1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION W. NO.3234/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1277/2000 (Smt. Shobhatai Phadnavis vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 13, 2011 Heard Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the applicant, Shri Madkholkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Badar, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. Civil Application No.3234/2010 is moved by the applicant seeking permission for felling of trees mentioned in para (A) of the civil application. Shri Manohar, learned Counsel for the applicant, states that the applicant is a joint venture of JSW Energy Limited and the Maharashtra State 2 Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. It is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is given the work of transmission line from Jaigad to Karad 400 KV D/C for evacuation of power in Ratnagiri and Satara Districts. It is submitted that the Central Government vide its communication dated 3/12/2010 has in principle agreed for diversion of 13.404 hectares of reserve forest area for the construction of 400 KV D/C line from Jaigad to Karad on the conditions stated in the said communication. It is further submitted that the applicant undertakes to comply with all the conditions mentioned in the communication dated 3/12/2010 issued by the Central Government to the State government so as to enable the Central Government to grant final approval for diversion of forest land under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Learned Counsel Shri Manohar further states that in last but one para of the order dated 27/4/2005 passed by this Court in the present public interest litigation, this Court has observed thus : 3 “We make it clear that the order dated 30/4/2004 has to be read in context of aforesaid clarification and in cases where the State Government has got clearance to carry out the non-forest activities from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, they can bring it to the notice of this Court and proceed in accordance with the working plan sanctioned by the Central Government. In our opinion, the order subserves the preservation of forest. The whole object is to increase area which is under forest coverage as there is no two opinion over the the fact that the forest coverage in the State of Maharashtra has decreased compared to the norms prescribed by national policy and settled by the World Standard.” It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in view of the aforesaid observations, it was necessary for the applicant to inform this Court that the Central Government has granted in principle sanction for the project in question. It is further submitted that on the earlier occasion, this Court had granted “no objection” to carry out the project after 4 Central Government granted approval in principle to such project. It is, therefore, prayed that civil application may be allowed in terms of its prayer clause (A). Shri Badar, learned Counsel for respondent no.3, states that sanction order issued by the Central Government in principle contains one of the clauses, which reads thus : “After receipt of the compliance report on the fulfillment of the condition Nos. 2(b), 3, 4, 5, 8 and 12 from the State Government, formal approval shall be issued in this regard under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.” It is, therefore, submitted that formal approval by the Central Government shall be issued only after fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid clause. It is not disputed that on the earlier occasion, permission was granted by this Court after the sanction orders in principle were issued by the Central Government. 5 Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2, has not disputed the fact that on the earlier occasion, this Court had granted “no objection” to go ahead with the project provided Central Government has granted approval to such project. It is submitted that in the present case, approval/sanction granted by the Central Government is on certain conditions and if the applicant fulfills those conditions, it is for the Central Government to issue final approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. We have considered the contentions of the respective Counsel for the parties and perused the requisite clause of the sanction order issued by the Central government. At the outset, we want to express that it is not in dispute that on the earlier occasion, this Court has granted no objection to go ahead with the project since Central government granted approval/sanction in principle to such project. Even otherwise, as per order dated 27/4/2005 passed by this Court, once the sanction in principle is granted by the Central Government, the concerned has to inform this Court about such order 6 of sanction. It is not in dispute that the Central Government has granted sanction in principle to the applicant on certain conditions. The applicant has undertaken to fulfill those conditions. Even otherwise, unless those conditions are fulfilled, the Central Government shall not grant formal approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In view of these facts, we allow the civil application in terms of its prayer clause (A). JUDGE JUDGE khj