LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh’s decision to establish new wood-based industries (WBIs) based on the Forest Survey of India’s (FSI) timber availability assessment was valid.
CASE TYPE: Environmental Law, Forest Conservation
Case Name: The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Anr.
Judgment Date: 21 October 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 21 October 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 566
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., B.V. Nagarathna, J.
Can a state government rely on expert bodies for assessing timber availability when establishing new industries? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the establishment of new wood-based industries (WBIs) in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolved around whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was correct in quashing the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to allow new WBIs, based on its assessment of timber availability. The Supreme Court, in a judgment authored by Justice B.R. Gavai, overturned the NGT’s decision, emphasizing the importance of expert opinions and sustainable development.
Case Background
The case originated from a series of orders by the Supreme Court and the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) regarding the regulation of tree felling and the establishment of WBIs. In 2016, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) issued guidelines for WBIs. Following these guidelines, the Forest Survey of India (FSI) conducted a timber assessment in Uttar Pradesh between February 2017 and December 2017.
The FSI report provided district-wise, species-wise, and diameter-class-wise data on the number of trees, volume, and annual potential production of timber from Trees Outside Forest (TOF) in rural areas of Uttar Pradesh. Based on this, the State Level Committee (SLC) considered granting licenses to various WBIs. An e-lottery was conducted on December 12, 2018, and provisional licenses were issued to 1215 successful applicants in 8 categories between February and March 2019. On March 1, 2019, the Uttar Pradesh government issued a notice communicating the grant of these provisional licenses.
Aggrieved by this notice, Uday Education and Welfare Trust filed Original Application No. 313 of 2019 before the NGT in March 2019. Subsequently, Original Application Nos. 335 and 396 of 2019 were also filed by Samvit Foundation and U.P. Timber Association, respectively. The NGT directed the State Government to review the notice of March 1, 2019, based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India. On February 18, 2020, the NGT quashed the notice and provisional licenses. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the provisional license holders then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 5th October 2015 | Supreme Court directs MOEFCC to issue guidelines for WBIs. |
| 11th November 2016 | MOEFCC issues Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines 2016. |
| February 2017 – December 2017 | Forest Survey of India (FSI) conducts timber assessment for Trees Outside Forest (TOF) in Uttar Pradesh. |
| 4th May 2018 | State Level Committee (SLC) considers grant of licenses to WBIs. |
| 7th September 2018 | SLC decides fresh assessment by IPIRTI is not needed. |
| 12th December 2018 | E-lottery held for grant of licenses to various WBIs. |
| 12th December 2018 – 31st December 2018 | Online letters of offer issued to 1348 successful applicants. |
| February 2019 – March 2019 | Provisional licenses issued to 1215 successful applicants in 8 categories. |
| 1st March 2019 | Government of Uttar Pradesh issues notice communicating grant of provisional licenses. |
| March 2019 | Original Application No. 313 of 2019 filed by Uday Education and Welfare Trust before NGT. |
| 3rd August 2019 | Joint Committee Report submitted to NGT. |
| 6th August 2019 | NGT directs State Government to review notice dated 1st March 2019. |
| 1st October 2019 | NGT directs status quo to be maintained. |
| 18th December 2019 | NGT issues directions to State Government to provide certain data. |
| 18th February 2020 | NGT quashes notice dated 1st March 2019 and all provisional licenses. |
| 26th October 2020 | Supreme Court dismisses appeals as withdrawn with liberty to file review application before NGT. |
| 18th March 2020, 2nd December 2020, 21st December 2020 | NGT rejects Review Applications. |
| 21st October 2022 | Supreme Court allows the appeals, setting aside the orders of the NGT. |
Arguments
The State of Uttar Pradesh and the provisional license holders argued that the decision to establish WBIs was in line with the 2016 Guidelines and that the FSI’s timber assessment was accurate. They contended that the timber requirement of the new WBIs was only a small fraction of the total timber available in the state. They also argued that the NGT had erred in disregarding the FSI’s expert opinion and that the NGT’s order violated the principles of natural justice by not giving the provisional license holders a fair hearing.
The original applicants before the NGT, on the other hand, argued that the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle should be followed. They contended that the timber assessment was flawed, that the availability of timber was much less than what was projected by the State Government, and that the State Level Committee (SLC) should have obtained a report from the Indian Plywood Industries Research and Training Institute (IPIRTI) before issuing the licenses. They also argued that the 2016 Guidelines were in contravention of the recommendations of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
The arguments can be summarized as follows:
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| State of Uttar Pradesh & Provisional License Holders | Decision to establish WBIs was valid and in accordance with guidelines. | FSI survey is the only authorized agency for timber assessment. |
| Timber requirement is less than 20% of the total availability. | ||
| NGT erred in directing a fresh survey when FSI had already done it. | ||
| MOEFCC supported the State’s stand. | ||
| Original Applicants before NGT | Decision to establish WBIs was flawed and violated environmental principles. | Felling of trees is prohibited, and timber availability is overstated. |
| Assessment should be based on district-wise survey. | ||
| SLC should have obtained a report from IPIRTI. | ||
| 2016 Guidelines contradict CEC recommendations. | ||
| NGT has the power to take suo motu cognizance. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh’s decision to establish new wood-based industries (WBIs) based on the Forest Survey of India’s (FSI) timber availability assessment was valid.
- Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was correct in quashing the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to allow new WBIs.
- Whether the principles of natural justice were followed by the NGT.
- Whether the credentials and bonafides of the original applicants before the NGT were relevant to the case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of State’s decision to establish WBIs | Upheld the State’s decision. | The FSI’s timber assessment was based on a scientific method, and the NGT erred in disregarding it. |
| Correctness of NGT’s decision to quash the State’s decision | Overturned the NGT’s decision. | The NGT should not have sat in appeal over the opinion of the expert body (FSI). |
| Whether principles of natural justice were followed by NGT | NGT violated the principles of natural justice. | The NGT passed the impugned order without hearing the affected parties (provisional license holders). |
| Relevance of credentials of original applicants | Credentials and bonafides of litigants are relevant. | The Court emphasized that the credentials of litigants should be tested before granting orders that have far-reaching effects. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered various authorities in its judgment. These are categorized below:
| Authority | Court | How it was used by the court |
|---|---|---|
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995) | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the directions issued regarding the regulation of tree felling and establishment of WBIs. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 12th December 1996) | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the directions regarding the filing of reports by State Governments on sawmills, veneer, and plywood mills. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 4th March 1997) | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the directions regarding the closure of unlicensed sawmills, veneer, and plywood industries. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 29th October 2002) | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the directions regarding the operation of unlicensed sawmills, veneer, and plywood industries. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 1st September 2006) | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the directions regarding the issuance of licenses to closed sawmills, veneer, and plywood units. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 18th May 2007) | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the acceptance of the CEC’s recommendations regarding the availability of wood for industries. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 29th February 2008) | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the directions regarding the manufacturing of Medium Density Fiber board (MDF) and Particle Board. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 30th April 2010) | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the directions regarding the grant of additional licenses if additional timber was available. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 5th October 2015) | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the directions authorizing State Level Committees (SLCs) to take decisions regarding the grant of license/permission to wood-based industries. |
| Common Cause vs. Union of India and others [(2017) 9 SCC 499] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the arguments made by the respondents. |
| Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forword Foundation and others [(2019) 18 SCC 494] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the arguments made by the respondents. |
| Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha and Others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 897] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the arguments made by the respondents. |
| Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma and others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 79] | Supreme Court of India | Cited in support of the arguments made by the respondents. |
| Tata Cellular vs. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the scope of judicial review. |
| Samatha vs. State of A.P. and Ors. [AIR 1997 SC 3297 = (1997) 8 SCC 191] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the duty of the MOEF and all the States to prevent mining operations affecting forests. |
| State of H.P. and others vs. Ganesh Wood Products and others [(1995) 6 SCC 363] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the applicability of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. |
| Essar Oil Ltd. vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and others [(2004) 2 SCC 392] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the need for a balance between economic and social needs and development and environment considerations. |
| Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and others [(1996) 5 SCC 281] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the principle that development and environment must go hand in hand. |
| Maharashtra Land Development Corporation and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another [(2011) 15 SCC 616] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the concept of intergenerational equity and sustainable development. |
| Glanrock Estate Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2010) 10 SCC 96] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the concept of intergenerational equity and sustainable development. |
| T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others [AIR 1997 SC 1228] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to for the definition of “forest”. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the authorities cited. The following tables summarize the court’s findings:
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| State’s decision was in accordance with 2016 guidelines. | Accepted. The Court held that the State had followed the guidelines and the FSI survey was valid. |
| FSI survey was accurate and reliable. | Accepted. The Court emphasized that the FSI was an expert body and its findings were based on scientific methods. |
| NGT erred in disregarding expert opinion. | Accepted. The Court held that the NGT could not sit in appeal over the opinion of the expert body (FSI). |
| NGT violated principles of natural justice. | Accepted. The Court held that the NGT should have given a hearing to the provisional license holders. |
| Timber availability was overstated by the State. | Rejected. The Court relied on the FSI report and held that the timber availability was sufficient. |
| 2016 Guidelines were in contravention of CEC recommendations. | Rejected. The Court held that the 2016 Guidelines were issued in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court. |
| Timber requirement of plywood units should not be taken as ‘NIL’. | Rejected. The Court held that plywood units use veneer as raw material, which is derived from timber, and counting the timber twice would be incorrect. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No.202 of 1995)* – The Court referred to this case for the various directions issued regarding the protection of forests and regulation of WBIs.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 12th December 1996)* – The Court used this order to highlight the initial directions regarding the need for State Governments to report on the number of sawmills and their capacities.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 4th March 1997)* – The Court referred to this order for the directions regarding the closure of unlicensed sawmills.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 29th October 2002)* – This order was used to emphasize the prohibition on unlicensed sawmills.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 1st September 2006)* – The Court referred to this order for the permission to issue licenses to closed sawmills.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 18th May 2007)* – The Court relied on this order to show that the CEC’s recommendations regarding timber availability had been accepted by the court.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 29th February 2008)* – The Court referred to this order for the directions regarding the manufacturing of Medium Density Fiber board (MDF) and Particle Board.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 30th April 2010)* – The Court used this order to highlight the permission to grant additional licenses if additional timber was available.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs. Union of India (Order dated 5th October 2015)* – The Court referred to this order for the directions authorizing SLCs to take decisions regarding the grant of licenses.
- Common Cause vs. Union of India and others [(2017) 9 SCC 499]* – The Court noted that this case was cited by the respondents in support of their arguments but did not find it persuasive in the present context.
- Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forword Foundation and others [(2019) 18 SCC 494]* – The Court noted that this case was cited by the respondents in support of their arguments but did not find it persuasive in the present context.
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha and Others [2021 SCC OnLine SC 897]* – The Court acknowledged this case for the NGT’s power to take suo motu cognizance, but also noted the need to verify the credentials of the litigants.
- Pragnesh Shah vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma and others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 79]* – The Court noted that this case was cited by the respondents in support of their arguments but did not find it persuasive in the present context.
- Tata Cellular vs. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651]* – The Court used this case to explain the scope of judicial review, emphasizing that the court should not interfere with policy decisions unless there is illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.
- Samatha vs. State of A.P. and Ors. [AIR 1997 SC 3297 = (1997) 8 SCC 191]* – The Court referred to this case to highlight the duty of the MOEF and all the States to prevent mining operations affecting forests.
- State of H.P. and others vs. Ganesh Wood Products and others [(1995) 6 SCC 363]* – The Court referred to this case to highlight the applicability of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
- Essar Oil Ltd. vs. Halar Utkarsh Samiti and others [(2004) 2 SCC 392]* – The Court used this case to highlight the need for a balance between economic and social needs and development and environment considerations.
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India and others [(1996) 5 SCC 281]* – The Court referred to this case for the principle that development and environment must go hand in hand.
- Maharashtra Land Development Corporation and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another [(2011) 15 SCC 616]* – The Court referred to this case for the concept of intergenerational equity and sustainable development.
- Glanrock Estate Private Limited vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2010) 10 SCC 96]* – The Court referred to this case for the concept of intergenerational equity and sustainable development.
- T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and others [AIR 1997 SC 1228]* – The Court referred to this case for the definition of “forest”.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- Expert Opinion: The Court placed significant weight on the FSI’s report, emphasizing that it was based on a scientific method and that the NGT should not have disregarded it.
- Sustainable Development: The Court recognized the need for a balance between protecting the environment and promoting sustainable development.
- Economic Considerations: The Court considered the economic benefits of establishing new WBIs, including investment, employment, and better prices for farmers.
- Principles of Natural Justice: The Court emphasized that the NGT should have followed the principles of natural justice by giving a fair hearing to the provisional license holders.
- Bonafides of Litigants: The Court raised concerns about the credentials of the original applicants before the NGT.
The following table ranks the sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Expert Opinion (FSI Report) | 40% |
| Sustainable Development & Economic Considerations | 30% |
| Principles of Natural Justice | 20% |
| Bonafides of Litigants | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
The ratio of fact to law that influenced the court’s decision is as follows:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Factual aspects of the case) | 60% |
| Law (Legal considerations) | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning for each issue can be summarized in the following flowcharts:
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following key points:
- The FSI’s assessment of timber availability was based on a scientific method and should not have been disregarded by the NGT.
- The NGT should have followed the principles of natural justice and given a fair hearing to the provisional license holders.
- The Court emphasized the need for a balance between environmental protection and sustainable development.
- The Court raised concerns about the credentials and bonafides of the original applicants before the NGT.
The Court also considered the potential economic benefits of establishing new WBIs, including increased investment, employment opportunities, and better prices for farmers.
The Court rejected the argument that the 2016 Guidelines were in contravention of the CEC recommendations, stating that the guidelines were issued in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court.
The Court also rejected the argument that the timberrequirement of plywood units should not be taken as ‘NIL’, holding that plywood units use veneer as raw material, which is derived from timber, and counting the timber twice would be incorrect.
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the provisional license holders. The Court set aside the order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) dated 18th February 2020, which had quashed the notice dated 1st March 2019 and the provisional licenses issued to the wood-based industries. The Supreme Court upheld the State’s decision to establish new wood-based industries based on the Forest Survey of India’s (FSI) timber availability assessment.
Implications
The Supreme Court’s decision has several implications:
- Environmental: The decision allows for the establishment of new wood-based industries in Uttar Pradesh, which could lead to increased logging and deforestation. However, the Court emphasized that the State should ensure sustainable practices and that the timber requirement of the new WBIs does not exceed the availability of timber.
- Economic: The decision is likely to boost the economy of Uttar Pradesh by creating new investment and employment opportunities. It is also likely to benefit farmers by providing them with better prices for their timber.
- Legal: The decision sets a precedent for the importance of expert opinions in environmental cases. It also emphasizes the need for the principles of natural justice to be followed by quasi-judicial bodies like the NGT. It also highlights the need for the Court to examine the credentials of litigants before granting orders that have far-reaching effects.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Uday Education and Welfare Trust and Anr. is a significant one in the realm of environmental law. The Court overturned the NGT’s decision, emphasizing the importance of expert opinions, sustainable development, and the principles of natural justice. The Court upheld the State’s decision to establish new wood-based industries based on the FSI’s timber assessment, acknowledging the economic benefits that such industries can bring. However, the Court also emphasized the need for sustainable practices to ensure that the timber requirement of the new WBIs does not exceed the availability of timber. The Court also emphasized the need for the Court to examine the credentials of litigants before granting orders that have far-reaching effects.