UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusKAMATH HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD.

                                                                                        ).

A                          UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
                                           v.
                     KAMATH HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD.

                                 JANUARY 9, 1996

B        [MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]


          Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 :

          Section 2-Reserved.forest area in Daman-Site leased out for putting
                                                                                             ..
    up a snack bar and restaurant for tourists-Order ~f Collector objected to by
c   Conservator of Forests 011 grounds o.f restriction envisaged by s.2 and the need
    for prior appr()val of Central Government-High Court approving the action
    of Collector since he was an o_fficer o_f the Central Government and need not
    seek prior approval-On appeal Collector directed to send the proposal to-
    gether with the objection of the Conservator of Forests to the Centrdl Govem-
D   ment which would pass orders thereon within three months~ol/ector to abide
    by the orders of the Central Govenunent.                                                 •
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3548 of 1989.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 28.4.89 of the Bombay High Court
E   in W.P. No. 24 of 1989.

           W.S.A. Qadri and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants.

           Yogeshwar Prasad and Ms. Rachna Gupta for the Respondent.

F         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Counsel have been heard at length in this appeal.

          The established position is that the Collector of the Union Territory,
    Daman, as a step towards promoting tourism leased out a site in the reserved
G   forest area to the respondent for putting up a snack Bar and a restaurant to
    cater to the needs of tourists visiting the forest. It was the Conservator of
    Forests who raked up the matter and objected to the grant of such lease
    affecting the reserve forest. The lease was for a period of five years, renewable
    in terms. The objection of the Conservator of Forests was legal in as much as
H   there was restriction on the de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for

                                          302
               U.0.1. v. KAMATH HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD.                    303
non-forest purposes, as envisaged under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation)       A
Act, 1980. Whenever any forest land was required to be put to non-forest use,
the State Government or other authority was required to put the matter for
prior approval of the Central Government and then make an order directing
forest land to be used for non-forest purposes. Section 2 as is relevant is set
out below :
                                                                                     B
         "Section 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 :             C
         (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the express
         '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        D
         non-forest purposes;

         (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
                                                                                     E
         controlled by Government;

         (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees
         which have grown naturally in that land or portion for the purpose
         of using it for reafforestation."
                                                                                     F
      Since the area leased out to the respondent was within a Union Territory,
the Collector apparently entertained the view that observance of the procedure
under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, was not necessary,
the administration being of the Central Government. But the Conservator of
Forests strongly held the opposite view and put· to stop further activities of the
respondent.
                                                                                     G

       The respondent was thus led to move the High Court of Bombay in writ
proceedings, contending mainly that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was
in fact meant to involve State Governments, or other authorities nominated by
them and that the Act was not meant to apply to Union Territories as they            H
     304                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996] l S.C.R.
·A   themselves were governed by the Central Government. In other words, it was
     maintained that an Officer of the Central Government moving in the matter
     need not seek prior approval of the' Central Government under Section 2 of
     the Act.

           This assertion and interpretation as accepted by the High Court, in our
B    view, was in the teeth of the clear applicability of the Act extending to the
     whole of India except the Stale of Jamrilu and Kashmir. The Act was obviously
     meant to apply to Union Territories as well and not to the States alone. And             ..
     in the context, the expression 'other authority', as is evident from the above
     reproduction of the provision, is all comprehensive and far wide so as to
c    include any authority concerned with the matter. Such authority instantly being
     the Collector was thus required to seek approval of the Central Government
     before passing orders under Section 2, consonant with the orders of the Central
     Government. Nothing of the kind was done here. The High Court on that basis,
     erroneously though, approved the action of the Collector who had acted solely,
D    without seeking the prior approval of the Central Government.
                                                                                              •
            We cannot agree with such view of the High Court and therefore have           '
     fell the need to substitute its order with the present one for it appears to us
     that it is essential to marshal the priorities; instantly on one side those of the
     tourist department and on the other of the forest department. For this purpose,
E    Section 3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has envisaged the constitu-
     tion of an Advisory Committee to advise the Government in the matter of grant
     of approval under Section 2 and on any other matter connected with the
     conservation of forest which may be referred to it by the Central Government.
     We assume that a Committee of the kind has been constituted. All current
F    streams of thought lead towards protection of environment and preservation
     of forest wealth. On the other hand there are demands i~ justification of other
     use telling on the forest. A balance would have to be struck, in a cool and
     dispassionate manner.

           As a way out, therefore, we direct that the proposal as mooted by the
G    Collector and approved by his action, together with the objection of the
     Conservator of Forest be sent by the former to the Central Government under
     Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 read with the rules framed
     thereunder. The Central Government may on receipt of such proposal by the
     Collector act in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Act and the
H    rules and after obtaining advice from the Advisory Committee pass such
                  U.0.1. v. KAMATH HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD.               305
    orders thereon, which may be warranted in the facts and circumstances,         A
    informing the Collector accordingly. The Collector shall thereafter abide by
    the orders of the Central Government. Let the entire exercise be over within
    a period of three months from today. The appeal would stand disposed of with
    these directions. No costs.

    G.N.                                                   Appeal disposed of.




,