SANJEEV CHAUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.03.2012 (Annexure P -12), whereby approval has been granted to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation -respondent No. 7 for installation of proposed retail outlet dealership by respondent Nos. 10 and 11 by diverting forest land for approach road to retail outlet along Panipat -Haridwar Highway. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction to the respondent -authorities not to accord final approval regarding diversion of forest land for non -forest purposes in the State of Haryana in violation of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as well as guidelines dated 15.07.2004 and 18.03.2010 (Annexures P -1 and P -2) issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest.

(2.) IN the year 2010, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited had issued a letter of intent (Annexure P -3) for setting up of a retail outlet on State Highway No. 16, leading from Panipat to Haridwar, in the name of respondent Nos. 10 and 11. The user agency -respondent No. 7 submitted an application for grant of permission for diversion of 0.0609 hectare of forest land for construction of approach road for setting up of this retail outlet. The site inspection was carried out by the Divisional Forest Officer, Panipat -respondent No. 9 and he gave his report dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P -4), stating that in view of the guidelines dated 15.07.2004 and 18.03.2010 (Annexures P -1 and P -2), permission cannot be granted for using the forest land as six number of trees were standing in ingress -outgress and D -Zone area and two other petrol pumps, run by the Indian Oil Corporation at a distance of one to two kilometers from the proposed site, were already functioning. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests -respondent No. 6, vide letter dated 07.12.2010, forwarded the case of respondent No. 7 for grant of permission for setting up of proposed petrol pump to the office of Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Environment and Forest Department -respondent No. 3. The case was sent back on the ground that there was obstruction of eight trees on the approach road of the proposed petrol pump. Respondent No. 6 was directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with the instructions dated 15.07.2004 (Annexure P -1). During this period i.e. from the date of letter of allotment (Annexure P -3) till December 2010, respondent No. 10 had cut some 'kikkar' trees standing over the forest land, which were sought to be used for ingress and outgress/approach road for setting up of the retail outlet. In this regard, respondent No. 10 was challaned for having committed offence under Sections 33(A), 33(F), 33(B) and 33(C) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. On 27.01.2012, charge under Sections 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, was framed against respondent No. 10. Despite the aforesaid fact, a fresh proposal was submitted by the user agency before respondent No. 9 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer. The same was further forwarded to respondent No. 6, who in turn forwarded the same to respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 12.01.2011. It was subsequently, referred to the Environment and Forests Minister, Government of Haryana -respondent No. 2 on 14.01.2011. Finally, the proposal was rejected by respondent No. 2 on 18.01.2011 (Annexure P -9).

(3.) IN the written statement, filed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6, it is stated that in the inspector report dated 19.10.2010, it was mentioned that there were about eight number of trees effecting in the way of area demanded by respondent No. 7. However, in the proposal, which was approved by respondent Nos. 2 and 5, there were changed circumstances. In that proposal, D Zone area has been excluded and no tree has been shown as obstruction on inspection by the competent authority. Thereafter, the case of respondent No. 7 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation) for grant of permission for setting up of aforesaid petrol pump was forwarded by respondent No. 6 to respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 07.12.2010. In this letter, it was mentioned that there were eight trees, which were obstructing and were required to be cut. It was clarified in the said letter that the Divisional Forest Officer, Panipat -respondent No. 9 and Conservator of Forest, Central Circle, Rohtak, have clearly remarked that the said proposal was not in accordance with instructions dated 15.07.2004 (Annexure R -1) issued by the Government of India. Vide letter dated 23.11.2010, which was written by respondent No. 7, it had been stated that eight trees had come in the D area of the site and they were not required to be cut. Hence, there was no obstruction in granting the 'no objection certificate.' In this background, vide letter dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure R -3), respondent No. 3 asked respondent No. 6 to reconsider the matter in accordance with the instructions dated 15.07.2004 issued by the Government of India. Respondent No. 9 inspected the spot again and gave his report dated 28.12.2010. This inspection was conducted pursuant to the letter dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure R -3). In this inspector report, it was made clear that no tree was effecting in the way of ingress and outgress of the proposed retail outlet. This report of respondent No. 9 considered only the ingress and outgress area of the site plan comprising diversion of 0.0190 hac. of forest land, whereas the report dated 19.10.2010 submitted by the earlier Divisional Forest Officer, Panipat, was comprising diversion of 0.0609 hac. of forest land and included the D zone area along with ingress and outgress area. The fresh report dated 28.12.2010 was examined by respondent No. 3 and was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2. In the fresh proposal, the D zone area was excluded, as there was no cutting of trees required in this area. Finally, in response to letter dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure R -4) from respondent No. 6, the matter was again examined in the office of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 recommended to respondent No. 2 on the following grounds: -