LUXMI TIMBER COMPANY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) ALL that has happened on a bunch of petitions which are referred to in the impugned order dated 5.12.2002 [reported in 2003 (1) PLJR 343] is that instead of permitting the Saw Mills to operate indiscriminately, conceptually the learned Judge has directed that the petitioners must appear before the Committee and place their grievances so that between the demand of the Saw Mills, an aspect of mass concern for cutting wood and the protection of the forest itself, there ought to be an ecological balance to preserve the environment. The submissions so made before the court are clearly that the Committee be avoided.

(3.) THE court fails to understand what is wrong with this. Indiscriminate logging by cutting forests in any case cannot be permitted. Caring for the environment has come a long way. Even the Constitution had to be amended in 1977 by the 42nd amendment. Prior to this amendment, there was only a guidienline for the State that should they enact laws and pay heed to Article 48A on the protection and improvement of environment and safegurding of forests and wild life. Apparently, the environment did not stand protected with guidelines given in the Directive Principles of State Policy.