THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 11-10-2011 WRIT PETITION No. 894 OF 2011 Between: T. Srinivas Reddy ... PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (FOR.I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep., by its Special Chief Secretary to Government and six others …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 894 OF 2011 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) This public interest litigation is filed on the ground that the mining lease granted to respondent No.7 is contrary to Rule 6 (4) of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003. The contention is refuted by respondents 1 to 6 through their counter and the relevant paras may be noticed: “The proposal was duly processed under the F(C) Act, 1980 and submitted to the State Government vide Ref.No.34284/2004/F2, dt.24.3.2006. In turn, the State Government vide Lr.No.2476/For.I(1)/2006-1, dt.21.4.2006 has forwarded the proposal to the Chief Conservator of Forests (Central), GOI, MoEF Bangalore with a request to accord approval under section-2 of F(C) Act, 1980 in favour of 7th respondent. After consideration of the proposal by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Central), GOI, Bangalore has conveyed Central Government’s approval in principle (Stage-I) for diversion of 5.00 Ha. of forest land with certain conditions stipulated therein. Compliance report on the conditions stipulated on the Stage-I approval letter, dt. 13.9.2006 was submitted to the CCF (C), GOI, Bangalore vide State Government Lr.No.2476/For.I(1)/2006, dt. 9.12.2010. After receipt of the compliance report from the State Government, the CCF (Central), GOI, MoEF Bangalore vide Lr.No.4-APB198/2006-BAN/8371, dt. 22.12.2010 has conveyed Central Government’s approval (Stage-II) under section -2 of F(C) Act, 1980 for diversion of 5.00 Ha. of forest land in Cheemakurthi R.F. in favour of 7th respondent for a period of (10) years with certain conditions stipulated therein. Accordingly, the State Government also accorded permission vide G.O.Ms.No.1, EFS&T (For.I) Dept., dt.3.1.20011 for diversion of said forest land to the 7th respondent for a period of (10) years. The Divisional Forest Officer, Giddalur and Conservator of Forests, Guntur have recommended the proposal and submitted to the PCCF, Andhra Praesh, Hyd. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Rc.No.34214/04/F2, Dt. 24.03.2006 has recommended the proposal for consideration to the State Government Environment, Forests, Science and Technology Department, who in turn recommended the case on 21- 04-2006 to the Chief Conservator of Forest (Central) Government of India. The said proposal was processed under F(C) Act, 1980 and submitted to the CCF (Central), GOI, Bangalore. After obtaining the Stage-II approval under F(C) Act, 1980 from the GOI, the State Government has accorded permission for diversion of 5.00 Ha. of forest land. The allegation that the 5th respondent has not valued the land is incorrect, as the Net Present Value (NPV) is arrived based on the basis of scientific data taking in view the ecological role and value of open forest Class-IV, as per Hon’ble Supreme Court directions. All other costs like C.A., Safety Zone, C.A. land etc., have all been paid by the respondent 7th as per GOI conditions. The contention that the 1st respondent is supposed to obtain recommendation from the Director of Mines regarding value of land is not correct.” From the above, it is clear that the respondents authorities have complied with the requirements of Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 and the diversion of 5.00 hectares of reserve forest land is duly covered by approvals at stages I and II and only thereafter, mining lease is granted to respondent No.7. In view of the stance disclosed in the counter, we find no reason to display indulgence. Nevertheless, nothing prevents the petitioner to approach the competent authority in case of violation of the conditions the grant of lease is subjected to. Disposed of. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 11-10-2011 K. Shyleshi