T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India - International ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Spatial pattern of treatment units Concentrated or dispersedcutting blocksProtection strategyWildfire suppression policyVertical and horizontalApproach to partial cuttingdiversity/stand densityand prescribed burningRegeneration harvest timingRotation age (even-aged),cutting cycle (uneven-aged)Regeneration methodClearcutting, clearcuttingwith leave trees,shelterwood, selection,prescribed fire, naturaldisturbance."___________________________________________________________________When permission is granted by the Government of India to use the forest land for nonforestpurposes, it is not unconditional. Conditions are attached mainly with a view toprotect the environments and to make good the loss likely to occur by grant of suchpermission. The payment into such a fund or imposition of conditions are for theprotection of natural resources. The Notification dated 23rd April, 2004 sets up a body towhich payment is made so that the said body can carry out the statutory andconstitutional obligations. Since the amount does not go to the accounts postulated byArticle 283, the said provision shall have no application. Similarly, the provisions of theCAG Act would also have no application. At the same time, it may be noted that clause6.3 stipulates the audit through Chartered Accountants on the panel of CAG. In order toprovide for financial discipline, transparency and accountability, it would be appropriateto provide for corporate accounting on the principles of double entry system. We arefurther of the view that the accounts of the Fund shall be subjected to internal StatutoryAudit, the Statutory Auditors to be taken from the panel of CAG. The internal audit shallbe conducted every six months.The duty to preserve natural resources in pristine purity has been highlighted in M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors. After considering the opinion of various renownedauthors and decisions rendered by other countries as well on environment and ecology,this Court held that the notion that the public has a right to expect certain lands andnatural areas to retain their natural characteristics is finding its way into the law of theland. The Court accepted the applicability of public trust doctrine and held that it wasfounded on the ideas that certain common properties such as rivers, sea-shore, forests andthe air were held by the Government in trusteeship for the free and unimpeded use of thegeneral public. These natural resources have a great importance to the people as a wholethat it would wholly unjustified to make them subject to private ownership. Theseresources being a gift of nature, should be made freely available to everyone irrespectiveof the status in life. The doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resourcesfor the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for privateownership or commercial purposes. It was held that our legal system - based on Englishcommon law - includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State isthe trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use andenjoyment. Public at large is the beneficiary of these resources. The State as a trustee isunder a legal duty to protect these natural resources. Summing up the Court said :22
"We are fully aware that the issues presented in this case illustrate the classic strugglebetween those members of the public who would preserve our rivers, forests, parks andopen lands in their pristine purity and those charged with administrative responsibilitieswho, under the pressures of the changing needs of an increasingly complex society, findit necessary to encroach to some extent upon open lands heretofore considered inviolateto change. The resolution of this conflict in any given case is for the legislature and notthe courts. If there is a law made by Parliament or the State Legislatures the courts canserve as an instrument of determining legislative intent in the exercise of its powers ofjudicial review under the Constitution. But in the absence of any legislation, theexecutive acting under the doctrine of public trust cannot abdicate the natural resourcesand convert them into private ownership, or for commercial use. The aesthetic use andthe pristine glory of the natural resources, the environment and the ecosystems of ourcountry cannot be permitted to be eroded for private, commercial or any other use unlessthe courts find it necessary, in good faith, for the public good and in public interest toencroach upon the said resources."In view of above, we hold that the natural resources are not ownership of any one State orindividual, public at large is its beneficiary and, therefore, the contention of Mr.Venugopal that the amount of NPV shall be made over to the State Government cannotbe accepted.The Indian Forest Act was enacted to consolidate the law relating to forests, the transit offorest-produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest-produce. The focus of thisAct is on the proprietary rights. Section 3 empowers the State Government to constituteany forest land or waste land which is the property of the Government or over which theGovernment has proprietary rights, or to the whole or any part of the forest produce ofwhich the Government is entitled in a reserved forest in the manner provided in the Act.As provided in Section 5, no right can be acquired over the land in respect whereofnotification has been issued under Section 4. In the manner provided in Section 11, theForest Settlement Officer is empowered to acquire the land. Section 20 provides fordeclaration of reserved forest. No right in or over a reserved forest can be acquired, asprovided in Section 23. Acts prohibited in respect of forests have been incorporated inSection 25. Section 29 deals with declaration of protect forest and Section 30 empowersthe State Government to issue notification reserving trees etc. in a protected forest. Thepower of the State Government for protection of forest has been provided in Section 35.The power to impose duty on timber and other forest produce is contained in Section 39of the Act.From the above, it can be seen that scheme of 1927 Act is a State management andregulation of the forest. On the assumption that local communities were incapable ofscientific management of forest, the British Government introduced Forest Policy andManagement by setting up a forest department and enacting the Indian Forest Act, 1878which was amended from time to time. By passage of time, it was found that theprovisions of the said Act were not adequate and, thus, in order to consolidate the lawrelating to forest, the transit of forest produce and the duty leviable for timber and otherforest produce, the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was enacted. To further tighten the23
Page 1 and 2: Case Note: Case concerning the gene
Page 3 and 4: Government has been given wide powe
Page 5 and 6: procedure for this purpose would be
Page 7 and 8: (vii) A professional ecologist, not
Page 9 and 10: committed to conserve the forest an
Page 11 and 12: The question, which we have to answ
Page 13 and 14: 7. Legal, institutional and economi
Page 15 and 16: It is not necessary to delve furthe
Page 17 and 18: about half a century earlier. It ha
Page 19 and 20: Assemblies. Under Section 12, CAG i
Page 21: Thus reading Entry 47 with Entry 20
Page 25 and 26: -- Meeting the requirements of fuel
Page 27 and 28: -- As far as possible, a forest-bas
Page 29 and 30: three years, the corresponding pres
Page 31 and 32: society cares or does not care for
Page 33 and 34: e filed in Court and SPV shall not

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India - International ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?