Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned order grants approval for a license, which is in breach of Section 2(iii) of the Forest Act. Relying on the affidavit of the Respondents, he submitted that the impugned order has been construed as "an approval for grant of prospecting license". Furthermore, he submitted that the impugned order amounts to a direction that any forestland or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose. He submitted that the expression "other authority" in Section 2 would cover any department of the Central Government, and would also include the Ministry of Mines, Government of India. In this regard, he referred to Rules 6 and 24 of the Forest (Conservation) Rule 2003. He submitted that the definition of "user agency" makes it clear that even a department of the Central government can seek approval under Section 2 of the 1980 Act, under Rule 6 for using forestland for non-forest purposes. Rebutting the contention of the Respondent that the Central Government is well within its powers to pass an order under Section 11(5) of MMDR Act, he pointed out to the fact that the order was passed under the proviso to Section 5 of MMDR Act.

(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 reforestation.

Explanation : For the purpose of this section "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for-

[c]. Whether the State Government or the other authority has certified that ithas considered all other alternatives and that no other alternatives in the circumstances are feasible and that the required area is the minimum needed for the purpose; and [d]. Whether the State Government or the other authority undertakes toprovide at its cost for the acquisition of land of an equivalent area and afforestation thereof.
(3) While tendering the advice, the Committee may also suggest any conditions or restrictions on the use of any forest land for any non-forest purpose, which in its opinion,would minimise adverse environmental impact.

34. Counsel for the third respondent in their submission perhaps had the contextual setting of a quarrying grant in Golden Granites, and were also apparently inspired by the decision in Hyderabad Abrasives and Minerals (supra). The construction favored by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in that case, was that Section 2 of the Forest Act operates not on the date on which the lease is granted but the date on which the State Government or other authority permits the breaking up, or the clearing of the forest land, or any portion of it. Such a construction seems reasonable, even practicable. Yet it ignores the inexorable mandate of the Forest Act, and injects an air of insidious inevitability about the nature of approval. The injunction under Section 2 of the Forest Act is against any order permitting use of a forest for non-purpose. Clearly, mining or prospecting for mines, is a non-forest purpose. If so, the nature of the order, whether a grant, prospecting license, order leading to grant, or order which may be a prelude to a prospecting license is immaterial. The procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the 2003 and the considerations which weigh with the advisory board reveal that the impact of the project is one consideration; what is vital is the impact of the proposed clearance of the forest upon the rest of the forest and the eco-system within it.