BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
                    (WESTERN ZONE) BENCH, PUNE
               APPLICATION No. 12(THC)/2013(WZ)


    CORAM:
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Kingaonkar
            (Judicial Member)
            Hon'ble Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande
            (Expert Member)


    B E T W E E N:


            Shivaji Suryabhan Sangle
            Aged : 37 years, Occ : Agril.
            R/o. Tophkhana, House No.677,
            Ahmadnagar, Tq. & Distt :
            Ahmednagar.
                                            ....Applicant


                         AND


    1.       The Union of India
             Through : Secretary,
             Ministery of Environment & Forest,
             New Delhi
    2.       The State of Maharashtra,
            Through : Secretary,
            Revenue and Forest Department,
            Mantralaya, Mumbai 12.




(J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ)                      1
     3.       The Chief Wildlife Warden,
             Maharashtra Forest Department,
             Through : The Secretary
            Revenue and Forest Department,
            Mantralaya, Mumbai 12.
    4.       The Divisional Forest Officer,
             Maldhok Sanctuary Forest,
             Karjat, Tq. Karjat,
             District : Ahmdnagar
    5.       The Tahsildar Karjat,
            District : Ahmadnagar
    6.       The Tahsildar Shrigonda,
            District : Ahmadnagar
    7.       The M/s. Reliance Gas Tansportation,
             Infrastructure Limited, Pune,
            Vishal Arked Building Chinchwad
            Station Road, Pune.
                                                  ...Respondents


    Counsel for Applicants :
       Mr. N.J. Pahune Patil,
       Mr. S.D. Bade,
    Counsel for Respondent No.1 to 6 :
      Mr. G.T. Chavan, w/.
      Mr. A.S. Mulchandani, A.G.T.,
    Counsel for Respondent No.7 :
      Mr. Parimal and B.H. Nikte


                                       DATE : 11th September, 2014




(J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ)                             2
                                   JUDGMENT

1. Originally, Applicant Shivaji Suryabhan Sangle filed Writ Petition No.6060 of 2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. The Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal by Order of Hon'ble High Court dated 30th September 2013. The Writ Petition was, thereafter, registered as Application U/s. 14(1)(2) read with sections 15 and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, as a result of transfer of the Writ Petition.

2. Briefly stated, case of the Petitioner is that in Karjat Taluka, District: Ahmednagar, there is sanctuary of Maldhok i.e. Great Indian Bustard, which is declared as one amongst the protected species of birds and therefore, no project activity can be undertaken in the area of the forest land. Respondent No.7 is an Industry dealing in transportation of Industrial gas through underground pipe line. Respondent No.7 proposed to lay down a metallic pipeline through lands within area of the protected Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary i.e. Maldhoks of Taluka Karjat one (1) mtr, deep below the earth. Respondent No.7 cannot be permitted to lay down such pipelines through forest and sanctuary area of the Great Indian Bustard (J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ) 3 Sanctuary. When inquiry was made to the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the Petitioner received evasive replies about the permission sought by the Respondent No.7 and such kind of permission granted in favour of Respondent No.7. Tahsildar of Karjat directed the petitioner to contact Respondent No.7 in order to know whether such permission was obtained for purpose of laying down the pipeline as required. So also, Respondent No.4 failed to give required information sought by the Petitioner. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 failed to prohibit Respondent No.7 from laying down pipeline through Great Indian Bustard sanctuary within the area of Karjat Taluka without following due procedure of Forest Law. The project of laying down such pipeline has caused disturbance in the nearby area, damage to the forest life, endangered the environment as well as life of the protected birds i.e. Great Indian Bustard. The Petitioner alleges that if such kind of activity is not arrested at proper time, it will result in the irreparable loss to the forest life. Consequently, the Petitioner sought mandatory injunction against the Respondent No.7 to stop the work of laying down underground pipeline in protected sanctuary of Taluka Karjat and other forest lands within Karjat and Shrigonda Talukas of Ahmednagar District.

(J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ) 4

3. By filing reply-Affidavit of Arun Pawar, Tahsildar of Karjat, Respondent No.5 resisted the petition. According to Respondent No.5, underground pipeline of the Respondent No.7 goes through Karmala, Karjat and Shrigonda Talukas of Ahmednagar District through private agricultural lands, besides other lands in other Districts where the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary within territory of Maharashtra is situated. It is stated that the work carried out by Respondent No.7 Company does not come within domain of Respondent No.5 and as such is not controlled by it. In other words, Respondent No.5 is un- concerned with the project work of the laying down pipeline and therefore, has no concern with the same.

4. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed a common reply- Affidavit. According to them, the pipeline laid by Respondent No.7 does not pass through any part of the forest area of Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary. They submit that the underground pipeline passes through the agricultural lands of agriculturists which is declared as a sanctuary in accordance with Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972, so it is necessary to obtain permission of the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL) for carrying out any transaction of pine line activity in the said area which is declared and part of the Sanctuary under provisions of the (J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ) 5 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. They would submit that by order dated 9-7-2007, such proposal was submitted by the Central Empowered Committee of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The proposal was approved by the competent authority. Again on verification, it was found that the project does not fall within forest area of Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary, Karjat Taluka, Ahmadnagar District as well Karmala Taluka in Solapur District. Respondent No.7 has deposited amount of Rs.26 crores in the account of Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA) on 19th February 2008 because in some other parts, the underground pipelines is within the forest area of the protected Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary though not in the above referred three (3) Districts.

5. Respondent No.7 filed Affidavit of Rajiv K. Gupta, Area Manager in rebuttal and reply. His Affidavit purports to show that the Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. has undertaken the project of national importance of setting up pipeline for transportation of natural gas, namely, East-West Pipeline. The underground pipeline, passes from Kakinada in the state of Andhra Pradesh as well as state of Karnataka and Maharashtra upto Bharuch in the State of Gujarat, traversing the distance of about 1380 km. including 563 km in the State (J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ) 6 of Maharashtra within seven (7) Districts of Latur, Osmanabad, Solapur, Ahmednagar, Pune, Raigad and Thane. It is stated that a part of the underground pipeline is laid in the Great Indian Bustard Sanctuary with the due permission of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, by payment of huge amount in Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA) and therefore, there is no illegality committed by Respondent No.7. It is stated that the pipeline is already commissioned and as such, grant of prohibitory injunction will cause irreparable damage to Respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 alleges that the underground pipeline is completely covered by the surface vegetation and therefore, no damage is or will be ever caused to the environment. Respondent No.7 alleges that the Application is filed with malafide intention to create hurdles in the project. It is also contended that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the Application because this Application is filed like Application for Contempt of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. On these premises, Respondent No.7 sought dismissal of the Application.

6. Considering rival pleadings of the parties, it is essential to address following issues :

(J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ) 7

i) Whether laying down of the underground pipeline by Respondent no.7 passes through forest area and requires Forest Clearance as such ?

ii) Whether there is a private forest notified under any Government Notification as birds sanctuary in the area where the project in question is proposed to be implemented or has been already implemented ?

iii) Whether the proposed project suffers from any illegality and therefore, is liable to be struck down ? Or that if implemented, the pipeline is required to be removed in order to restore the original position ?

7. At the outset, let it be noted that any question relating to the implementation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, is outside purview of the Jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Section 14(1) of the N.G.T. Act, 2010 reads as follows :

"The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I". Schedule-I

1. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977.

3. The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

4. The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

5. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991,

7. The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

Thus, it is quite clear that only implementation of the seven (7) Enactments enlisted in Schedule I, will be within the jurisdiction of the NGT Act. Wild Life (Protection) Act is outside the list of those seven (7) enactments and hence, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has no jurisdiction to decide any question relating to implementation of the provisions of that Act. Obviously, we cannot examine whether any land within the area of Karjat or Shrigonda Talukas of Ahemadnagar District falls within protected or notified Sanctuary of Great Indian Busturd (GIB).

8. Perusal of the record shows that the Respondent No.7 submitted an Application to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as directed in "T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad Vrs. Union of India and Ors" (I.A. No.2116-2117 of 2007). The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India granted permission to the Respondent No.7 to lay down such pipelines as per the Report of the Standing Committee on National Board for Wild Life and no alternative is recommended to the proposal as per minutes of the (J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ) 9 meeting held on 10th September 2007 subject to compliances of certain conditions. It appears that due compliances were made in this behalf.

9. Now, it is pertinent to note that Respondent No.7 felled 735 trees without permission of the competent authority. By Order dated 23rd September, 2010. Sub Divisional Officer, Karjat directed Respondent No.7 to pay penalty of Rs.43,53,242/- within period of one month and also plant double of the trees in number, of the trees which were felled. Respondent No.7 preferred R.T.S. Appeal No.270 of 2010 before the Additional District Collector, Ahemadnagar which was dismissed. Obviously, it is difficult to say that Respondent No.5 did not take any care or joined hands with Respondent No.7.

10. As regards Forest Clearance issue is concerned, there is obviously no material to show that any part of the agricultural land was declared as private forest and therefore, permission from any competent authority was required for the purpose of clearance of any part of the area. Felling of non-scheduled trees was found to be illegal and therefore, Respondent No.7 was held responsible by the competent authority. As stated before, penalty was imposed by the competent authority after giving Show Cause Notice to Respondent No.7. In case such penalty is (J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ) 10 not recovered, the petitioner is at liberty to point it out to the Collector for execution of the said order. Still, however, there is no reason to infer that Forest Clearance permission was necessary for the Respondent No.7. Respondent No.7 is said to have damaged environment due to digging of agricultural lands. It may be mentioned here that land of the Petitioner is not subjected to any kind of digging or damage. He has not placed on record as to how he represents interest of any group of agriculturists. Copy of the letterhead (Exh.B) shows that the petitioner is District head of "Akhil Bhartiya Sena" of which the Chief is Arunbhai Gawali. Thus, it is a Political Organization of which the petitioner is District Representative. In other words, the Petitioner is not environmentalist nor, he represents any organization of agriculturists who suffered loss due to the project in question. The Petitioner, at the relevant time, appears to have filed the petition with a view to gain some political advantage. However, there is hardly any merit in the petition and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, the petition stands dismissed with direction that the Collector, Ahmednagar shall verify whether Respondent No.7 has deposited the amount regarding the penalty imposed and the amount directed to (J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ) 11 be deposited in CAMPA as per directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and if such direction is not yet complied with then to recover the said amount as if it is land revenue arrears by attachment of property of Respondent No.7 and conducting sale thereof by public auction within period of four (4) months, hereafter.

No costs.

....................................,JM (Justice V. R. Kingaonkar) .................................., EM (Dr. Ajay A. Deshpande) Date : 11th September, 2014 (J) Application No.12(THC)/2013 (WZ) 12