Supreme Court Stays New Wood-Based Industries in Uttar Pradesh Pending Timber Assessment

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 22, 2022

Judges: Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai

Can a state government proceed with the establishment of new wood-based industries without a thorough assessment of available timber resources? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India. The Court was asked to consider whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) was correct in halting the establishment of new wood-based industries in Uttar Pradesh, pending a detailed study on timber availability. The Supreme Court, in this interim order, sided with the NGT, emphasizing the importance of environmental precautions.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai. This was not a divided opinion, and the order was delivered by the bench.

Case Background

The State of Uttar Pradesh, on March 1, 2019, issued a notice proposing to grant licenses to 1350 new wood-based industries. This move was challenged through public interest litigations before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The petitioners, including Samvit Foundation, Uday Education & Welfare Trust, and U.P. Timber Association, raised concerns about the environmental impact of such a large number of new industries without a proper assessment of timber resources.

The NGT, on March 28, 2019, directed a joint committee to submit a report on the matter. The committee’s report, submitted on August 3, 2019, stated that sufficient wood was available for the new industries. However, the NGT expressed initial disapproval and ordered a status quo on October 1, 2019, preventing further action on the licenses. The State of Uttar Pradesh then sought a modification of this order.

On December 8, 2019, the NGT directed the State to provide detailed data, including:
✓ District-wise data of existing wood-based industries and their capacity.
✓ Justification for new industries based on timber demand and supply.
✓ Mechanisms to prevent illegal logging.

The State of Uttar Pradesh submitted an affidavit on January 22, 2020, justifying the new industries, citing economic benefits like employment generation and investment. The state also noted that 632 out of 1215 provisionally licensed industries were ready to operate, and the status quo was causing hardships.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) initially directed a joint committee to assess the timber availability, which submitted a report stating sufficient wood was available. However, the NGT expressed reservations and ordered a status quo. After the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted data justifying the new industries, the NGT, on February 18, 2020, quashed the notice for establishing new wood-based industries and all provisional licenses issued in furtherance of the same. The NGT emphasized the need for a district-wise, species-wise, and diameter-class-wise inventory of timber and suggested the Forest Survey of India (FSI) conduct the study. The NGT also noted that the data available did not support the State’s contention of sufficient timber and that new industries could lead to illegal logging.

Review applications against this order were dismissed by the NGT on December 2, 2020, and December 21, 2020. The State of Uttar Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the application of the precautionary principle in environmental law. The precautionary principle dictates that in the face of potential environmental harm, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

The Tribunal’s decision was based on the need for a thorough assessment of timber availability before licensing new wood-based industries, emphasizing the precautionary principle to avoid potential environmental damage.

Arguments

The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that there was no dearth of timber in the State and that the decision to permit new wood-based industries was in the larger public interest. They contended that these industries would generate revenue and employment for the rural population. The State also argued that timber was available in excess and was being exported to other states. They relied on the recommendations of the State Level Committee, which had examined the matter and decided in favor of granting licenses based on expert opinions and studies. The State also argued that at least 632 wood-based industries with provisional licenses should be allowed to operate.

The State further submitted that the notice dated 01.03.2019 proposing for grant of license to new wood-based industries was in conformity with the directions issued by the Supreme Court on 05.10.2015 in the case of ‘T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors’. They also argued that there is no provision for any new assessment/survey to be conducted regarding consumption of timber in the Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines, 2016 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India.

The respondents argued that the State did not have a proper assessment of timber availability, and allowing new industries would lead to illegal logging and environmental damage. They supported the NGT’s order, which emphasized the need for a credible study before any decision on new industries.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this interim order. However, the core issue before the court was whether the NGT’s order to halt the establishment of new wood-based industries pending a proper assessment of timber availability was justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court referred to the following cases and guidelines:

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995, Supreme Court of India. The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that their notice was in conformity with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in this case.
• Wood Based Industries (Establishment and Regulation) Guidelines, 2016, issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. The State of Uttar Pradesh contended that there is no provision for any new assessment/survey to be conducted regarding consumption of timber in these guidelines.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, in this interim order, did not stay the judgment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The court observed that it was prima facie in agreement with the NGT that data needs to be collected by the State before permitting new wood-based industries. The Court noted that the decision taken by the State Level Committee on 04.05.2018 to grant permission for new wood-based industries only after getting a report from IPIRTI, Bengaluru was not followed.

The Court stated, “Prima facie, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that data has to be collected by the State before permitting new wood-based industries.”

The Court further noted, “The State Government is at liberty to pursue their request to the IPIRTI, Bengaluru to conduct an assessment before taking a decision to grant licence to new wood-based industries.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need for environmental precaution and the importance of a data-driven approach in such matters. The court emphasized that the State should not proceed with licensing new wood-based industries without a proper assessment of timber availability. The Court’s reasoning was based on the precautionary principle, which requires taking preventive measures in the face of potential environmental harm, even if there is no full scientific certainty.

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the need for proper legal procedure and adherence to environmental norms than by the factual aspects of the case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) order to halt the establishment of new wood-based industries in Uttar Pradesh.
• The Court emphasized the importance of a thorough assessment of timber availability before granting licenses for new wood-based industries.
• The decision highlights the application of the precautionary principle in environmental law, where potential environmental harm must be prevented even in the absence of full scientific certainty.
• The State Government is at liberty to pursue their request to the IPIRTI, Bengaluru to conduct an assessment before taking a decision to grant licence to new wood-based industries.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the matter be listed for final hearing during the summer vacation or in August 2022. The State Government was given liberty to pursue their request to the IPIRTI, Bengaluru to conduct an assessment before taking a decision to grant licence to new wood-based industries.

Development of Law

This interim order reinforces the application of the precautionary principle in environmental law. It underscores that the State cannot proceed with projects that have potential environmental implications without first conducting a thorough assessment of the resources involved. The ratio decidendi of this case is that environmental safeguards must be prioritized, and decisions must be based on data and scientific assessment. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s interim order in the case of *The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Uday Education and Welfare Trust & Anr.* upholds the National Green Tribunal’s decision to halt the establishment of new wood-based industries in Uttar Pradesh. The Court emphasized the need for a data-driven approach and a thorough assessment of timber availability before granting licenses for such industries. This decision reinforces the importance of environmental precaution and the application of the precautionary principle in environmental law.