government has passed an order.
ii. Direct the respondents to undertake a study of the cumulative impact of the entire project.
iii. Direct respondent no. 5 to conduct a survey to identify alternative sites for the project.
iv. Pass any other orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter affidavit contending that in order to protect and conserve the forest and the matter connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto, the Parliament has passed the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which came into force from 25.10.1980. As per Section 2 of the Act for the purpose of conversion of forest land for non-forest purpose, prior clearance from the MoEF&CC has to be obtained even for the projects envisaged by the State Governments. The Hon'ble Apex Court in W.P. No. 202/1995 by order dated 12.12.1996 observed that the word 'Forest' must be understood according to the dictionary meaning and also the term 'Forest Land' occurring in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation), 1980 will not only include forest as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government records irrespective of ownership or classification thereof. As per Sub Rule 4 (a) of Rule 6(4) of Forest (Conservation) Rule, 2003 (as amended in 2017) proposal involving forest land up to forty hectares and all proposals related to linear projects irrespective of the area of forest land involved, shall be 6 forwarded by the concerned State Government or the Union Territory Administration, as the case may be along with its recommendations to the concerned Regional Office.
10. The subsequent rule says that Regional Office shall refer all proposals involving forest land above 5 hectares and up to forty hectares, proposals relating to mining, encroachments, and hydel projects involving forest land up to 5 hectares, and all proposals related to linear projects which are complete in all respects, including site inspection report, wherever required, to the Regional Empowered Committee within ten days of receipt of proposal from the State Government or the Union Territory Administration, as the case may be. The Regional Empowered Committee shall within a period of thirty days examine the proposal referred to it and after such further enquiry as it may consider necessary, grant in principle approval to the proposals other than proposals relating to mining, encroachment and hydel projects subject to fulfilment of stipulated conditions, or reject the same and the Regional Office shall communicate the decision of the Regional Empowered Committee to the Concerned State Government or the Union Territory Administration, as the case may be within next five working days. On the basis of the report submitted by the Regional Empowered Committee of Regional Office, Bangalore and as per the recommendations and approval of Regional Empowered Committee, the 1st respondent had granted in principle approvals (Stage-I) for the following projects vide letter dated 04.02.2021:
1. Diversion of 1.9089 ha of forest land for Kulem-Madgaon Railway Doubling Track under South Goa Forest Division in favour of (South Western Railways) Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd.
2. Diversion of 15.6077 ha of forest land for Kulem-Madgaon Railway Doubling Track under Wildlife & Eco-Toursim (North) and North Goa Forest Division in favour of (South Western 7 Railway) Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd.
3. Diversion of 120.875 ha of forest land for Castlerock to Kulem Railway Doubling Track under Wildlife & Eco-Tourism (North) and North Goa Forest Division in favour of (South Western Railway) Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd.
4. Diversion of 10.45 ha of forest land in Devalli, Kalambuli and Konashet villages in Kyasalaraka Hobli, Joida Taluk, Uttara Kannada District ( Haliyal Forest Division and Kali Tiger Reserve) for doubling of Tinaighat-Castlerock-Carzon Railway Lane (Southern Western Railways) in favour of Chief Engineer (Construction), Club Raod, Keshwapur, Hubbali, Dharwad District.
11. The action taken by this respondent is based on the delegation of power conferred in Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 as mentioned above. Though, three different proposals were submitted by the Government of Goa and one proposal by Government of Karnataka, these proposals were considered in its entirety during the Regional Empowered Committee meeting held on 25.02.2020 and 27.01.2021. As per para 11.2 of comprehensive guidelines issued by this respondent, consequent to grant of stage-I approval in respect of linear projects such as laying of new roads, widening of existing highways, transmission lines, water supply lines, optic fiber cabling, railway lines etc. by the Central Government under Forest Act, the State Government or a Senior Officer not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer, having jurisdiction over the forest land proposed to be diverted, duly authorized in this behalf by the State Government can pass an order for tree cutting and commencement of work of a linear project in forest land for a period of one year subject to full realization of funds for compensatory afforestation, net present value, wildlife conservation plan, plantation of dwarf species of medicinal plants, and all such other compensatory levies, specified in the Stage-I (in-principle) approval from the User Agency, and wherever applicable, transfer and mutation of non- forest/revenue forest land in favour of State Forest Department. 8
12. So, the tree felling can be carried only with permission of the designated officer authorised by the State Government and with the fulfilment of the conditions stated above. If the project proponent had commenced the operation without obtaining the necessary permission, then they will be liable for the prosecution under relevant State Act and Rules. The Regional Empowered Committee in its meeting dated 27.01.2021 noted that the existing railway line is more than 100 years old and is in need of upgradation not only from Railway's perspective to cater to emerging needs, but also to incorporate needs of wildlife passage. So, while approving the projects, Regional Empowered Committee had stipulated following additional conditions:
The mitigation measures as proposed by Wildlife Institute of India (WII) in Tinaighat to Caranzol stretch of the forest needs to be strictly adhered to.
The mitigation measures as proposed by CES, IISc in Caranzol to Kulem stretch of the railway track must be implemented for safe passage of animals.
Suitable soil moisture conservation works needs to be taken up on either side of the track, wherever vulnerable. To address the apprehensions of the people as well as to prevent spillage of ore, coal, etc, all the rakes of the freight trains shall have a spill proof/sealed cover, while being transported.
The Management Plan of the National Park and Wildlife Sanctuary, which is under preparation, shall include the implementation and monitoring of the mitigation measures suggested by the CES, IISc, Wildlife Institute of India and CWLW based on which approval of NBWL has been accorded. Further, provision for long term monitoring of the impact of the project, the effectiveness of the mitigation measures under taken and analysis of course-corrections required if any should be part of the Mangaement Plan to ensure long time well-being of the forest & Wildlife.
The Railway authorities shall issue standing instructions to its staff and officers concerned to closely co-ordinate and co- operate with the local State Forest Department officials during and after the project implementation.
13. The Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife in its 56 th meeting held on 17.12.2019 had recommended the proposal for doubling of railway passes through Bhagavan Mahaveer Wildlife 9 Sanctuary and National Park subject to certain conditions. Further, the 60th meeting of Standing Committee of National Wildlife Board held on 05.01.2021 has recommended the railway doubling project passes through Kali Tiger Reserve subject to certain conditions. They have stipulated additional mitigative measures including soil moisture conservation on either side of the track, wherever vulnerable to minimize negative impacts on hydrology of the area. In pursuance to the order of National Green Tribunal dated 15.02.2016 in M.A. No. 1167 of 2015, the respondent had constituted a Committee vide O.M. No. 11/04/2016-RE-ESZ dated 15.09.2017 to conduct a comprehensive study to assess the carrying capacity of the Western Ghat Region in the State of Karnataka to sustain the projects proposed in the region. Accordingly, Committee has conducted the study and submitted its report to the respondent for further action. While granting Stage-I approval, this respondent had stipulated that suitable mitigation measures are to be undertaken in vulnerable areas on either side of the track. As per EIA Notification, 2006 railway projects are exempted from requirements of environment clearance. Railway line/upgradation is not prohibited as per the notification dated 13.11.2013 issued by this respondent.
14. The Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife in its meeting held on 05.10.2020 has considered the recommendations made by the National Tiger Conservation Authority and based on the recommendation of National Tiger Conservation Authority, the Standing Committee for National Board for Wildlife has decided to request Director, Wildlife Institute of India to conduct a detailed study for prescribing mitigation measures in the terrain. Wildlife 10 Institute of India has conducted a study and proposed certain mitigation measures which is part of the condition stipulated while according Stage-I approval. The total number of trees enumerated in the forest in Karnataka portion is 5639 (3542 trees in area proposed for diversion and 2097 trees existing of right way of the present railway line) and in Goa portion, it is 22,882. As per the tree enumeration carried out by the State Forest Department number of trees existing in the project area is 28,8521 only. Though, the proposal were given in different applications for the same projects, all these were comprehensively considered by the Regional Empowered Committee and it is thereafter, recommendation were made taking into consideration the mitigation measures and recommended the project on the basis of which Stage-I clearance was granted by the 1st respondent. So, there is no illegality committed and they prayed for dismissal of the application.
15. 5th respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the application is not maintainable. The allegation that the 5th respondent has indulged in illegal felling of trees subsequent to the grant of Stage I approval dated 04.02.2021 is without any merit and without referring to any evidence in corroboration of the same.
16. The 5th respondent had sought diversion of forest land of an area of 10.45 ha from the three villages of Devalli, Konashet and Kalambuli for undertaking doubling of the railway line. The permission for felling trees was granted by the State Government dated 28.04.2021 for the villages of Devalli and konashet which amounts to an area of 0.88 ha falling within the Reserve Forest pursuant to acquiring stage-I clearance on 04.02.2021 by the Regional Office of MoEF&CC. The said permission was granted in compliance with the office 11 memorandum of MoEF&CC dated 28.08.2015 which clearly says that this can be treated as a permission under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the purpose of tree felling and this is liable to be challenged under Section 16(e) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 by way of an appeal and not filing application under Section 14 and 15 of the Act. Since, the respondent had already obtained permission for felling of trees for an area of 0.88 ha, the instant original application has become in fructuous to that extent and that order was produced as annexure-R1.
17. The order of the State Government of Karnataka in accordance with MoEF&CC letter dated 28.08.2015 is pending for the remaining area of 9.57 ha that falls in the village of Kalambuli within Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary for which no tree felling has been undertaken by the respondent. So, there is no merit in the application in respect to this portion of the area regarding the allegation of felling of trees.
18. The Competent Authority, Assistant Forest Conservator Officer, Dandeli passed an order permitting felling of 2097 trees standing on railway land between Channel 21/900 to 30/020 in Kalambuli village located within Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary vide order No. B4/Land/Railway Doubling/Cr-8/2021-22 dated 30.04.2021. The above order pertains to trees standing on railway land within Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary, but it does not include the trees standing on proposed 9.57 ha of Forest land under diversion within Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary and the order dated 30.04.2021 of the Assistant Forest Conservator Officer, Dandeli was produced as annexure R-2. The said order dated 30.04.2021 has now been put on hold by the Assistant Conservator of Forest and Director, Kali Tiger Reserve, Dandeli vide letter dated 06.05.2021 where he advised 12 a complete status quo for both forest and non-forest land that comes within the doubling project which is produced as annexure R-3. This order is also under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by way of writ petition (PIL) No. 8607/2021. The allegations that they are proceeding with the cutting of trees without obtaining necessary permission under Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and without obtaining permission from the Forest Department after obtaining Stage-I approval are all not correct and hence denied.
19. The application has been filed without impleading State of Goa through which major portion of the railway line passes. There is no merit in the application and the same is not maintainable and the remedy of the applicant is to challenge the same before this Tribunal by way of an Appeal and not by way of an application. No felling of trees has been undertaken on forest land where no permission has been granted and also in view of the letter dated 06.05.2021.
20. This being a public project intended for providing ease access the 5th respondent had deposited the amounts as required under the National Forest Policy as net present value and compensation afforestation in CAMPA account of both State of Karnataka and Goa. The allegation regarding its impact on wildlife etc are not correct as the concerned authorities have considered these aspects and issued necessary recommendations and clearances and they will be cutting trees strictly in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Apex Court constituted Expert Committee is yet to submit its report regarding the criteria or parameter for assessment of undertaking for felling of trees. They already deposited the amount as directed by the authorities. The Tribunal in Hira Singh Markam & Ors. Vs. Union of 13 India 1 by order dated 14.08.2018 dismissed the challenge to the order of the State Government of Chhattisgarh granting Forest Clearance on the ground that the consent of the Gram Sabha has not been obtained by stating inter alia, that Forest Rights Act, 2006 does not fall under the Schedule of the Acts in the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
21. According to the respondent, there is no bonafide on the part of the applicant in filing the application and they prayed for dismissal of the application.
22. When the matter came up for hearing on 23.09.2021 both the Learned Counsel for the applicant and the 5th respondent submitted that in view of the latest development, there is no possibility of cutting trees arises and the Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant as well as 5th respondent submitted that the matter can be disposed of accordingly leaving open the right of the parties to challenge the subsequent orders or including the Stage-I approval granted in accordance with law.
23. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the 5th respondent had applied for conversion of forest land for non forest purposes for their project mentioned in the application which falls within the jurisdiction of State of Karnataka and State of Goa. It is also in a way admitted that the Regional Office of MoEF&CC has granted stage-I approval subject to certain conditions as per order dated 04.02.2021 by proceedings no. F.No.4-KRC1227/2020-BAN/1171 in respect of Karnataka area and as per proceeding no. F. No. 4- GOB/205/2019-BAN-1182 dated 04.02.2021 in respect of Goa area. According to the 5th respondent certain permission has been granted 1 Appeal No. 83 of 2014 14 in respect of 0.88ha of land by the forest department in two villages and as regards the Kali Tiger Reserve project area is concerned permission was granted by the Assistant Conservator of Forest by order dated 30.04.2021. The question as to whether the Stage-I approval granted is appealable or not by virtue of the Office Memorandum issued by the MoEF&CC. The 5th respondent also produced certain documents to prove that they have deposited the respective amount for afforestation under the respective CAMPA account for State of Goa and Karnataka. We are not concerned about the dispute in respect of felling of trees in State of Goa but we are only concerned about felling of trees for this project in State of Karnataka alone.
24. It is an admitted fact that as per order dated 28.04.2021, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Haliyal Division granted permission in respect of 0.88 ha of land alone and Assistant Conservator of Forest by order no.B4/Bhoomi/Railway doubling/CR-8/2021-22 dated 30.04.2021 granted permission for removal of 2097 trees falling in railway lines for this project with certain conditions. It is also an admitted fact later, the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Haliyal Division, Haliyal by their proceedings no. 01/GFL/Tinaighat Railway doubling/CR/2021-22 dated 06.05.2021 passed the following order:
No. 01/GFL/Tinaighat Railway doubling/CR/2021-22 Dated: 06.05.2021 To, Range Forest Offcier, Tinaighar Division, Tinaighat Subject: Stop felling of trees for Railway doubling work from Tinaighat to Castlerock Chainage from 21+550 to 21+900.
Reference, (1) General Manager, Civil, rail Vikas Nigam Ltd, Hubballi, Letter No. RVNL/PIU/UBL/Belgavi Works/Forest Department dated 23.04.2021.
(2) Letter from this officer No.D1/GFL/Railway Line 15 doubling/CR/2021-22/223 dated 28.08.2021. (3) Central Empowered Committee Letter No. F. No. 1-
19/CFC/SC/2020-pt(5() dated 23.04.2021 *** As per reference (1) Additional General Manager, Civil, Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd, had asked for permission to cut down the trees which are obstacle at Tinaighat-Caranzol route. The letter from our officer reference No. (2) had given permission to cut 181 trees which are obstacle for railway route.
But the report of CEC, reference (3) in its recommendation to the honourable Supreme Court had stated " to revoke the permission granted by the Standing Committee of National Baord of Wildlife for doubling of the railway track passing through ecologically sensitive western ghats from Tinaighat-Castlerock in Karnataka to Kulem in Goa".
In this regard it is directed to stop removal of trees and maintain the status quo until further order is issued by the Supreme Court.
Deputy Conservator of the Forest, Haliyal Division, Haliyal Copy to,
1. Assistant Conservator of Forest, Ganeshgudi, for information and further necesation action.
2. Additional General Manager, Civil Railway Vikas Nigam limited, Hubli for information and further necessary action.
25. So, it is clear from this that all orders passed in respect of this project were directed to be kept in abeyance and the project proponent was directed to maintain status quo until further orders are passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. According to the Learned Counsel for the 5th respondent, it is not known as to when the Hon'ble Apex Court will pass orders in this regard on the basis of the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee appointed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in Goa Foundation case. But he fairly conceded that without getting modification of the order dated 06.05.2021 mentioned above, they may not be able to proceed with the project and submitted their liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum may be left open. The Learned Counsel for the applicant also submitted that their right to challenge the orders passed in respect of felling trees or any conversion permission granted under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 including Stage-I approval may be left open in view of the subsequent developments, the 5th respondent cannot proceeding with the project. So under such circumstances, the Tribunal feels 16 that without going into the merits of the case and also going into the contentions raised by the applicant as well as the 5th respondent, the application is disposed of by giving following directions:
(i) The 5th respondent is directed not to proceed with the felling of trees in view of the directions issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Haliyal Division, Haliyal vide their proceedings nos. 01/GFL/Tinaighat Railway doubling/CR/2021-22 dated 06.05.2021 till it is modified or set aside by subsequent order by appropriate authority.
(ii) The right of the 5th respondent to challenge the same or apply for necessary modification in accordance with law is left open.
(iii) The right of the applicant to challenge the Stage-I approval granted or any subsequent order passed by the Forest Department in this regard before appropriate forum in accordance with law is also left open.
(iv) Considering the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs in the application.
(v) The Registry is directed to Communicate this order to the official respondents for their information and compliance of the directions.
26. With the above directions and observations, the application is disposed off.
.....................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) ................................E.M. (Shri. Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No.129/2021(SZ)& I.A. No. 88 of 2021(SZ) 30th September, 2021. AM.
17