( Reportable)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5180 OF 2001

A. Chowgule & Co. Ltd.                           ……..Appellant

Vs.

Goa Foundation & Ors.                      …………Respondents

J U D G M E N T

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as under:

2. The  appellant,  a  company  incorporated  under  the

Companies  Act,  has  its  registered  office  at  Chowgule

House, Mormugao Harbour,Goa and is a recognized star

trading  house  engaged  in  the  mining,  processing  and

export of iron ore.  In the year 1979, the appellant took a

decision to establish a 100 per cent export oriented unit

in Sanguem Taluka situated at a short distance from its

existing mines.  The process of locating suitable land for

the unit took about 10 years and the process for the unit

was finally set in motion by a letter dated 21st December

1988  from  the  Collectorate  of  South  Goa,  Revenue

Department  to  the  Inspector  of  Survey,  Land Records,

Mangao-Goa   informing  the  said  officer  that  the

Government of Goa had decided to lease an area of 15

hectare out of 26.4675 hectares to the appellant  under

Survey No. 12 of Potrem Village in Sanguem Taluka and

directions were issued that the area be demarcated and

the  other  formalities  complied  with.   On  17th August

1989, the appellant addressed a letter to the Secretary

for  Industrial  Approvals,  Ministry  of  Industries  of  the

Central  Government  about  the  proposal  to  set  up  an

integrated unit including a benefication plant at Tuduo

Mines for the production of saleable iron ore at a cost of

Rs.25 crores and to operate it as a 100 per cent export

oriented unit.  A formal letter of intent was also issued to

the  appellant  on 25th January 1991.   Pursuant  to  the

decisions  taken,  a  Memorandum  of  Lease  dated  1st

2

November 1989 was executed between the Governor of

Goa and the appellant whereby an area of 12 hectares

was  leased  out  for  the  purpose  of  ancillary  work

connected to mining and for that purpose the appellant

was  authorized  to  construct  the  necessary  civil

structures.  The appellant also, on 7th of February 1990,

entered into a contract with a Japanese Corporation for

the  export  of  processed  iron  ore.   A  No  Objection

Certificate  from the  Goa State  Pollution  Control  Board

was obtained on 15th April 1991 and a Sanad dated 10th

July 1991 was also  issued  by the  Deputy  Collector  of

Goa permitting the use of the land for non-agricultural

purposes  upon  payment  of  Rs.6  lakhs  by  way  of

conversion  fees.   It  is  the  case  of  the  appellant  that

pursuant to the aforesaid administrative sanctions and

decisions,  machinery worth Rs.12 crores  was imported

for  the  operation  of  the  project.   At  this  juncture

Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed Writ Petition No.113 of

1992  in  public  interest  before  the  Goa  Bench  of  the

Bombay  High Court  praying  for  a writ  of  certiorari  for

3

quashing the Memorandum of Lease dated 1st November

1989  and  for  several  other  reliefs.   Respondent  No.5

herein, the  Conservator of Forests, Goa filed an affidavit

before the High Court pointing out that the 12 hectares

of  land  which  had  been  leased  to  the  appellant  had

already been classified as Revenue Land meant for “Dry

Crops” and was not a forest area, as had been contended

by the writ petitioners/respondents 1,2 and 3.  On 26th

March 1992, the High Court adjourned the matter for 8

weeks in view of  the statement  made  by  the  Advocate

General that the State Government proposed to take up

the matter with the Central Government so as to secure

the  necessary  approvals  postulated  under  section  2  of

the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the

“Act”)  and as such it was unnecessary to proceed with

the writ petition.  The High Court, accordingly, adjourned

the matter for 8 weeks without any discussion on merits

with liberty to all  parties to press their submissions in

case the need arose.  Pursuant to the assurance given by

the  Advocate  General  to  the  High  Court,  the  State

4

Government  wrote  to the Ministry of  Environment  and

Forest, New Delhi on 7th May 1992 pointing out that out

of the 12 hectares leased to the appellant a small area of

about 5000 square meters would be used for the erection

of  the  benefication  plant  and  that  appellant  had  also

taken to raise compensatory afforestation in one hectare

in  non-forest  area  in Survey  No.42  Santanu Village  of

Sangueme  Taluka  and  as  the  unit  was  likely  to  earn

foreign exchange and the  broad  sanctions  had already

been given by the concerned quarters,  clearance under

section  2  of  the  Act  be  accorded.   The  writ  petition

aforesaid once again came up for consideration on 17th

November 1992 and while granting some interim relief to

the writ petitioners-respondents, it was directed that the

petition be listed for final disposal in January 1993.  The

Ministry of Environment and Forest, in the meanwhile,

vide its letter dated 25th May 1993 conveyed its approval

in principle for diversion of 4.44 hectares of forest land

from Potrem village subject to several conditions which

were statedly complied with by the appellant and a final

5

decision allowing the diversion was also conveyed to the

appellant on 7th November 1997.  Writ Petition No.113 of

1992 came up for final disposal before the Goa Bench on

21st July  2000  and  was  duly  allowed  and  writ  of

certiorari was issued quashing the lease agreement dated

1st November  1989.   It  was,  inter-alia,  held  that  the

various approvals/sanctions granted to the appellant by

the Industries Department or by the Collector could not,

by  any  stretch  of  imagination,  be  construed  as

permission  for  deforestation  of  the  forest  area,  as

envisaged by section 2 of the Act as the said Act required

prior  approval  of  the  Central  Government  after  the

procedure  given  in  Rules  4,  5  and  6  of  The  Forest

(Conservation) Rules 1981 (hereinafter called the “Rules”)

had been followed.   The plea of  the appellant that the

area concerned was not a forest was also repelled with

the observations that an average of 250 trees per hectare

were growing on the land, as was clear from the affidavit

filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, R.Nagbhushan

Rao and that the entire area was heavily forested with

6

3000  trees  and  was  in  addition  contiguous  to  the

Government  forests.   The  Bench  also  observed  that

merely  because  the  land  had  been  described  as  “Dry

Crops Land” would not change the nature of the land as

it was apparently a wrong description more particularly

as Section 2 ibid referred not only to forests but to forest

land as well.   For arriving at its decision,  the Division

Bench  relied  upon  the  decision  of  this  Court  in

T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India &

Ors. (1997)  2 SCC 267 in which it was held  that the

term ‘forest’  was to be given an extended meaning so as

to  cover  all  statutorily  recognized  forests  whether

designated  as  reserved,  protected  or  otherwise  for  the

purpose of section 2 of the Act.  Having held as above,

the Division Bench observed that the 12 hectares being

forest land, prior permission under section 2 of the Act

was the sine qua non for the execution of the lease deed

dated  1st of  November  1989  and  finally  concluded  as

under:

7

“Does  the  subsequent  act  of  granting permission  communicated  by  letter  of  18th May 1993 enable respondent No.4 to carry on with those development activities on the 4.44 hectares?  The letter of  8th July  1997 seeks prior  approval of Central Government.  In the instant case as we have been there is no prior approval for entering into a lease deed any of the term of lease can be set out.   Condition No.1 shows that the legal status of the forest land shall remain unchanged.  The permission is co-terminus with lease granted by the State Government  with  effect  from  1st November 1989.  Therefore, it proceeded on the footing that  prior  approval  is  being  sought.   In  the instant  case  the  records  show  that  prior approval was not taken.  In that context mere permission granted for development will be of no consequence.  It is true that the petitioner has  not  challenged  the  subsequent permission granted. However, what is material to notice is that the area was a forest.  In spite of  that,  without  prior  permission,  the respondent No.1 granted the lease in favour of the respondent No.4.  The lease was contrary to law.  Once the lease was contrary to law, the question of the State Government applying at  the  behest  of  respondent  No.4  for permission would not arise.

Even otherwise the land is situated to an adjacent  Government  forest  and  the  land  is sought  to  be  used  for  setting  up  of  a beneficiation  plant  which  involves  dust  and water pollution and consequent destruction of the adjoining forest.  It will substantially affect the  environment  and  ecology  of  the  area. This, in fact, would affect the right to life.  The petitioners  in  the  petition  have  averred  that the  cutting  of  trees  without  obtaining

8

permission  was  resorted  to.   In  matters  of ecology and environment and considering the principle  of  sustainable  development,  no person  or  organization,  however,  high  and mighty they may be, can be permitted to flout the law of the land. Considering  that,  in  our  opinion,  the  lease granted in favour of  respondent  No.4 is  still born,  null  and  void.   Respondent  No.1  is directed to restore the land to its original use.

Rule  made  absolute  in  the  aforesaid terms.  In the circumstances,  there shall  be no order as to costs.”

It is these circumstances that the appeal is before us.

3. Mr.  Shrivastava,  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

appellant  has  raised  several  arguments  during  the

course of hearing.  He has first and foremost pointed out

that  there  had  been  no  violation  of  the  provisions  of

Section  2  of  the  Act  in  the  background  that  the

Government of India had given its post-facto approval to

the project and that the State Government had accorded

its  approval  on  21st December  1988  and  that   the

Government of India had also conveyed its approval in

principle for the diversion of 4.44 hectares of the land

subject to several conditions which had been complied

9

with and in this view of the matter, any flaw, which may

have been present at the initial stage, had been rectified.

It has been submitted that the aforesaid arguments were

further  fortified  from  the  letters  of  the  Ministry  of

Environment and Forest, Government of India dated 18th

May 1993 and 7th November  1997 for the use of  4.44

hectares of forest land in Porterm village in favour of the

appellant  subject  to  the  condition,  inter-alia,  that

compensatory  afforestation  would  be  carried  out  over

non-forest  land  at  the  cost  of  the  project.   It  has,

accordingly, been submitted as the lease deed has been

executed for an area of about 15 hectares and was as per

record not a forest area, the entire area ought to be left

for the use of the appellant-company and that the 4.44

hectares which had been cleared not only by the State

Government  but  by  the  Ministry  of  Environment  and

Forest, Government of India should in any case be left

out for the benefit of the appellant.  The learned counsel

has relied upon  (1985) 3 SCC 643  (State of Bihar vs.

Banshi  Ram  Modi  &  Ors.  ) and  AIR  1990  Andhra

10

Pradesh  257 (Hyderabad  Abrasives  &  Minerals,

Hyderabad  vs. The Govt.  of A.P. Forest Department,

Hyderabad & Anr. in support of his case.

4. Mr.  Sanjay  Parekh,  the  learned  counsel  for  the

respondents has, however, submitted that as a matter of

fact,  the  benefication  plant  had  already  been  shifted

from  the  proposed  site  and  that  this  fact  had  been

withheld from the High Court as well as from this Court

during the course of the protracted hearings.  It has also

been strongly urged that Section 2 of  the Act and the

Rules  pre-supposed  a  prior  approval  of  the  Central

Government as per the prescribed procedure before the

dereservation  of  forest  land  and  formal  approvals

granted  by  any  other  agency  or  by  the  Central

Government ex-post facto, would not cure any defect in

the dereservation.  It  has been submitted that even as

per the appellant’s case, the lease deed for 12 hectares

had  been  executed  on  1st November  1989,  but  the

approval for the diversion of 4.44 hectares of land had

11

been accorded in the year 1997 and would, therefore not

operate retrospectively even for this limited area.  It has

also  been  argued  that  the  appellant’s  undertaking  to

cause  afforestation  in  an  area  equivalent  to  the  one

leased  out  as  per  the  stipulation  of  the  Central

Government in the afore referred documents,  was also

not acceptable in the light of the fact  that the lease deed

itself was contrary to law.  It has also been pointed out

that the finding of fact recorded by the High Court was

that the area in question was indeed a forest and that

the judgments cited by the appellant’s counsel  had been

clarified by the Supreme Court in a series of subsequent

judgments  reported  in  (1987)  1  SCC  213  (Ambica

Quarry  Works  vs.  State  of  Gujarat  &  Ors.), 1989

Suppl.  (1)  SCC  504   (Rural  Litigation  &  Entitlement   

Kendra  vs.  State  of  U.P., (1997)  2  SCC  267

(T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India &

Ors.) and (2004) 12 SCC 118 (M.C.Mehta  vs. Union of

India & Ors.).    

12

5.  We  have  considered  the  arguments  advanced  by  the

learned counsel  for the parties.   It  is evident from the

record  and  what  has  been  recorded  earlier  that  the

primary issue is with regard to the permission granted

by the Central Government for the diversion of the forest

area.  Section 2 of the Act and the relevant Rules are

reproduced below:

“Sec. 2.   Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use  of  forest  land  for  non-forest  purpose  – Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government any order directing –

(i)that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression ‘reserved forest’ in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;                       

(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;

(iii)that  any  forest  land  or  any  portion  thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any  private  person  or  to  any  authority, Corporation,  agency  or  any  other  organisation not  owned,  managed  or  controlled  by Government;

(iv)  that any forest  land or any portion thereof may  be  cleared  of  trees  which  have  grown

13

naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for re-afforestation.

Rules.

Rule  2(b).  “Committee”  means  the  Committee constituted under Section 3.

2A.(1)Composition  of  the  Committee:- The Committee shall be composed of the following Members:-

i.  Inspector  General  of  Forests,Ministry  of Environment & Forests  – Chairman. ii.  Additional  Inspector  General  of  Forests, Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests  – Member. iii.  Joint  Commissioner  (Soil  Conservation), Ministry of Agriculture – Member. iv.  Three  eminent  environmentalists  (non- officials) – Member. v.  Deputy  Inspector  General  of  Forests, (Forest  Conservation),  Ministry  of Environment  and  Forests  –  Member- Secretary.

4.Procedure  to  make  proposal  by  a  State Government or other authority:-

(1)  Every  State  Government  or  other  authority seeking  the  prior  approval  under  section  2  shall send its proposal to the Central Government in the form appended to these rules:

Provided  that  all  proposals  involving  clearing naturally  grown  trees  in  forest  land  Or  portion thereof  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  for

14

reafforestation shall be sent in the form of Working Plan/Management Plan.

(2) Every proposal referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be sent to the following address, namely:-

Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of Environment & Forests Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110003

Provided that all proposals involving forest land up to twenty hectares and proposals involving clearing of  naturally  grown trees in forest  land or portion thereof  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  for reafforestation  shall  be  sent  to  the  Chief Conservator  of  Forests/Conservator  of  Forests  of the  concerned  Regional  Office  of  the  Ministry  of Environment and Forests.

5. Committee to advise on proposals received by the Central Government:-

1.  The  Central  Government  shall  refer  every proposal received by it under sub-rule (1) of rule 4 to the committee for its advice thereon if the area of forest  land  involved  is  more  than  twenty hectares.Provided that proposals involving clearing of  naturally  grown trees in forest  land or portion thereof  for  the  purpose  of  using  it  for reafforestation  shall  not  be  referred  to  the Committee for its advice.

2. The Committee shall  have due regard to all  or any  of  the  following  matters  while  tendering  its advice on the proposals referred to it under sub- rule (1), namely :-

15

a. Whether the forests land proposed to be used for  non-forest  purpose  forms  part  of  a  nature reserve, national park wildlife sanctuary, biosphere reserve  or  forms  part  of  the  habitat  of  any endangered  or  threatened  species  of  flora  and fauna  or  of  an  area  lying  in  severely  eroded catchment;

b. Whether  the  use  of  any  forest  land  is  for agricultural  purpose  or  for  the  rehabilitation  or persons displaced from their residences by reason of any river valley or hydro-electric project; c. Whether  the  State  Government  or  the  other authority  has  certified  that  it  has  considered  all other alternatives and that no other alternatives in the  circumstances  are  feasible  and  that  the required  area  is  the  minimum  needed  for  the purpose; and  

d. Whether  the  State  Government  or  the  other authority undertakes to provide at its cost for the acquisition  of  land  of  an  equivalent  area  and afforestation thereof.

3. While  tendering  the  advice,  the  Committee  may also suggest any conditions or restrictions on the use of any forest land for any non-forest purpose which,  in  its  opinion,  would  minimize  adverse environmental impact.

6. Action of the Central Government on the advice of  the  Committee  –  The  Central  Government  shall, after  considering the advice  of the committee tendered under rule 5 and after such further enquiry as it may consider necessary, grant approval to the proposal with or without conditions or reject the same.”

16

6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show

that prior approval is required for the diversion of any forest

land  and  its  use  for  some  other  purpose.   This  is  further

fortified by a look at Rule 4 which provides that every State

Government or other authority seeking prior approval under

Section 2 of the Act shall  submit a proposal  to the Central

Government in the prescribed form and Rule 6 stipulates that

the proposals would be examined by a committee appointed

under  Rule  2-A  within  the  parameters  and  guidelines

postulated in Rule 5.  There is nothing on record to suggest

that this procedure had been adopted.   Admittedly also the

approval  for  4.4  hectares  had been  obtained  long  after  the

lease  deed  had  been  executed  on  1st November  1989  and

there  is  no  suggestion  that  even  for  this  limited  area  the

procedure  envisaged  under  Rules  4,  5  and  6  had  been

followed.  We are, therefore, of the opinion even assuming that

some approval was granted with respect to 4.44 hectares of

land in the year 1997, it would not amount to prior approval

in  terms  of  the  Act  and  the  Rules  afore  quoted.   Mr.

Shrivastava has, however, pointed out that in the light of the

17

judgment  in  Banshi  Ram Modi’s  case (supra),  as  the  4.44

hectares  of  land  were  to  be  utilized  for  the  purpose  of  an

existing  and  adjoining  mining  activity,  the  prior  approval

envisaged  under  section  2  was  not  required.   We  find,

however,  that  the  aforesaid  judgments  do  not  apply  to  the

facts  of  the  present  matter  as  it  is  nobody’s  case  that any

mining  activity  was  going  on  near  the  land  which  is  now

sought to be leased out.  In the above cited cases, the primary

question was as to whether in the case of a lease granted prior

to the coming into force of the Act, the provisions of Section 2

would apply at the time of the renewal of the lease after the

Act had become operative.   Concededly this is not the case

before us and on the contrary in Hyderabad Abrasives case

(supra) it has been specifically observed that the material date

“for  the  purpose  of  the  Act  is  not  the  date  of  the  lease  is

granted, but the date on which the State Government or other

authority  permits  the breaking up,  or clearing of  the forest

land or any portion thereof”,  the implication being that the

initial lease deed could be granted earlier to the promulgation

of the Act, but for renewal, the provisions of the Act would be

18

operable.   We  also  find  that  the  observations  in  Ambica

Quarry  Works,  Rural  Litigation  &  Entitlement  Kendra,

T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad and M.C.Mehta cases (supra),

would indicate that after the coming into force of the Act, the

renewal of a pre-existing mining lease in a forest area can be

granted only if the requirements of Section 2 are satisfied.  It

is therefore obvious that the claim of the appellant confined

only to 4.44 hectares is also untenable for the reasons given

above and that in any case, the benefication plant to which

this area was to be attached had been shifted from its earlier

proposed location.

7.    It has finally been submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the

land  in  question  was  not  a  forest  and  was,  therefore,  not

subject to the provisions of the Act and that in any case, the

appellant was willing to reforest an identical area if the lease

was permitted to operate.  We find from a perusal of the High

Court judgment that this question of fact had been adequately

dealt with based on the affidavits filed in Court and also on a

perusal  of  the  Revenue  record.   Some  argument  has  been

made  by  Mr.  Shrivastava  on  the  discordance  between  the

19

affidavits filed by the two Forest Officers, T.Ramaswamy and

R. Nagbhushan Rao.  We however discern no difference with

regard to the  basic  factum as to the nature  of  the land in

question and the only difference, if at all, is with regard to the

number of trees per hectare said to be growing on the land.

We, thus, have no hesitation in confirming this finding of fact.

In  T.N.Godavarman  Thirumulkpad  case  (supra),  this  Court

expressed  its  dissatisfaction  with  some  of  the  State

Governments in the implementation of the provisions of the

Act and observed thus:

“The  Forest  Conservation  Act,  1980  was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which  ultimately  results  in  ecological  imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the  nature  of  ownership  or  classification  thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily  recognized  forests,  whether  designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2 will not only  include  “forest”  as  understood  in  the dictionary  sense,  but  also  any  area  recorded  as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.  This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted  in the Forest  Conservation Act,  1980 for

20

the  conservation  of  forests  and  the  matters connected  therewith  must  apply  clearly  to  all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works vs.  State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U.P. and  recently  in  the  order  dated  29.11.1996 (Supreme  Court  Monitoring  Committee  vs. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority ).  The earlier  decision of this Court  in State of  Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore, to be understood in  the  light  of  these  subsequent  decisions.We consider  it  necessary  to  reiterate  this  settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority.”

8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the light of the

aforesaid emphatic and clear cut observations, and findings of

fact, there can be no doubt that the land leased out to the

appellant was indeed a forest.

9. Some  arguments  have  flown during  the  course  of  the

hearing  that  the  appellants  were  willing  to  reforest  an

identical area in case the lease was allowed to be effectuated.

In this connection, some observations need to be made.  The

basic  question  is  as  to  what  is  implied  by  the  terms

afforestation or re-forestation.  Is it merely the replacement of

21

one tree with another or does it imply some thing a little more

complex?   “Reforestation is the restocking of existing forests

and  woodlands  which  have  been  depleted,  with  native  tree

stock, whereas  afforestation is the process  of  restoring  and

recreating areas of woodlands or forest that once existed but

were deforested or otherwise  removed or destroyed at some

point in the past”.  In the present case, we are concerned with

afforestation and the promise of the appellant to plant trees in

an equivalent area.  We, however, find from experience and

observation  that  the  re-forestation  or  afforestation  that  is

being carried out in India  does  not  meet  the  fundamentals

and the planting of new trees to match the numbers removed

is  too  simplistic  and archaic  a  solution,  as  in  the  guise  of

compensatory replantation, local varieties of trees are being

replaced  by  alien  and  non-indigenous  but  fast  growing

varieties such as poplar and eucalyptus which make up the

numbers but cannot satisfy the needs of our environmental

system.  It must be borne in mind that both re-forestation and

afforestation envisage a resurrection and re-plantation of trees

and other flora similar to those which have been removed and

22

which  are  suitable  to  the  area  in  question.   There  is  yet

another  circumstance  which  is  even  more  disturbing

inasmuch as the removal of existing forest or trees suited to

the  local  environment  have  destroyed  the  eco  system

dependent on them.  This is evident from the huge depletion

of wild life on account of the disturbance of the habitat arising

out of the destruction of the existing forest cover.  A small but

significant example is the destruction of plantations alongside

the arterial roads in India.  30 years ago all arterial roads had

huge peripheral forest cover which not only provided shade

and shelter to the traveller but were a haven to a large variety

and number of birds and other wild life peculiar to that area.

With the removal of these plantations to widen the roads to

meet  the  ever  growing  needs  of  the  traffic,  and  their

replacement by trees of non-indigenous varieties, (which are

often not eco or bird friendly)  in the restricted and remaining

areas bordering the widened roads, the shelter for birds has

been  destroyed  and  where  thousands  of  birds  once  nested

and bred, there has been a virtual annihilation of the bird life

as  well.   Those  who  live  in  North  India  would  do  well  to

23

remember that a drive along the Grand Trunk Road, National

Highway No.1,  northwards  of  Delhi,  particularly  during  the

hours  of  dawn  or  dusk,  was  as  if  through  an  aviary  with

thousands of birds representing a myriad of species with their

distinctive  calls  reaching  a  crescendo  during  early  evening

and gradually fading into silence as darkness set in.  Sadly,

all that can now be seen are crows feeding on the decaying

and mutilated carcasses of dogs and other animals killed by

speeding vehicles.  Equally disturbing is the decrease in the

reptilian population as the undergrowth in which it lived and

prospered  has  been  destroyed,  and  with  the  concomitant

increase in the rodent population, colossal losses and damage

to the farmer and in the storage of food grains.

10. We  are,  therefore,  of  the  opinion  that

there is no merit in the appeal.  It is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

      ……………………………J.          (Tarun Chatterjee )

    ……………………………..J.                (Harjit Singh Bedi )

24

New Delhi, Dated:  August 18,  2008

25