CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOONversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

968                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    11 S.C.R. 968              [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A                       CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON
                                        v.
                      UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                      (Civil Appeal Nos. 6497-6498 of 2021)
B                            NOVEMBER 16, 2021
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT
                   AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
             National Green Tribunal Act 2010: s.14, s.16 – Appellant had
      earlier moved a petition under Art.32 of the Constitution to challenge
C
      the Stage-I Forest Clearances (FC) – This Court had by its order
      reserved the liberty of the appellants to adopt appropriate
      proceedings by moving the National Green Tribunal to challenge
      the Stage-I Forest Clearances – Appellant filed O.A. before the
      Tribunal invoking its jurisdiction under s.14(1) of the NGT Act –
D     Tribunal declined to entertain challenge, primarily on the ground
      that the appellants had attempted to ‘circumvent’ its appellate
      jurisdiction under s.16 by invoking its original jurisdiction under
      s.14 instead – In the instant appeal, contention of appellant was
      that on 11.09.2021, an application was moved before the Divisional
      Forest Officer (DFO) under the RTI Act seeking a specific disclosure
E
      of information on whether any permission for the felling of trees
      had been granted – Response of the DFO to the query was that
      there was no order for the felling of trees – However, in the
      additional documents filed on behalf of the respondents, order dated
      27.08.2021 of the DFO, permitting the felling of trees, was placed
F     on the record – Thus, an extensive exercise of tree cutting was carried
      out without placing order dated 27.08.2021 in the public domain,
      despite the mandate of the circular dated 28.08.2015 and as a result,
      not only the appellant but the other parties were precluded from
      moving the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction – Held:
      The provisions of s.2 of FC Act contemplate passing of an order by
G
      the State Government with the prior approval of the Central
      Government so as to, inter alia, permit the conversion or use of
      forest land for non-forest purpose – Therefore, unless an order has
      been passed or a decision is made, the appellate remedy before the
      Tribunal would not be available – Circular dated 28.08.2015 was
H     issued by MoEF&CC to prescribe a simplified procedure for the
                                       968
      CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA                            969


grant of permissions for felling of trees standing on forest land to       A
be diverted for execution of linear projects – Clause (i) of paragraph
2 of the circular indicates that in order to facilitate the expeditious
execution of projects involving linear diversion of forest land,
including laying of new roads, an in-principle approval of the
Central Government under the FC Act would be deemed as working
                                                                           B
permission for tree cutting and commencement of work subject to
certain conditions – The DFO misled the appellants by furnishing
incorrect information in response to the RTI query – The purpose
of placing the permission in the public domain is to ensure that
persons aggrieved would have a right to challenge it – There is no
rebuttal to this grievance of the appellant – This lack of transparency,   C
leading to a lack of accountability, is in stark contrast to the
“environmental rule of law”, which is crucial for good governance
– In terms of the provisions contained in circular dated 28.08.2021,
the order for tree cutting and commencement of work of linear
projects is to be treated as an order under s.2 of the FC Act –
                                                                           D
Evidently, therefore, order dated 27.08.2021 is amenable to the
remedy of an appeal, which would now lie before Tribunal under
s.16(e) of the NGT Act – Since order dated 27.08.2021 is amenable
to an appellate remedy under s.16(e) of the NGT Act, as well as
under the provisions of s.2A of the FC Act, when read in the context
of circular dated 28.08.2015, it would be appropriate to grant liberty     E
to the appellant to do so – The Tribunal was moved by the appellant
by invoking the jurisdiction under s.14, under which it has
jurisdiction to entertain civil cases where a substantial question
relating to the environment, including enforcement of any legal right
relating to the environment, is involved and such question arises
                                                                           F
out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I
– The enactments which are specified in Schedule I include the FC
Act – Thus, where a substantial question relating to the environment
is raised involving the implementation of the FC Act, even the original
jurisdiction of the Tribunal under s.14 could have been invoked –
Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the       G
appellants under s.14 by observing that the appellant was attempting
to circumvent the remedy of an appeal under s.16 – Tribunal is
directed to pass a reasoned order on merits – Appeal be listed before
the Tribunal on the next working day after the filing of the appeal
by the appellant – Appellant would be at liberty to move the Tribunal
for interim orders – Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – s.2.                H
970            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A           Disposing of the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. Section 16(e) stipulates that a person aggrieved
      by an order or decision made (after the commencement of the
      NGT Act) by the State Government or other authority under
      Section 2 of the FC Act, may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal
B     within a period of thirty days. Hence, on a plain reading of the
      provisions of Section 16(e), it is evident that the right to an
      appellate remedy arises upon an order or decision being made
      by the State Government or any other authority under the
      provisions of Section 2 of the FC Act. Apart from the provisions
      of Section 16(e), Section 2A of the FC Act provides a remedy of
C     an appeal to the Tribunal to a person aggrieved by an order or
      decision of the State Government or other authority under Section
      2. Section 2A of the FC Act is pari materia with Section 16(e) of
      the NGT Act. Section 2(ii) of the FC Act stipulates that no State
      Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior
D     approval of the Central Government, any order directing, inter
      alia, that “any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for
      any non-forest purpose”. The provisions of Section 2, therefore,
      contemplate the passing of an order by the State Government
      with the prior approval of the Central Government so as to, inter
      alia, permit the conversion or use of forest land for non-forest
E     purpose. Therefore, unless an order has been passed or a decision
      is made, the appellate remedy before the Tribunal would not be
      available. [Para 8][977-F-H; 978-A-C]
             2. A circular dated 28 August 2015 was issued by the
      MoEF&CC to prescribe a simplified procedure for the grant of
F     permissions for felling of trees standing on forest land to be
      diverted for the execution of linear projects. Clause (i) of
      paragraph 2 of the circular indicates that in order to facilitate the
      expeditious execution of projects involving linear diversion of
      forest land, including laying of new roads, an in-principle approval
G     of the Central Government under the FC Act would be deemed
      as working permission for tree cutting and commencement of
      work subject to certain conditions. These conditions include: (i)
      the provision of fund for compensatory afforestation; (ii) net
      present value; (iii) a wildlife conservation plan; (iv) plantation of

H
      CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA                          971


species and plants; (v) all such other compensatory levies               A
specified in the in-principle approval being realized; and (vi)
transfer and mutation of non-forest land in favour of the State
Forest Department. The subsequent stipulation in the circular,
however, indicates that no non-forest activity in a forest area (which
is covered under Section 2 of the FC Act) would be “permitted
                                                                         B
and carried out” unless an order has been passed by the
competent authority of the State Government, and is placed in
the public domain by putting it on its website. [Paras 9, 10]
[980-C-F; 978-C-D]
       3. The grievance of the appellant before this Court is that
the permission for tree felling dated 27 August 2021 was not             C
placed in the public domain, as mandated by the circular dated 28
August 2015. On the contrary, when an application for disclosure
of information was moved under the RTI Act to the DFO on 11
September 2021, the response on 11 October 2021 was that no
order had been passed for permitting the felling of trees. Yet the       D
same officer, namely, the DFO Dehradun, had passed an order
on 27 August 2021 granting the permission for the felling of trees,
which was annexed to an application for additional documents
filed by the respondents for the first time in this Court. The DFO
has misled the appellants by furnishing incorrect information in
response to the RTI query. The permission for felling trees has          E
to be placed in the public domain, which again, according to the
appellant, was not done. The purpose of placing the permission
in the public domain is to ensure that persons aggrieved would
have a right to challenge it. There is no rebuttal to this grievance
of the appellant. A veil of secrecy does not portend well for            F
environmental clearances, since it takes away the right from
individuals to challenge them using legal remedies. In the
meantime, tree felling proceeded apace. This lack of transparency,
leading to a lack of accountability, is in stark contrast to the
“environmental rule of law”, which is crucial for good governance.
[Para 4][980-F-H; 981-A-C]                                               G

      H.P. Bus-Stand Management & Development Authority
      v. Central Empowered Committee (2021) 4 SCC 309 –
      relied on.

                                                                         H
972            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A            4. The fact of the matter as it stands today is that the
      permission granted by the DFO for felling of trees has been placed
      on record in the form of a letter dated 27 August 2021. In terms
      of the provisions contained in the circular dated 28 August 2021,
      the order for tree cutting and commencement of work of linear
      projects is to be treated as an order under Section 2 of the FC
B
      Act. Evidently, therefore, the order dated 27 August 2021 is
      amenable to the remedy of an appeal, which would now lie before
      the Tribunal under Section 16(e) of the NGT Act. That an appeal
      lies before the Tribunal is clarified by the terms of the circular
      itself. In view of the availability of an appellate remedy, the
C     appellant has stated that it would be willing to pursue the remedy
      of an appeal which lies before the Tribunal in terms of the
      provisions which have been noticed above. However, it has been
      urged that until the appeal is disposed of by the Tribunal, a stay
      of further activities of tree felling ought to be granted.
      [Para 12][982-A-D]
D
            5. Since the order dated 27 August 2021 is amenable to an
      appellate remedy under Section 16(e) of the NGT Act, as well as
      under the provisions of Section 2A of the FC Act, when read in
      the context of circular dated 28 August 2015, it would be
      appropriate to grant liberty to the appellant to do so. [Para 14]
E     [982-E-F]
            6. While the remedy of filing an appeal to the appellant has
      become available as a result of the supervening developments
      which have taken place during the pendency of the present
      proceedings, namely the order dated 27 August 2021 being placed
F     on the record of this Court, we must express our view in regard
      to the reasons which weighed with the Tribunal in rejecting the
      original application. The Tribunal was moved by the appellant by
      invoking the jurisdiction under Section 14, under which it has
      jurisdiction to entertain civil cases where a substantial question
G     relating to the environment, including enforcement of any legal
      right relating to the environment, is involved and such question
      arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in
      Schedule I. The enactments which are specified in Schedule I
      include the FC Act. Thus, where a substantial question relating
      to the environment is raised involving the implementation of the
H     FC Act, even the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section
      CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA                            973


14 could have been invoked. The Tribunal was not justified in              A
rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Section
14 by observing that the appellant was attempting to circumvent
the remedy of an appeal under Section 16. [Paras 15, 16]
[982-F-H; 983-A-B]
      Vimal Bhai v. Union of India 2012 SCC OnLine NGT                     B
      77 – referred to.
       7. The Tribunal rejected the application filed by the
appellants also on the ground that as far as linear projects are
concerned, a simplified procedure is applicable and a Stage-I
approval itself is considered as working permission for the cutting        C
of trees. Hence, the Tribunal held that if the approval has been
validly granted, this would not be treated as a violation of law. At
that stage before the Tribunal, the order for permitting the felling
of trees, which was passed on 27 August 2021 by the DFO, had
not been placed on the record nor was it in the public domain.
Hence, consistent with the provisions of the law as they stand,            D
we are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the
challenge to the Stage-I clearance by the invocation of the remedy
under Section 14. Original Application is restored to the file of
the Tribunal for a decision afresh. In addition, liberty is granted
to the appellant to challenge the permission which has been                E
granted for the felling of trees by the DFO on 27 August 2021, in
terms of the provisions of Section 16(e) of the NGT Act read with
the provisions of Section 2A of the FC Act (together with the
contents of the circular dated 28 August 2015). [Paras 17, 18]
[983-D-H]
                                                                           F
                        Case Law Reference
(2021) 4 SCC 309                relied on                 Para 11
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.6497-
6498 of 2021.
                                                                           G
     From the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2021 of the National
Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application
No.240 of 2021 with IA No.180 of 2021.
      Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Sr. Adv., Ritwick Dutta, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri,
Ms. Aarti Krupa Kumar, Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Advs. for the
Appellant.                                                                 H
974              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A           K. K. Venugopal, AG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Anmol
      Chandan, Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Ankur Talwar, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal,
      Gurmeet Singh Makker, Ms. Madhu Sweta, Ms. Raveena Dewan, Ms.
      Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Advs. for the Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B            DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
             1. The appellant had earlier moved a petition under Article 32 of
      the Constitution - Writ Petition No 529 of 2021 - to challenge: (i) the
      Stage-I Forest Clearances dated 29 September 2020 and 24 December
      2020 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change1
C     in respect of the stretches of road forming a part of National Highway
      No 72A in Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh; and (ii) the Wildlife Clearance
      dated 5 January 2021 issued by the Standing Committee of the National
      Board for Wildlife. Noting that the primary challenge was to the Stage-
      I Forest Clearances, this Court by its order dated 7 September 2021
      reserved the liberty of the appellants to adopt appropriate proceedings
D     by moving the National Green Tribunal2 to challenge the Stage-I Forest
      Clearances. Directions were also issued, granting permission to the
      appellant to challenge the Wildlife Clearance at the appropriate stage.
             2. Following the order of this Court, the appellant moved the
      Tribunal in Original Application No 240 of 2021, invoking its jurisdiction
E     under Section 14(1) of the National Green Tribunal Act 20103. The
      Tribunal by its order dated 6 October 2021 declined to entertain the
      challenge, primarily on the ground that the appellants had attempted to
      ‘circumvent’ its appellate jurisdiction under section 16 by invoking its
      original jurisdiction under Section 14 instead. The reasons which have
      been adduced by the Tribunal are contained in the following extract
F
      from its judgment:
             “6. We have heard learned Counsel. We find no justification to
             entertain the application, circumventing the remedy of appeal.
             Further, the applicant itself has mentioned that as far as linear
             projects are concerned, simplified procedure is applicable. Stage-
G            I approval itself is considered as working permission for cutting
             of trees. Thus, if the approval has been validly granted, the cutting
             of trees in the scope of permission so granted will not be treated
      1
        “MoEF&CC”
      2
        “the Tribunal”
H     3
        “NGT Act”
         CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA                                 975
            [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

         as violation of law. In absence of challenge to the grant of EC,          A
         submission that EC has been wrongly granted or that the reports
         on the basis of which EC has been granted are factually incorrect
         cannot be gone into. The project is for upgradation and expansion
         of road, also involving some constructions. There is no reason to
         presume that laid down standards and precautions for road
                                                                                   B
         constructions will not be followed. There is no material to show
         any such violation. If any such violations are found, the same can
         always be challenged in accordance with law.
         7. Undoubtedly, cutting of even a single tree is a matter of concern.
         Having regard to ecological services of the trees, all efforts have
         to be made to protect every tree. At the same time, in certain            C
         situations, cutting of trees is permissible under the law, with the
         requisite approval of the statutory authorities, subject to compliance
         of the statutory conditions, following all necessary safeguards,
         including afforestation and translocation wherever possible. In the
         present case, order granting FC lays down necessary conditions.           D
         No violation thereof is alleged. In these circumstances, no case is
         made out for interference by this Tribunal. The application is
         dismissed.”
      3. Ms Anitha Shenoy, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submitted that:                                                          E
         (i)     An appeal lies to the Tribunal under Section 16(e) only
                 against an order or decision made by the State Government
                 or other authority under Section 2 of the Forest
                 (Conservation) Act 19804;
         (ii)    The circular dated 28 August 2015 of the MoEF&CC                  F
                 stipulates that in-principle approval granted under the FC
                 Act by the Central Government may be deemed to be the
                 working permission for tree cutting and commencement of
                 work if the funds for compensatory afforestation, net
                 present value (NPV) and other conditions as stipulated in         G
                 the in-principle approval are fulfilled by the user agency;
         (iii)   The above circular has been made in the context of projects
                 involving linear diversions of forests, such as laying of roads
                 amongst other activities;
4
    “FC Act”                                                                       H
976                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A              (iv)    The circular, however, provides that no non-forest activity
                       in the forest area covered under Section 2 of the FC Act
                       would be permitted and carried out in any manner, unless
                       an order has been passed by the competent authority of the
                       State Government and placed in the public domain; and
B              (v)     In the present case, as a matter of fact, no order for the
                       felling of trees was stated to have been placed in the public
                       domain and hence, the grant of a Stage-I Forest Clearance
                       in and of itself would not be amenable to the appellate
                       jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
C           4. Based on the above premises, it has been urged that the Tribunal
      was not justified in dismissing the Original Application invoking the
      provisions of Section 14 of the NGT Act, particularly when the view
      which has been taken by the Tribunal in an earlier decision is that in the
      absence of an order of the State Government under the provisions of
D     Section 2 of the FC Act, no appeal would be maintainable.
             5. In support of the above submissions, it has also been urged that
      on 11 September 2021, an application was moved before the Divisional
      Forest Officer5 under the Right to Information Act 20056, seeking a
      specific disclosure of information on whether any permission for the
E     felling of trees had been granted. The response of the DFO to the query
      on 11 October 2021 was that no order for the felling of trees has been
      issued. Yet, in the additional documents which have been filed in these
      proceedings on behalf of the respondents, an order dated 27 August
      2021 of the DFO, permitting the felling of trees, has been placed on the
      record. In this backdrop, it has been urged that it is inconceivable as to
F     how the DFO, if he had granted the permission for felling of trees on 27
      August 2021, responded to the RTI query on 11 October 2021 by stating
      that no permission has been granted. It has been submitted that an
      extensive exercise of tree cutting has been carried out without placing
      the order dated 27 August 2021 in the public domain, despite the mandate
G     of the circular dated 28 August 2015. Hence, it was urged that as a
      result, not only the appellant but the other parties have been precluded
      from moving the Tribunal in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.


      5
          “DFO”
      6
H         “RTI Act”
       CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA                                 977
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       6. On the other hand, Mr K K Venugopal, learned Attorney General          A
for India appearing on behalf of the respondents has drawn attention of
the Court to the following developments:
       (i)     Both, the Stage-I Clearance which was issued on 23
               December 2020 and the Stage-II clearance which was
               issued on 20 July 2021, have been placed on the website of        B
               the MoEF&CC;
       (ii)    On 27 August 2021, the permission for logging of trees was
               granted by the DFO, which was annexed to the counter-
               affidavit filed in these proceedings by National Highway
               Authority of India;                                               C
       (iii)   In the circumstances, the felling of trees has proceeded
               after the receipt of requisite clearances, namely, the Stage-
               I as well as Stage-II clearances and a specific permission
               for felling of trees, which was granted on 27 August 2021
               as contemplated in the circular dated 28 August 2015;             D
       (iv)    Of the twenty kilometres corridor on the segment of National
               Highway No 72A between Ganeshpur and Dehradun, an
               elevated highway over 12 kilometres will be provided with
               underpasses for wildlife. Hence, far from the project
               disturbing the wildlife in the area, the project as conceived     E
               would, in fact, ensure the safety of wildlife against accidents
               of the kind that took place in the past on the highway.
      7. Hence, it has been urged by the Attorney General that a public
project should not be injuncted once the requisite clearances have been
obtained.                                                                        F
        8. At the outset, while dealing with the rival submissions, it becomes
necessary to conceptualize the nature of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
under Section 16 of the NGT Act. Section 16(e) stipulates that a person
aggrieved by an order or decision made (after the commencement of
the NGT Act) by the State Government or other authority under Section
                                                                                 G
2 of the FC Act, may prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within a period of
thirty days. Hence, on a plain reading of the provisions of Section 16(e),
it is evident that the right to an appellate remedy arises upon an order or
decision being made by the State Government or any other authority
under the provisions of Section 2 of the FC Act. Apart from the provisions
of Section 16(e), Section 2A of the FC Act provides a remedy of an               H
978                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A     appeal to the Tribunal to a person aggrieved by an order or decision of
      the State Government or other authority under Section 2. Section 2A of
      the FC Act is pari materia with Section 16(e) of the NGT Act. Section
      2(ii) of the FC Act stipulates that no State Government or other authority
      shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government,
      any order directing, inter alia, that “any forest land or any portion thereof
B
      may be used for any non-forest purpose”. The provisions of Section 2,
      therefore, contemplate the passing of an order by the State Government
      with the prior approval of the Central Government so as to, inter alia,
      permit the conversion or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.
      Therefore, unless an order has been passed or a decision is made, the
C     appellate remedy before the Tribunal would not be available.
             9. A circular dated 28 August 2015 was issued by the MoEF&CC
      to prescribe a simplified procedure for the grant of permissions for felling
      of trees standing on forest land to be diverted for the execution of linear
      projects. Paragraph 2 of the circular, insofar as it is material, is extracted
D     below:
             “2. Accordingly, in supersession of this Ministry’s, said letter/
             guidelines of even number dated 7th May 2015, I am directed, to
             say as below:
             (i)      With a view to facilitate speedy execution of projects
E                     involving linear diversion of forest land such as laying of
                      new roads, widening of existing highways, transmission lines,
                      water supply lines, optic fiber cabling, railway lines etc., in-
                      principle approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980
                      (FC Act) issued by the Central government may be deemed
F                     as the working permission for tree cutting and
                      commencement of work, if the required funds for
                      compensatory afforesatation, net present value (NPV),
                      wildlife conservation plan, plantation of dwarf species of
                      medicinal plants, and all such other compensatory levies
                      specified in the in-principle approval are realised from the
G                     user agency and where necessary, for compensatory
                      afforestation, transfer and mutation of non-forest/revenue
                      forest land in favour of State Forest Department is affected;
             (ii)     After the afore-mentioned compensatory levies specified
                      in the in-principle approval are realised from the user agency
H                     and where necessary, for compensatory afforestation,
CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA                                979
   [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

        transfer and mutation of non-forest/revenue forest land in       A
        favour of State Forest Department is affected, the State
        government or a Senior Officer not below the Rank of a
        Divisional Forest Officer, having jurisdiction over the forest
        land proposed to be diverted, duly authorized in this behalf
        by the State Government shall pass an order for tree cutting
                                                                         B
        and commencement of work of a linear project in forest
        land for a period of one year. The Central Government may
        extend the permission for one more year subject to
        submission of reasonable progress report from the State
        Government as regards to the steps taken to comply with
        the remaining conditions stipulated in the in-principle          C
        approval.
(iii)   No non-forest activity in the forest area that is covered
        under Section 2 of the FC Act would be permitted and carried
        on in any manner whatsoever unless an order specified in
        para (ii) above has been passed by the competent authority       D
        of that State government and is placed in the public domain
        by putting it on its website and all other requirements in
        accordance with law are complied with;
(iv)    For the purpose of Section 2A of the FC Act and Section
        16 (e) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT Act)        E
        the Order for tree cutting and commencement of work of
        linear project in forest land, specified in para (ii) above,
        shall be an order under Section 2 of the FC Act;
(v)     An appeal as per provisions of Section 2A of the FC Act
        and/or Section 16(e) of the NGT Act can be filed against         F
        any such order specified in para (ii) above for tree cutting
        and commencement of work of linear project in forest land;
(vi)    In the event of filing of such appeal, it would be open for
        the person aggrieved, to assail the order/clearance granted
        by the Central Government under Section 2 of the FC Act          G
        which forms an integral part and sole basis of the order
        specified in para (ii) above;
(vii)   The State Government and the project proponent shall take
        further action as has been stipulated by the Hon’ble
        National Green Tribunal in their judgment dated November
                                                                         H
980             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A                   2012 in Appeal No 7/2012 to accord publicity and to ensure
                    availability in public domain of in-principle approval under
                    the FC Act accorded by the Central Government and the
                    order specified in para (iii) above. State Government and
                    the project proponent shall also ensure strict compliance of
                    other direction(s) contained in the said----.;
B
            (viii) The State Governments, in such cases shall seek and obtain
                   from the Central Government final/formal approval under
                   the FC Act for diversion of such forest land at the earliest,
                   and in any case not later than five years from the date of
                   grant of the in-principle approval.
C
             10. Clause (i) of paragraph 2 of the above circular indicates that
      in order to facilitate the expeditious execution of projects involving linear
      diversion of forest land, including laying of new roads, an in-principle
      approval of the Central Government under the FC Act would be deemed
      as working permission for tree cutting and commencement of work
D     subject to certain conditions. These conditions include: (i) the provision
      of fund for compensatory afforestation; (ii) net present value; (iii) a
      wildlife conservation plan; (iv) plantation of species and plants; (v) all
      such other compensatory levies specified in the in-principle approval
      being realized; and (vi) transfer and mutation of non-forest land in favour
E     of the State Forest Department. The subsequent stipulation in the circular,
      however, indicates that no non-forest activity in a forest area (which is
      covered under Section 2 of the FC Act) would be “permitted and carried
      out” unless an order has been passed by the competent authority of the
      State Government, and is placed in the public domain by putting it on its
      website.
F
             11. The grievance of the appellant before this Court is that the
      permission for tree felling dated 27 August 2021 was not placed in the
      public domain, as mandated by the circular dated 28 August 2015. On
      the contrary, when an application for disclosure of information was moved
      under the RTI Act to the DFO on 11 September 2021, the response on
G     11 October 2021 was that no order had been passed for permitting the
      felling of trees. Yet the same officer, namely, the DFO Dehradun, had
      passed an order on 27 August 2021 granting the permission for the felling
      of trees, which was annexed to an application for additional documents
      filed by the respondents for the first time in this Court. The DFO has
H     misled the appellants by furnishing incorrect information in response to
          CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA                              981
             [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the RTI query. The permission for felling trees has to be placed in the          A
public domain, which again, according to the appellant, was not done.
The purpose of placing the permission in the public domain is to ensure
that persons aggrieved would have a right to challenge it. There is no
rebuttal to this grievance of the appellant. A veil of secrecy does not
portend well for environmental clearances, since it takes away the right
                                                                                 B
from individuals to challenge them using legal remedies. In the meantime,
tree felling proceeded apace. This lack of transparency, leading to a
lack of accountability, is in stark contrast to the “environmental rule of
law”, which is crucial for good governance. In H.P. Bus-Stand
Management & Development Authority vs Central Empowered
Committee7, a three Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us was             C
a part (DY Chandrachud, J) described the “environmental rule of law”
in the following terms:
         “49. The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of
         the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features
         that are unique to environmental governance, features which are         D
         sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential
         tools — conceptual, procedural and institutional to bring structure
         to the discourse on environmental protection…Significantly, it
         brings attention to the rules, processes and norms followed
         by institutions which provide regulatory governance on the
         environment. In doing so, it fosters a regime of open,                  E
         accountable and transparent decision making on concerns
         of the environment. It fosters the importance of
         participatory governance — of the value in giving a voice
         to those who are most affected by environmental policies
         and public projects. The structural design of the environmental         F
         rule of law composes of substantive, procedural and institutional
         elements. The tools of analysis go beyond legal concepts. The
         result of the framework is more than just the sum total of its
         parts. Together, the elements which it embodies aspire to safeguard
         the bounties of nature against existential threats. For it is founded
         on the universal recognition that the future of human existence         G
         depends on how we conserve, protect and regenerate the
         environment today.”
                                                      (emphasis supplied)
7
    (2021) 4 SCC 309                                                             H
982             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A            12. The fact of the matter as it stands today is that the permission
      granted by the DFO for felling of trees has been placed on record in the
      form of a letter dated 27 August 2021, as noticed above. In terms of the
      provisions contained in the circular dated 28 August 2021, the order for
      tree cutting and commencement of work of linear projects is to be treated
      as an order under Section 2 of the FC Act. Evidently, therefore, the
B
      order dated 27 August 2021 is amenable to the remedy of an appeal,
      which would now lie before the Tribunal under Section 16(e) of the
      NGT Act. That an appeal lies before the Tribunal is clarified by the
      terms of the circular itself. In view of the availability of an appellate
      remedy, the appellant has stated that it would be willing to pursue the
C     remedy of an appeal which lies before the Tribunal in terms of the
      provisions which have been noticed above. However, it has been urged
      that until the appeal is disposed of by the Tribunal, a stay of further
      activities of tree felling ought to be granted.
             13. The request for the grant of an order of stay by this Court
D     restraining the felling of trees has been opposed on behalf of the
      respondent. Mr K K Venugopal, learned Attorney General urged that
      any order of injunction at this stage would cause serious obstruction in
      the implementation of the project and it should not be granted, particularly
      when requisite permissions have been obtained and necessary safeguards
      are in place to protect the wildlife.
E
             14. Since the order dated 27 August 2021 is amenable to an appellate
      remedy under Section 16(e) of the NGT Act, as well as under the
      provisions of Section 2A of the FC Act, when read in the context of
      circular dated 28 August 2015, it would be appropriate to grant liberty to
F     the appellant to do so.
             15. While the remedy of filing an appeal to the appellant has become
      available as a result of the supervening developments which have taken
      place during the pendency of the present proceedings, namely the order
      dated 27 August 2021 being placed on the record of this Court, we must
G     express our view in regard to the reasons which weighed with the Tribunal
      in rejecting the original application. The Tribunal was moved by the
      appellant by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 14, under which it
      has jurisdiction to entertain civil cases where a substantial question relating
      to the environment, including enforcement of any legal right relating to
      the environment, is involved and such question arises out of the
H
         CITIZENS FOR GREEN DOON v. UNION OF INDIA                                983
            [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. The                     A
enactments which are specified in Schedule I include the FC Act. Thus,
where a substantial question relating to the environment is raised involving
the implementation of the FC Act, even the original jurisdiction of the
Tribunal under Section 14 could have been invoked.
        16. The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application filed     B
by the appellants under Section 14 by observing that the appellant was
attempting to circumvent the remedy of an appeal under Section 16.
The Tribunal’s decision in the case of Vimal Bhai vs Union of India8
has placed the matter beyond doubt, by noting that “[t]he cause of action
for filing an Appeal would commence only from the date when such
                                                                                  C
publication is made in the newspapers, as well as from the date
when the forest clearance and permission to use the Forest land for
non-forest purpose is displayed in the website of the concerned
State Government or the MoEF, as the case may be”. However, for
the sake of clarity, we have set the legal position at rest in the discussion
in the earlier part of this judgment.                                             D
        17. The Tribunal rejected the application filed by the appellants
also on the ground that as far as linear projects are concerned, a simplified
procedure is applicable and a Stage-I approval itself is considered as
working permission for the cutting of trees. Hence, the Tribunal held
that if the approval has been validly granted, this would not be treated as       E
a violation of law. At that stage before the Tribunal, the order for permitting
the felling of trees, which was passed on 27 August 2021 by the DFO,
had not been placed on the record nor was it in the public domain. Hence,
consistent with the provisions of the law as they stand, we are of the
view that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the challenge to the Stage-      F
I clearance by the invocation of the remedy under Section 14.
       18. For the above reason, we allow the appeals and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 6 October 2021, and
restore Original Application No 240 of 2021 to the file of the Tribunal for
a decision afresh. In addition, we also grant liberty to the appellant to         G
challenge the permission which has been granted for the felling of trees
by the DFO on 27 August 2021, in terms of the provisions of Section
16(e) of the NGT Act read with the provisions of Section 2A of the FC
Act (together with the contents of the circular dated 28 August 2015).
8
    2012 SCC OnLine NGT 77, paras 30-32                                           H
984              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2021] 11 S.C.R.


A             19. As regards the question of stay, we are inclined to grant some
      breathing room to the appellant to move the Tribunal, so as to allow them
      to urge all the submissions which are available to them to challenge the
      orders for the felling of trees. We are at this stage desisting from making
      any observation on the merits, so as not to preclude the rights and
      contentions of the parties. However, in order to allow the appellant to
B
      file an appeal before the Tribunal, in terms of the liberty granted above,
      there shall be an interim order restraining the further felling of trees,
      which shall remain in operation until 26 November 2021. However, we
      specifically direct that the appellant shall, in order to place the nature of
      their objections beyond doubt, file brief written submissions before the
C     Tribunal cataloguing their grounds of challenge. The Tribunal is directed
      to pass a reasoned order on the merits, with reference to each of the
      grounds of challenge which is raised before it by the appellant in the
      course of their written submissions. In view of the fact that the order
      dated 27 August 2021 has been placed on the record only during the
      course of the proceedings in this Court, we also direct that if the appeal
D
      is filed within a period of one week, the Tribunal shall entertain the appeal
      on merits and shall not reject it on the ground of limitation. The appeal
      shall be listed before the Tribunal on the next working day after the filing
      of the appeal by the appellant. The appellant would be at liberty to move
      the Tribunal for interim orders.
E            20. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
             21. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.


      Devika Gujral                                              Appeals disposed of.
F




G




H