[2014] 14 S.C.R. 279

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD A

UNION OF !NOIA & ORS.

(1.A."Nos. 2143 with 2283, 3088, 3461, 3_479, 3693 in 2143, 827, 1122, 1337, 1473 and 1620 and 1693 in 1473 and

B 3618)

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995)

MARCH 12, 2014

[A. K.PATNAIK, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] ·

Environmental Laws:

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Gudalur and Nilgiri D forests - Public Interest Litigation - Destruction of tropical rain forest resulting in ecological imbalances affecting lives and livelihood of the people living in the State of Tamil Nadu - Compulsory Afforestation Fund - Release of -/As by different States seeking release of some funds for completing E the task of compulsory afforestation - Held: Order dated 1 O'" • July 2009 modified - National CAMPA Advisory Council (NCAC) directed to finalize and issue guidelines before 1st May, 2014 regarding the activities for which the use of the CAMPA funds would not be permissible and the activities for F which a ceiling on the use of the CAMPA funds would apply

- These guidelines to be strictly followed by the State CAMPA -Ad-hoc CAMPA 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 G effect from financial year 2014-2015 onwards - No money out of the amounts available with Ad-hoc CAMPA to be transferred or utilized without the leave of the Supreme Court

- National CAMPA Advisory Council to file a Status Report

279 H

A within a period of three months regarding the monitoring and evaluation of the works being undertaken, by utilizing the funds released by CAMPA - Forest Act, 1927 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Tamil Nadu Hill Stations Preservation of Trees Act.

B The instant writ petition 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 sought to challenge the legality of the actions of the State of Tamil Nadu, the C Collector, Nilgiris District and the District Forest Officer,

Gudalur and the Timber Committee 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 D Trees Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 as it has resulted in serious ecological imbalances affecting lives and livelihood of the people living in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner has alleged that the respondents have in collusion with certain vested E interests allowed trespassers to encroach and enter upon the forest land forthe purpose of felling trees and conversion of forest land into plantations and well organized rackets existed between the forest authorities, timber contractors and the local authorities which are F facilitating the cutting and removal Of trees and timber in gross violation of Forest Coriservation Act.

The instant Interlocutory Applications were filed seeking either general or specific directions in relation G to various issues concerning the protection and improvement of environment. The Supreme 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.

T. N. GODAVARMANTHIRUMULPAOv. UNION OF INDIA 281

The Court noticed on 29'" October, 2002, that the amount A collected by various States from the user agencies to whom permissions were granted for using forest land for non forest purposes was not being utilised for such compensatory afforestation. The Court directed that the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) should B 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 c and should be required to set apart a sum of money for doing the needful. The CEC examined the issue and recommended that it would be desirable to create a separate fund for Compensatory Afforestation, wherein all the money received from the user-agencies would be o 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. There was a consensus among the States and the Union Territories that such a fund be created. It E 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. Pursuant thereto, the F MoEF issued a notification on 23'd 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. Unfortunately, the said notification G only remained on paper and it was not made functional till date by the MoEF. Huge amount of money received from the user-agencies towards the NPV, Compensatory Afforestation etc. were lying with various authorities without any effective control and monitoring as the H

A CAMPA notification was not made operational by the MoEF. Therefore, by order dated 5'" May, 2006, the Supreme Court accepted a suggestion made by the CEC for constitution of an Ad-hoc body till CAMPA becomes operational. All State Governments/Union Territories B were directed to account for and pay the amount collected with effect from 30'" October, 2002 in conformity with the order dated 29'" October, 2002 to the said Adhoc body (Ad-hoc CAMPA). The suggestions were made . by the CEC that all the monies recovered on behalf of c 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; and get audited all the monies received from the user agencies on behalf of the 'CAMPA' and the income earned D thereon by the various State Government officials. These suggestions were accepted. In accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the money already received as well as the money being received towards the NPV etc. were transferred to the Ad-hoc CAMPA and E invested in the fixed deposit with National Banks. On 2•d

April, 2009, MoEF issued "the guidelines of State

Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (State CAMPA)". By order dated 10'" July, 2009, the Supreme Court directed that the guidelines F 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 G States/Union Territories, inter alia, subject to the condition that the State Accountant General shall carry out, on annual basis, the audit of the expenditure incurred every year out of the State CAMPA funds. It was further directed that an amount upto 5% of the amount H released to the State CAMPA, i.e., upto Rs.50 crore per

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA 283

annum, may also be released and utilized by the National A 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. The State CAMPA was constituted for each B State/Union Territory. The Ad-hoc CAMPA released the funds to each of the State CAMPAs as per the approved • Annual Plan of Operation (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 c amounts and cumulative interest is to 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. With the establishment of the Ado 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. ·

The instant IAs were filed by different States seeking E release of some funds for completing the task of compulsory afforestation. The CEC also recommended that the Supreme Court may in partial modification of its earlier order dated 1 O'h July 2009 consider permitting the Ad hoc CAMPA to annually release from the financial year F 2014-15 onwards, out of the interest received/receivable by it, an amount equal to 10% of the principal amount lying to the credit of each of the State/UP at beginning of the year to the respective State CAMPA subject to certain conditions.

Disposing of the IAs, the Court

HELD: 1. The recommendation of CEC are accepted. The National CAMPAAdvisory Council (NCAC)

A will finalize and issue guidelines before 1st May, 2014

regarding the activities for which the use of the CAMPA

funs 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 B vehicles and construction of residential I office

buildings). These guidelines will be strictly followed by the State CAMPA. The order dated 10th July, 2009 is modified accordingly. The Ad-hoc CAMPA is permitted - to release annual amount equal to 10% of the principal C amount lying to the credit of each State/Union Territory, out of the interestreceivable by it with effect from financial year 2014-2015 onwards. The release of the said funds shall be subjected to certain conditions. It is further directed that no money out of the amounts available with o Ad-hoc CAMPA will be transferred or utilized without the

leave of this Court. It is further directed thatthe 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 E the funds released by CAMPA. [Paras 31 to 33][304-F-H;

305-A-D]

M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath & Ors. 1997 (1) SCC 388: 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 12 - referred to.

Case Law Reference:

 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 12 referred to Para 16

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 2143 with 2283,3088,3461,3479,3693in2143,827, 1122, 1337, 1473 AND 1620 and 1693 IN 1473 and 3618 in Writ Petition (Civil) G No. 202 of 1995.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Manjit Singh, AG, Harish N. Salve, Uday U. Lalit, P.S.

Patwalia andAnoop G. Choudhari, Sr. Adv. M.K. Subramanian, H

T. N. GODAVARMANTHIRUMULPADv. UNION OF INDIA 285

Sp. G. P., A. D. N. Rao, Siddhartha Chowdhury, P. K. Manohar, A l<eshav Thakur, Saket Sikri, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Harris Beeran, Ms. C.K. Sucharita, Anil Shrivastava, Riku Sarma, Navnit Kumar (For M/s. Corporate Law Group), Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar, C.D. Singh, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, T. Mahipal, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, TarjitSingh, Vinay B Kuhar, Ms. Nupur Choudhary, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Ashok Mathur, Gopal Prasad, Parikshit P. Angad, Ms. Anitha Shenoy (For Mr. V.N. Raghupathy),. Ms. Bina Madhavan, Naveen Sharma, Ms. Swati B. Sharma, Mishra Saurabh, Sanjay Kharde, Aniruddhya P. Mayee, Kh. Nobin c.

Singh, Ranjan Mukherjee, P.· V. Yogeswaran, Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms.Anil Katiyar, Shibashish.Mishra, Kuldip Singh, Milind Kumar, For M/s.Arp.utham, Aruna & Co., B. Balaji, R.

Rakesh Sharma, Selvin Raja, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Utkarsh . Sharma, Amit Kumar Singh, Abhishek Choudhary, Ms. Saumya D Chakraborty, Anip Sachthey, Col. R. Bala'subramanian, K. V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, D.S. Mahra, V.G. Pragasam, S.J.

Aristotle and Prabu Ramsubramanian, Adlis. for the appearing .

parties. ·

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1.This order will dispose o!the I.As. noted above.·

2. Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995 was file~ as a PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution of )l)dia for and on behalf of. F the people living in and around the Nilgiri Forest on the Western .

Ghats. The petitioner sought to challenge the legality and the validity of the actions ofthestate of Tamil Nadu, the Collector, Nilgiris District and the District Forest Officer, Gudalur and the Timber Committee represented through the Collector, Nilgiris G (Respondent Nos. 2 _to 5 respectively), in destroying the tropical rain forest in the Gudalur and Nilgiri areas in violation ofthe ForestAct, 1927, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 arid Tamil Nadu Hill Stations Preservation of Trees Act and the ·

S!JPREME COURT REPORTS


A . 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 TamilNadu.

3. The petitioner has highlighted that the respondents 8 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 plantations. It was pointed out that the encroachers on the forest land have been indiscriminately cutting and removing C 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 irnparable to the present and future generations to come. The petitioner has clear'ly pleaded that D 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 E petitioner also pointed out that cutting and removing of trees

is notlimited only to the mature trees. In their anxiety to make huge profits the entire forest areas are being cleared, by indiscdminate felling of trees~ The petitioner also pointed out that the national policy adopted in the year 1952 provided for F . the protection and preservation of forests. The existence of large areas of land covered under forest is recognized as a valuable segment of the nationalheritage. The petitioner also pointed out that the protection from exploitation of forests, in particular natural forests, is imperative as such forests once G destroyd 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 H

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA 287

(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

the environment and the quality of life of people living in and A 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 forest cover had led B 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 C

been taking place on a large scale in the country and it had caust:id widespread concern.

(2) With a view to checking further deforestation, the President promulgated on the 25th October, 1980, the D 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 E. 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 F 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 petitioner pointed out that the preservation and protection of forests is recognized G as essential for maintaining a clean and pollution free environment. He further pointed out thatthe 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

A 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 ;:iffected 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 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 D 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 E pointed out that it can no longer be deni_ed that well organized rackets exist between the forests authorities, timber contractors and th!( 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 F manner il'l which individuals, contractors and firms were clandestinely permitted to trespass and plunder the forest area 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 G other social activists failed; the petitioners were constrained to knock on the doors of this Court byway 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

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA 289

[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J .]

the State of Tamil Nadu to take steps to stop all felling A 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. 8

(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 of Tamil Nadu. c

(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 D 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 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 G 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

A 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 29'" October, 2002, this Court considered I.A.

No. 566, in which this Court had taken suo-moto notice on the 8 Statement of Mr. K.N. Ra\.val, 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 being utilized for such compensatory afforestation. It was pointed out that C 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 D 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 E 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 acase, the State Governments concerned will have to provide or make F available land on which forestation can 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 G 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 l.A.Nos.419 and H

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION.OF INDIA 291

[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

420 that the funds accumulated for diverting forest area for A 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 B Afforestation. The CEC recommended that it would be desirable to create a separate fund for Compensatory Afforestation, wherein all the money received from the useragencies are to be deposited and subsequently released directly to the implementing ageilcies as and when required. c 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 D revenues of the Union or all the States or of the Consolidated Funds of India. The CEC Report also contemplated the imlolvement of user-agencies for Compensatory Afforestation.

11. The CEC in its report dated 5'h September, 2002 E made eight recommendations which were accepted by the Union of India in an affidavit filed in response to the aforesaid . report. The Union of 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 F and compensation. It was also proposed thatthere 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 G 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 H

E ,

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 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 Jakhs per hectare afforest land depending upon the quanity and density of the land in question converted for non-forest use. This will be subject to upward revision by the Ministry of Environment & F crests 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 . ' l ' • towards compensatory afforestation, additional

compensatory afforestation, penal comp_ensatory 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

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA 29·3

[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

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 B also be deposited in this Fund. Such monies shall be used exclusively for undertaking protection and conservation activities in protected areas of the respective Statesl\]nionTerritories. c

(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. ·

(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 .tlie large public sector undertaking such as Power Grid Corporation, N.T.P.C., etc. which frequeriJly require forest land for their projects should also be involved in undertaking compensatory afforestation by establishing Special urpose Vehicle.

F 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 concu.rrence of the G Cer; itral Empowered Committee.

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

0) An independent system of concurrent monitoring and evaluation shall be evolved and implemented through the CompensatoryAfforestation Fund to ensure effective and proper utilisation offunds;"

12. Keeping in view the afqresaid representation, the MoEF issued a notification qn 23rd April,' 2004 constituting a "Compensatory Afforestation. Funds Management and Planning Authority (C_Al\l!PA)" .a!? an authority under Section c 3(3) of the Environment (Protebtion)Act, 1986. This notification provides that there shall be a governing body. Minister of Environment and Forests, Go.vemment of India is the Chairman. Apart from the members who are taken from the level of Secretary, MoEF to the lev'eloflnspector General of D Forest, the governing body also ineludes an eminent

professional ecologist, not being from the Central nd the State Government for a .period of 2 , years of time, but for two consecutive terms. the .flotificatior; i also .provides for an executive body having S!=!Yenmembers with Director General of Forests and Special Secretary, MoEF., Government of India E as the Chairman. The notification. elaborately provides the power and functions of the Go>iernfng Body; power and functions of the Executive Body; Maiiagement of the Funds; Disbursement of funds; i'iionitoringano evaluation of works. It also provides that every State or"the Union territory shall have F a Steering Committee arid a Management Committee. It also

provides the powers and funi:ti6ns' of the State Steering .

Committee and the State Managem'ent Committee. The jurisdiction of the C:AMPA is throughout India. Unfortunately, G the aforesaid notification has only remained on paper and it has not been made functional till da!e by te MoEF. ·

13. This Court again exami.ne.d the entire isse in relation to the decline in environment quality due to increasing pollution, loss of vegetation cover and bioiogical diversitv. excessive

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA 295

[SURINDERSINGH NIJJAR, J.]

concentrations of. harmful chemicals in the ambient A . atmosphere and in food chains, growing risk of environmental accidents, and threats to life support system, forthe protection of which the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 had been enacted. A comprehensive judgment was given in LA.No.826 in LA.No.566 in W.P. (C) No.202 1995 on 26'" September, B

2005. The Court noticed the statutory provisions cont;; iined 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 c 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 D the issues.related to the payment of Net Present Value (NPV) and 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 E 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 F (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 ealier, huge amount of money received G from the user-agencies towards the NPV, Compensatory Afforestation etc. were lying with various.authorities without any effective control and monitoring as the CAMPA notification had not been made operational by theMoEF.

A.·

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

Kamal Nath & Ors.' 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 8 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 C 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. ·

17. Therefore, this Court recognized the need to take all D 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 concluions; the Court took into consideration inff')rgenerationalequity. The State was required to undertake short term as well as king term measures E for the protection of the environment. .

18. As noticed. earlier, this Court by order dated 28'h March, 2008 had fixed the rates at which NPVis payable for the non-forestry uses of forest land falling in different Ecoclasses and density ub-classes. The rates vary from Rs.10 .43 F lakh per hedare 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 G non-forestry use 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 bouldrs/silts from river beds, H

'1997(1)SCC388

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA 297

[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

(d) for laying of underground optical fibre cables and (e) for A pre-1980 regularization of encrci'achments 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 5'h May, B 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 30'" October, 2002 in conformity with C the order dated 29'" 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 0 '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 E earned thereon by the various State Government officials.

The auditors may be appointed by the GAG The audit may also examine whether proper financial procedure has been following in investing the funds."

20. The Chief Secretaries of the State Governments/ F.

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, MoEF and has (a) Inspector G'eneral of Forest (FC), MoEF (b) G 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 H

A NPV etc .. have been transferred to the Ad-hoc CAMPA and invested in the fixed deposit 'JI/Ith National Banks. The money lying with theAd-hoc CAMPA towards the NPV etc. received from the States (principal amount) and the interest received on the fixed deposit (cumulative interest) has substantially B increased over a period of time and is presently about Rs.

30,000 crores. ·

21 ~On 2"" April, 2009, MoEF has issued '1he 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 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 D .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 aetivities for preservation of natural forests, management of wildlife, infrastructure development in the sector and other allied works. By order E dated 101h 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 fiext five years, in proportion of 10%of the principal amount F 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 expenditure incurred every year out of the State CAMPA funds. It was further directed that ari amount upto 5% of the amount released to the State G CAMPA, i.e., upto Rs.50 crore per annum, may also be released and utilized by the National C..A, MPAAdvisory 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

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA 299

[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

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 8

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 Chairman of the Governing Body which is responsible for overall guidance and policy.issues. The Ad-hoc CAMPA C

releases the funds to each cif 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 theAd-hcic CAMPA. The funds are not permitted D 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 E the State CAMPA for utilization, for protection and for the inlJ>rovement of the national environment. Now the aforesaid applications tiave 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 F relief claimed in all the applications is almost identical. We shall make a reference to the averments made in I.A. No. 3618 of 20'13 for the purpose of deciding all the applications.

24. I.A. No. 3618 of 2013 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of G 1995 has been filed by the Staie of Gujarat with the following prayer:-

"i. To direct the Ad-hoc CAMPA to release minimum of 10% of principal amount deposited by the StateslUTs

SUPREME COURTREPORTS

[2014] 14 S, C.R

A 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,· B Wildlife Conservation and other Forest conservation and Protection Measures as envisaged in the CAMPA guidelines;

ii. Pass any oter directions deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court." c Prayers made in other applications are similar, if not identical. ·

25.

The aforesaid relief is claimed on the basis that the amountavailable with CAMPA is substantially higher than D 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 E State. During subsequent years, i.e., 2010-11and2011-12,

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 amourit released is onJy 6.5% of the

principal amount. Jt is also submitted by the learned counsel F appearing for the State of Gujarat that t the time when these

applications were filed in April, 2013, the tofal funds available with the Ad-hoc CAMPA were as follows:-

a. The Princip!il amount at the disposal of ad-hoc

CAMPA is around Rs.28000 crores.

b. The accrued interest on it is of the order of over

Rs.4,000 crores.

c. The annual accrual of ir:iterest on the deposits is of the. order of Rs. 2200 crores.

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA 301 [SURINDER SINGH NlJJAR, J.]

26. Relying on the aforesaid facts and figures, it is A 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 l; rnd over a period of B 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 C from the State/Union Territories. To illustrate this dilemma, the applicant has relied on a chart, which is as under:-

(Rs. In Crores)

Year Amount Amount Shortfall required as per released to D

APO Gujarat State

CAMPA 1 2 3 4 2009-10 43.16 24.96 18.20 2010-11 43.78 29.16 14.62 .

E 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 F 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 G 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 H

A Wildlife Conservation, 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 B 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. c

28. These applications came up for hearing on 26th August, 2013, 20th September, 2013 and 4'h October, 2013.

Upon examination of the entire matter, a direction was issued on 9th December, 2013 tci the Centr$11 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.

29. In response to the application filed by the State of Gujarat, this Court by order dated 9th December, 2013 had E 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 1 Oth July, 2009 consider permitting the Ad-hoc CAMPA to annually release from the financial year 2014-2015 onwards, out of the interest received I receivable by it, an amount equal to 10% of the principle

(sic) amount lying to the credit of each of the State I UT at beginning of the year to the respective State CAMPA subject to the following conditions:

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA 303

[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

i)the funds will be released by utilizing interest received A I being received by the Ad-hoc CAMPA. The principle

(sic) amount lying with the Ad-hoc CAMPA will not be released or transferred o.r utilized;

ii) the funds will be released after receipt of the "Annual

Plan of Operation" containing details of the B afforestation and other works for the conservcition, protection and development of the forests and wildlife and approved by the Steering Committee of the respective State CAMPA; ., c

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

released;

iv) the National CAMPA Advisory Council (NCAC) will D

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. E vehicles and construction of residential I office buildings).

These guidelines will be strictly followed by the State

CAMPA; .

v) the State CAMPAs and the MoEF will 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 8 CEC after setting out the background in which the CAMPA was setup.

31. Mr. Salve learned Amicus Curiae on the hasis of the record has submitted that on the directions issued by this c Court about Rs.6000 crores are being received by CAMPA

annually. This amount represents the total amount collected for compensatory 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

0 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 E 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 ofthe funds released. Upon consideration of the F 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 1" May, 2014 G 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 I office buildings).

T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA 305

[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

These guidelines will be strictly followed by the State A

CAMPA.

The same shall be treated as directions of this Court.

The order dated 101" July, 2009 is modified accordingly.

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

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. It is further directed that the National CAMPAAdvisory Council will file a Status Report within a period of three months regarding the monitoring and D evaluation of the works being undertaken, by utilizing the funds released by CAMPA.

34. The Interlocutory Applications are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

Devika Gujral IA's disposed of.