In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India and Ors.

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NOS. 2143 WITH 2283, 3088, 3461, 3479, 3693 IN 2143, 827, 1122, 1337, 1473 AND 1620 AND 1693 IN

1473 AND 3618

IN

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202 OF 1995

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad … Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Union Of India & ORS. … Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. This order will dispose of the I. As. noted above.

2. Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 was filed as a PIL

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for and

on behalf of the people living in and around the

Nilgiri Forest on the Western Ghats. The petitioner

1

Page 2

sought to challenge the legality and the validity of

the actions of the State of Tamil Nadu, the

Collector, Nilgiris District and the District Forest

Officer, Gudalur and the Timber Committee

represented through the Collector, Nilgiris

(Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 respectively), in

destroying the tropical rain forest in the Gudalur

and Nilgiri areas in violation of the Forest Act,

1927, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Tamil

Nadu Hill Stations Preservation of Trees Act and

the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This,

according to the petitioner, has resulted in serious

ecological imbalances affecting lives and

livelihood of the people living in the State of Tamil

Nadu.

3. The petitioner has highlighted that the

respondents have in collusion with certain vested

interests allowed trespassers to encroach and

enter upon the forest land for the purpose of

felling trees and conversion of forest land into 2

Page 3

plantations. It was pointed out that the

encroachers on the forest land have been

indiscriminately cutting and removing valuable

Rosewood trees, Teak trees and Ayni trees, which

are immensely valuable and are found exclusively

in the aforesaid forest. It was pointed out that loss

of such trees would be permanent and irreparable

to the present and future generations to come.

The petitioner has clearly pleaded that the value

attached to Rosewood and Teak wood has resulted

in a mad rush by timber contractors in collusion

with Government agencies, for making quick

profits without any regard to the permanent

damage and destruction caused to the rain forest

and to the eco-system of the region. The

petitioner also pointed out that cutting and

removing of trees is not limited only to the mature

trees. In their anxiety to make huge profits the

entire forest areas are being cleared, by

indiscriminate felling of trees. The petitioner also

pointed out that the national policy adopted in the 3

Page 4

year 1952 provided for the protection and

preservation of forests. The existence of large

areas of land covered under forest is recognized

as a valuable segment of the national heritage.

The petitioner also pointed out that the protection

from exploitation of forests, in particular natural

forests, is imperative as such forests once

destroyed can not be regenerated to their natural

state. The petitioner has pleaded that the

destruction of rain forests would adversely affect

the environment, eco-system, the plants and

animals living within the forests. This would result

in such destruction, which would ultimately result

in drastic changes in the environment and the

quality of life of people living in and around the

forests. The petitioner also highlighted that

although the national policy has provided that

33% of the land mass of India shall be covered

with forests, the present extent of the forest

covered areas was below 15%. The natural rain

forest cover was only around 5%. Such meager 4

Page 5

forest cover had led to the enactment of the

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Statement of

objects and reasons of the aforesaid Act is as

follows:-

(1) Deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads to environmental deterioration. Deforestation had been taking place on a large scale in the country and it had caused widespread concern.

(2) With a view to checking further deforestation, the President promulgated on the 25th October, 1980, the Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980. The Ordinance made the prior approval of the Central government necessary for de-reservation of reserved forests and for use of forest-land for non- forest purposes. The Ordinance also provided for the constitution of an advisory committee to advise the Central Government with regard to grant of such approval.

4. Apart from pointing out the provisions of the

aforesaid Act, the petitioner also protested that

the population living in the areas mentioned above

is being deprived of the right to live in a clean and

pollution free environment and, therefore, their

fundamental rights protected under Article 21 of

the Constitution of India are being violated. The 5

Page 6

petitioner pointed out that the preservation and

protection of forests is recognized as essential for

maintaining a clean and pollution free

environment. He further pointed out that the rain

forests, which are found only in the southern part

of the Western Ghats contain several rarest

species of plants and animals and also the main

source of water supply to the rivers flowing from

the Ghats. The large scale denuding of the green

cover on the Western Ghats has resulted in

shortage of water in the rivers and has adversely

affected the people living on the water flowing

from the rivers.

5. This apart, it was pointed out that forests are the

main source of livelihood for a large number of

people, who live within and around the forests. It

was also pointed out that the rain forests are the

source of life and the plants and animals

contained within it are useful for enhanced quality

of life enjoyed by mankind. The bio-diversity of 6

Page 7

the rain forest, it was emphasized, has to be

preserved for the welfare and well being of future

generations of mankind. The petitioner was

constrained to move this Court in the present writ

petition being so perturbed by the large scale

destruction of the forests and other natural

resources found in the three States namely Tamil

Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. It was lamented that

all the protective legislation enacted by Union of

India are nothing more than statements in the

statute books, in as much as the forest land and

its wealth are being plundered everyday. He

pointed out that it can no longer be denied that

well organized rackets exist between the forests

authorities, timber contractors and the local

authorities which are facilitating the cutting and

removal of trees and timber in gross violation of

Forests Conservation Act. The petitioner has given

details of the manner in which individuals,

contractors and firms were clandestinely

permitted to trespass and plunder the forest area 7

Page 8

for the invaluable Rosewood trees. It was stated

that each tree commands a price of Rs.15 to 20

Lakhs in the market. When all the efforts of all the

concerned individuals, NGOs and other social

activists failed, the petitioners were constrained to

knock on the doors of this Court by way of writ

petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India. The prayers made in the aforesaid writ

petitions are as under:-

(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the State of Tamil Nadu to take steps to stop all felling and clearing activities in the forests of Nilgiris District in the State of Tamil Nadu.

(b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 to 5 to stop conversion of forest lands to plantation or other purposes.

(c) issue an appropriate writ, or direction directing respondents 2 to 5 to take steps to remove all unauthorised and illegal occupants of forest land in the Nilgiri District

8

Page 9

of Tamil Nadu.

(d) issue an appropriate writ, order direction directing respondent 2 to 5 to stop the transport and removal of timber from the forests in the Nilgiri District.

(e) issue an appropriate writ, order direction to appoint a committee for assessing the damage caused to the forest in the western ghats in the State of Tamil Nadu, Karntaka and Keral and in particular the hills of the Nilgiris mountain.

(f) Pass such other and further orders.

6. Understandably disturbed by the horrendous fact

situation narrated in the writ petition, this Court

issued notice to not only the concerned States but

also to other States. Thereafter, the writ petition is

pending.

7. In this writ petition, Interlocutory Applications have

been filed seeking either general or specific

9

Page 10

directions in relation to various issues concerning

the protection and improvement of environment.

The subjects covered by Interlocutory Applications

at various stages ranged from protection of

existing forest cover; improvement in the forest

cover; protection of lakes, rivers and wild life; and

protection of flora and fauna and the ecological

system of the country. This Court has been

continuously monitoring the enforcement of the

protected measures directed to be taken by the

various Central/State authorities on the basis of

the recommendations made by the relevant

expert bodies.

8. On 29th October, 2002, this Court considered I.A.

No. 566, in which this Court had taken suo-moto

notice on the Statement of Mr. K.N. Rawal,

Additional Solicitor General to the effect that the

amount collected by various States from the user

agencies to whom permissions were granted for

using forest land for non-forest purposes, was not 10

Page 11

being utilized for such compensatory afforestation.

It was pointed out that moneys paid by user

agencies to State Governments for compensatory

afforestation were utilized for such afforestation

only to the extent of 63% of the funds actually

realized by the State Governments. The shortfall

even at that time was nearly Rs. 200 crores. This

Court, therefore, recorded that on the next date, it

would consider as to how this shortfall was to be

made good. It was directed that the Ministry of

Environment and Forest should formulate a

Scheme whereby, whenever any permission is

granted for change of user of forest land for non-

forest purposes, and one of the conditions of the

permission is that, there should be compensatory

afforestation, then the responsibility for the same

is that of the user-agency and should be required

to set apart a sum of money for doing the needful.

It was further provided that in such a case, the

State Governments concerned will have to provide

or make available land on which forestation can 11

Page 12

take place. This land may have to be made

available either at the expense of the user-agency

or of the State Governments, as the State

Governments may decide. It was further directed

that the scheme which is framed by the MoEF

should be such as to ensure that afforestation

takes place as per the permissions which are

granted and there should be no shortfall in respect

thereto.

9. It was also brought to the notice of this Court on

the basis of the statement placed on record in

I.A.Nos.419 and 420 that the funds accumulated

for diverting forest area for non-forest purposes,

compensatory afforestation, although actually

received, had not been appropriately utilized. The

CEC examined this question. The report, inter alia,

provided that there should be a change in the

manner in which the funds are released by the

State Governments relating to Compensatory

Afforestation. The CEC recommended that it would 12

Page 13

be desirable to create a separate fund for

Compensatory Afforestation, wherein all the

money received from the user-agencies are to be

deposited and subsequently released directly to

the implementing agencies as and when required.

The funds received from a particular State would

be utilized in the same State.

10. There was a consensus among the States and

the Union Territories that such a fund be created.

It was also recommended that the funds should

not be a part of general revenues of the Union or

all the States or of the Consolidated Funds of

India. The CEC Report also contemplated the

involvement of user-agencies for Compensatory

Afforestation.

11. The CEC in its report dated 5th September,

2002 made eight recommendations which were

accepted by the Union of India in an affidavit filed

in response to the aforesaid report. The Union of 13

Page 14

India further stated, in the affidavit, that major

institutional reorganization of the present

mechanism has to be undertaken. It was proposed

that comprehensive rules will be framed which will

inter alia relate to the procedure and

compensation. It was also proposed that there

shall be a body for the management of the

Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF). The

suggestion of the Union of India was that CAF

would be composed of a Director General of

Forest; Special Secretary, who would be the ex-

officio Chairman and Inspector General of Forest,

who would be the ex-officio Member Secretary.

The report of the CEC was accepted and this Court

made the following recommendations :-

“(a) The Union of India shall within eight weeks from today frame comprehensive rules with regard to the constitution of a body and management of the Compensatory Afforestation funds in concurrence with the Central Empowered Committee. These rules shall be filed in this Court within eight weeks form today. Necessary

14

Page 15

notification constituting this body will be issued simultaneously.

(b) Compensatory Afforestation Funds which have not yet been realised as well as the unspent funds already realised by the States shall be transferred to the said body within six months of its constitution by the respective states and the user- agencies.

(c) In addition to above, while according transfer under Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for change in user-agency from all non-forest purposes, the user agency shall also pay into the said fund the net value of the forest land diverted for non-forest purposes. The present value is to be recovered at the rate of Rs. 5.80 lakhs per hectare to Rs. 9.20 lakhs per hectare of forest land depending upon the quantity and density of the land in question converted for non-forest use. This will be subject to upward revision by the Ministry of Environment & Forests in consultation with Central Empowered Committee as and when necessary.

(d) A 'Compensatory Afforestation Fund' shall be created in which all the monies received from the user-agencies towards compensatory

15

Page 16

afforestation, additional compensatory afforestation, penal compensatory afforestation, net present value of forest land, Catchment Area Treatment Plan Funds, etc. shall be deposited. The rules, procedure and composition of the body for management of the Compensatory Afforestation Fund shall be finalised by the Ministry of Environment & Forests with the concurrence of Central Empowered Committee within one month.

(e) The funds received from the user-agencies in cases where forest land diverted falls within Protected Areas i.e. area notified under Section 18, 26A or 35 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for undertaking activities related to protection of bio-diversity, wildlife, etc., shall also be deposited in this Fund. Such monies shall be used exclusively for undertaking protection and conservation activities in protected areas of the respective States/Union Territories.

(f) The amount received on account of compensatory afforestation but not spent or any balance amount lying with the States/Union Territories or any amount that is yet to be recovered from the use-agency shall also be deposited in this Fund.

16

Page 17

(g) Besides artificial regeneration (plantations), the fund shall also be utilised for undertaking assisted natural regeneration, protection of forests and other related activities. For this purpose, site .specific plans should be prepared and implemented in a time bound manner.

(h) The user agencies especially the large public sector undertaking such as Power Grid Corporation, N.T.P.C., etc. which frequently require forest land for their projects should also be involved in undertaking compensatory afforestation by establishing Special Purpose Vehicle. Whereas the private sector user agencies may be involved in monitoring and most importantly, in protection of compensatory afforestation. Necessary procedure for this purpose would be laid down by the Ministry of Environment & Forests with the concurrence of the Central Empowered Committee.

(i) Plantations must use local and indigenous species since exotics have long term negative impacts on the environment.

(j) An independent system of concurrent monitoring

17

Page 18

and evaluation shall be evolved and implemented

through the Compensatory Afforestation Fund to ensure

effective and proper utilisation of funds.”

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid representation,

the MoEF issued a notification on 23rd April, 2004

constituting a “Compensatory Afforestation Funds

Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA)” as

an authority under Section 3(3) of the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This

notification provides that there shall be a

governing body. Minister of Environment and

Forests, Government of India is the Chairman.

Apart from the members who are taken from the

level of Secretary, MoEF to the level of Inspector

General of Forest, the governing body also

includes an eminent professional ecologist, not

being from the Central and the State Government

for a period of 2 years of time, but for two

consecutive terms. The notification also provides

for an executive body having seven members with 18

Page 19

Director General of Forests and Special Secretary,

MoEF, Government of India as the Chairman. The

notification elaborately provides the power and

functions of the Governing Body; power and

functions of the Executive Body; Management of

the Funds; Disbursement of funds; monitoring and

evaluation of works. It also provides that every

State or the Union Territory shall have a Steering

Committee and a Management Committee. It also

provides the powers and functions of the State

Steering Committee and the State Management

Committee. The jurisdiction of the CAMPA is

throughout India. Unfortunately, the aforesaid

notification has only remained on paper and it has

not been made functional till date by the MoEF.

13. This Court again examined the entire issue in

relation to the decline in environment quality due

to increasing pollution, loss of vegetation cover

and biological diversity, excessive concentrations

of harmful chemicals in the ambient atmosphere 19

Page 20

and in food chains, growing risk of environmental

accidents, and threats to life support system, for

the protection of which the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986 had been enacted. A

comprehensive judgment was given in

I.A.No.826 in I.A.No.566 in W.P. (C) No.202 1995

on 26th September, 2005. The Court noticed

the statutory provisions contained in the Forest

Conservation Act, 1980, Environment (Protection)

Act, 1986, and Water Prevention and Control of

Pollution Act, 1974. It also noticed that large sums

of money which had been payable by user-

agencies in cases where approval had been

granted for diverting forest land that stipulated for

compensatory afforestation were not being used.

It is further noticed by this Court that certain rates

had been fixed per hectare of forest land

depending on the quality and density of the land in

question converted for non-forestry use. After

detailed examination of the issues related to the

payment of Net Present Value (NPV) and 20

Page 21

Compensatory Afforestation Fund, the Court

upheld the constitutional validity of the payment

to CAMPA under the notification dated 23rd April,

2004. It was held that the payment of NPV is for

the protection of environment. It was further held

that the natural resources are not the ownership

of any one State or individual, public at large is its

beneficiary. Therefore, the contention that the

amount of NPV shall be made over to the State

Government was rejected.

14. The Court also constituted a Committee of

Experts (Kanchan Chopra Committee) to formulate

a practical methodology for determining NPV

payable for various categories of forest and the

project which deserves to be exempted from

payment of NPV.

15. As noticed earlier, huge amount of money

received from the user-agencies towards the NPV,

Compensatory Afforestation etc. were lying with 21

Page 22

various authorities without any effective control

and monitoring as the CAMPA notification had not

been made operational by the MoEF.

16. The Court reiterated the ratio of M.C.Mehta

Vs. Kamal Nath & Ors.1 that it is the duty of the

State to preserve the natural resources in their

pristine purity. The Doctrine of Public Trust was re-

enforced. It was emphasized that the Doctrine of

Public Trust is founded on the idea that certain

common properties such as rivers, seashore,

forest and the air were held by the Government

trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of the

general public. It was reiterated that our legal

system based on English Common Law which

includes the Doctrine of Public Trust as part of its

jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all

natural resources which are by nature meant for

public use and enjoyment.

1 1997 (1) SCC 388 22

Page 23

17. Therefore, this Court recognized the need to

take all precautionary measures when forests land

are sought to be diverted for non-forestry use, the

creation of CAF was approved. In coming to the

aforesaid conclusions, the Court took into

consideration intergenerational equity. The State

was required to undertake short term as well as

long term measures for the protection of the

environment.

18. As noticed earlier, this Court by order dated

28th March, 2008 had fixed the rates at which NPV

is payable for the non-forestry uses of forest land

falling in different Eco-classes and density sub-

classes. The rates vary from Rs.10.43 lakh per

hectare to Rs.4.38 lakh per hectare. For the use of

forest land falling in the National Parks and Wildlife

Sanctuaries, the NPV is payable at 10 times and 5

times respectively of the normal rates of NPV. By

order dated 9th May, 2008, this Court has

exempted the payment of NPV for non-forestry use 23

Page 24

of forest land (a) upto one hectare for construction

of schools, hospitals, village tanks, laying of

underground pipe lines and electricity distribution

lines upto 22 KV, (b) for relocation of villages from

National Parks/Wildlife Sanctuaries, (c) for

collection of boulders/silts from river beds, (d) for

laying of underground optical fibre cables and (e)

for pre-1980 regularization of encroachments and

has granted 50% exemption for underground

mining projects.

19. Although huge sums of money had been

received from user-agencies but there were no

effective checks and balances for its utilization.

Therefore, by order dated 5th May, 2006, this Court

accepted a suggestion made by the CEC

submitted in I.A. No.1473 for constitution of an Ad-

hoc body till CAMPA becomes operational. All State

Governments/Union Territories were directed to

account for and pay the amount collected with

effect from 30th October, 2002 in conformity with 24

Page 25

the order dated 29th October, 2002 to the

aforesaid Ad-hoc body (Ad-hoc CAMPA). The

following two suggestions made by the CEC were

accepted:-

“(a) ensure that all the monies recovered on behalf of the ‘CAMPA’ and which are presently lying with the various officials of the State Government are transferred to the bank account(s) to be operated by this body.

(b) get audited all the monies received form the user agencies on behalf of the ‘CAMPA’ and the income earned thereon by the various State Government officials. The auditors may be appointed by the CAG. The audit may also examine whether proper financial procedure has been following in investing the funds.”

20. The Chief Secretaries of the State

Governments/Administrators of Union Territories

were directed to cooperate with the Ad-hoc CAMPA

as well as the Comptroller and Auditor General.

The Ad-hoc CAMPA under the Chairmanship of the

Director General of Forests and Special Secretary,

25

Page 26

MoEF and has (a) Inspector General of Forest (FC),

MoEF (b) representative of Comptroller and

Auditor General of India (c) nominee of the

Chairman of the CEC as its Members. In

accordance with the directions of this Court, the

money already received as well as the money

being received towards the NPV etc. have been

transferred to the Ad-hoc CAMPA and invested in

the fixed deposit with National Banks. The money

lying with the Ad-hoc CAMPA towards the NPV etc.

received from the States (principal amount) and

the interest received on the fixed deposit

(cumulative interest) has substantially increased

over a period of time and is presently about Rs.

30,000 crores.

21. On 2nd April, 2009, MoEF has issued “the

guidelines of State Compensatory Afforestation

Fund Management and Planning Authority (State

CAMPA)”. These guidelines have been prepared on

the basis of the discussions held in the meeting of 26

Page 27

the Chief Secretaries that the objective to assist

the States/Union Territories for setting up the

requisite mechanism in consonance with the

directions issued from time to time by this Court.

The guidelines are general in nature and can be

moulded keeping in view the specific needs of any

particular State/Union Territory. The State CAMPA

has been set up as an instrument to accelerate

activities for preservation of natural forests,

management of wildlife, infrastructure

development in the sector and other allied works.

By order dated 10th July, 2009 this Court directed

that the guidelines and structure of the State

CAMPA as prepared by MoEF may be notified and

implemented. The Court also permitted the Ad-hoc

CAMPA to release about Rs.1000 crore per year for

the next five years, in proportion of 10% of the

principal amount pertaining to the respective

States/Union Territories, inter alia, subject to the

condition that the State Accountant General shall

carry out, on annual basis, the audit of the 27

Page 28

expenditure incurred every year out of the State

CAMPA funds. It was further directed that an

amount upto 5% of the amount released to the

State CAMPA, i.e., upto Rs.50 crore per annum,

may also be released and utilized by the National

CAMPA Advisory Council constituted under the

Chairmanship of Ministry of Environment and

Forest for monitoring and evaluation and for the

implementation of the various schemes as given in

the State CAMPA guidelines.

22. The State CAMPA has been constituted for

each State/Union Territory. It has a three-tier

structure. The Executive Committee functions

under the Chairmanship of the Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests is responsible for the

Annual Plan of Operation (APO) for various works

planned to be undertaken during each year. The

Steering Committee under the Chairmanship of

Chief Secretary is responsible for approving the

APO for each year. The Chief Minister is the 28

Page 29

Chairman of the Governing Body which is

responsible for overall guidance and policy issues.

The Ad-hoc CAMPA releases the funds to each of

the State CAMPAs as per the approved APO. At

present, a total sum of Rs.1000 crore is permitted

to be released to the State per year. The State-

wise accounts of the principal amounts and

cumulative interest be maintained by the Ad-hoc

CAMPA. The funds are not permitted to be utilized

for any purpose other than those authorized by

the Court. The administrative expenses of CAMPA

are incurred by the CEC.

23. With the establishment of the Ad-hoc CAMPA,

huge sums of money have accumulated which can

be released to the State CAMPA for utilization, for

protection and for the improvement of the national

environment. Now the aforesaid applications have

been filed by different States seeking release of

some funds for completing the task of compulsory

afforestation, as directed by this Court from time

to time. The relief claimed in all the applications is 29

Page 30

almost identical. We shall make a reference to the

averments made in I.A.No.3618 of 2013 for the

purpose of deciding all the applications.

24. I.A. No. 3618 of 2013 in Writ Petition (C) No.

202 of 1995 has been filed by the State of Gujarat

with the following prayer:-

“i. To direct the Ad-hoc CAMPA to release minimum of 10% of principal amount deposited by the States/UTs with Ad-hoc CAMPA and the total amount accrued as interest on such deposits to the respective State/UT’s including to the State of Gujarat without the ceiling of Rs.1,000 crore, in order to ensure effective and timely implementation of Compensatory Afforestation Scheme, Wildlife Conservation and other Forest conservation and Protection Measures as envisaged in the CAMPA guidelines;

ii. Pass any other directions deemed fit by the Hon’ble Court.”

Prayers made in other applications are similar, if not

identical.

30

Page 31

25. The aforesaid relief is claimed on the basis

that the amount available with CAMPA is

substantially higher than Rs.1,000/- crores,

wherein the annual release from the Ad-hoc

CAMPA has been restricted to Rs.1,000/- crores

p.a. by the orders of this Court. It is further

pointed out that only during the year 2009-10,

10% of the principal amount, i.e., Rs.24.96 crores

has been released by the Ad-hoc CAMPA to Gujarat

State. During subsequent years, i.e., 2010-11 and

2011-12, the annual release from ad-hoc CAMPA

to Gujarat State had come down from 10% to 8%

and then to 7%, respectively. For the year 2012-

13, the amount released is only 6.5% of the

principal amount. It is also submitted by the

learned counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat

that at the time when these applications were filed

in April, 2013, the total funds available with the

Ad-hoc CAMPA were as follows:-

a. The Principal amount at the disposal of ad- hoc CAMPA is around Rs.28000 crores.

31

Page 32

b. The accrued interest on it is of the order of over Rs.4,000 crores.

c. The annual accrual of interest on the deposits is of the order of Rs. 2200 crores.

26. Relying on the aforesaid facts and figures, it

is submitted by the learned counsel for all the

States that the funds released to the State

CAMPAs are only a fraction of the interest accruing

in the Ad-hoc CAMPA accounts. It is further

submitted that the value of the compensatory

levies, which have been obtained against the

diversion of forest land over a period of many

years has eroded substantially. This is added to

by the continuous inflationary trends, which has

made the task of undertaking Compensatory

Afforestation very cost intensive. Therefore, it is

imperative that the funds are made available to

State CAMPAs in a substantial ratio to the amounts

collected from the State/Union Territories. To

illustrate this dilemma, the applicant has relied on

a chart, which is as under:-

32

Page 33

(Rs. In Crores) Year Amount

required as per APO

Amount released to

Gujarat State

CAMPA

Shortfall

1 2 3 4 2009-10 43.16 24.96 18.20 2010-11 43.78 29.16 14.62 2011-12 55.08 26.30 28.78 2012-13 40.61 32.41 8.20

Total 182.63 112.83 69.80

27. Relying on the aforesaid chart, it is submitted

that due to release of insufficient CAMPA funds, all

the NPV Projects approved by the Steering

Committee could not be started. In the year 2009-

10, out of 24 NPV Projects only 4 projects could be

implemented. In the year 2011-12, out of 14 NPV

Projects only 12 Projects could be implemented.

In the year 2012-13, out of 15 NPV Projects only

14 Projects could be implemented. It is pointed

out that even in relation to the projects, which

have been implemented; all the activities in

support of the projects could not be taken up due

to want of funds. This has resulted in an overall

shortfall in the Forest and Wildlife Conservation, 33

Page 34

which is the prime objective of CAMPA funds.

Therefore, several State/Union Territory

Governments including State of Gujarat have

requested the Ministry of Environment & Forests to

increase the annual release from the Ad-hoc

CAMPA funds to a minimum 10% of the principal

amount available with Ad-hoc CAMPA, without any

ceiling of about Rs.1,000/- crores per annum.

However, since no response was received from the

MoEF, the State of Gujarat and other applicant

States/Union Governments were constrained to file

the IAs.

28. These applications came up for hearing on

26th August, 2013, 20th September, 2013 and 4th

October, 2013. Upon examination of the entire

matter, a direction was issued on 9th December,

2013 to the Central Empowered Committee

(hereinafter referred to as “CEC”) to submit its

report on the applications and the prayers made

by the applicant. CEC has submitted its report

dated 6th January, 2014. 34

Page 35

29. In response to the application filed by the

State of Gujarat, this Court by order dated 9th

December, 2013 had directed the CEC to submit

its report.

30. In its report dated 6th January, 2014, CEC has

recommended that the prayer made in the

application ought to be accepted. The relevant

extract of the CEC Report is as under:

“11. The CEC, in the above background, recommends that this Hon'ble Court may in partial modification of its earlier order dated 10th July, 2009 consider permitting the Ad-hoc CAMPA to annually release from the financial year 2014- 2015 onwards, out of the interest received / receivable by it, an amount equal to 10% of the principle (sic) amount lying to the credit of each of the State / UT at beginning of the year to the respective State CAMPA subject to the following conditions:

i) the funds will be released by utilizing interest received / being received by the Ad-hoc CAMPA. The principle (sic) amount lying with the Ad-hoc CAMPA will not be released or transferred or utilized;

35

Page 36

ii) the funds will be released after receipt of the "Annual Plan of Operation" containing details of the afforestation and other works for the conservation, protection and development of the forests and wildlife and approved by the Steering Committee of the respective State CAMPA;

iii) the Ad-hoc CAMPA will be at liberty to release the funds to the State CAMPAs in one or more installments after considering the utilization of funds earlier released;

iv) the National CAMPA Advisory Council (NCAC) will finalize and issue guidelines before 31st March, 2014 regarding the activities for which the use of the CAMPA funds will not be permissible (such as foreign study tours) and the activities for which a ceiling on the use of the CAMPA funds will apply (such as purchase of vehicles and construction of residential / office buildings). These guidelines will be strictly followed by the State CAMPA;

v) the State CAMPAs and the MoEF will

36

Page 37

expeditiously take necessary follow up action on the observations made in the "Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Compensatory Afforestation in India".

vi) the back log of Compensatory Afforestation, if any, will be tackled on priority basis and for which adequate provision will be made in the Annual Plan of Operation (APO) by the respective State CAMPAs; and

vii) the annual release of funds to the National CAMPA Advisory Counsel (NCAC) will continue to be upto Rs. 50 crore and provided the amounts earlier released are found to have been substantial utilized.”

The aforesaid recommendations have been given

by the CEC after setting out the background in which

the CAMPA was set up.

31. Mr. Salve learned Amicus Curiae on the basis of

the record has submitted that on the directions

issued by this Court about Rs.6000 crores are being

received by CAMPA annually. This amount represents

the total amount collected for compensatory

37

Page 38

afforestation fund (principal amount Rs.3000 crores

annually) and approximately Rs.3000 crores by way

of interest on fixed deposits annually. This is in

addition to the accumulative principal amount which

is already invested in fixed deposits. He submits that

keeping in view the directions issued by this Court

from time to time for ensuring afforestation it would

be appropriate to accept the recommendation of the

CEC. He submits that the scheme proposed by the

CEC will gradually increase in the release of funds to

the State/Union Territory over a period of time and

on a sustainable basis. The learned Amicus Curiae

has, however, suggested that certain other

safeguards ought to be incorporated to ensure

efficient management of the funds released. Upon

consideration of the entire matter at length, we

accept the recommendations made by the CEC

reproduced above. We, however, modify the

direction 11(iv) as under:-

The National CAMPA Advisory Council (NCAC) will

finalize and issue guidelines before 1st May, 2014 38

Page 39

regarding the activities for which the use of the

CAMPA funds will not be permissible (such as

foreign study tours) and the activities for which a

ceiling on the use of the CAMPA funds will apply

(such as purchase of vehicles and construction of

residential / office buildings).

These guidelines will be strictly followed by the State CAMPA. The same shall be treated as directions of this

Court. The order dated 10th July, 2009 is modified

accordingly.

32. The Ad-hoc CAMPA is permitted to release annual

amount equal to 10% of the principal amount lying to

the credit of each State/Union Territory, out of the

interest receivable by it with effect from financial

year 2014-2015 onwards. The release of the

aforesaid funds shall be subjected to the conditions

enumerated above.

33. It is further directed that no money out of the

amounts available with Ad-hoc CAMPA will be

transferred or utilized without the leave of this Court.

39

Page 40

It is further directed that the National CAMPA

Advisory Council will file a Status Report within a

period of three months regarding the monitoring and

evaluation of the works being undertaken, by

utilizing the funds released by CAMPA.

34. The Interlocutory Applications are disposed of with

the aforesaid directions.

…………………………….…J. [A.K.Patnaik]

………………………………….J.

[Surinder Singh Nijjar]

……..……………………………….J. [Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim

Kalifulla] New Delhi; March 12, 2014.

40

IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.