In its order dated December 2, 2020, the NGT has dismissed both the review applications submitted by Government of UP on the matter of New Wood Based Industry in the state. NGT stated that there is no merit in the contentions in the review applications. These two Review Applications have been filed by the State of UP against common order of the Tribunal dated 18.02.2020 on the applicants by Samvit Foundation and Uday Education & Welfare Trust. The tribunal stated that they considered the submissions after giving opportunities to the state and the affected WBI. The contentions submitted are repetition of the arguments already dealt with by this Tribunal.
It is to be noted that on January 22, Divisional Director of Forest, Hathras, on behalf of the State of UP, had submitted the data of the existing saw mills/wood-based industries with their number, capacity and availability of wood species wise for the said saw mills for the period of three years. The Tribunal also considered written note filed on 18.02.2020 on behalf of State of UP, referring to India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2019 to the effect that there is increase of ‘Forest and Tree Cover’. The note also mentioned that provisional licenses have been given to 1215 WBIs in February 2019 before the order of status quo, granted by this Tribunal, 632 WBIs have already established their units.
In its order the tribunal clarified that the main issue was actual availability of timber which was never ascertained by the State. The State was proceeding on estimate basis which was not scientific. Thus, the Tribunal directed assessment of timber available for consumption which was not reflected in the species wise assessment of timber availability. There is, thus, no merit in the contentions in the review application. The Tribunal held that prohibited species being not available, had to be excluded from availability of timber. The standard error taken was based on the view of the FSI (Forest Survey of India) itself. The opinion of MoEF&CC is only that agroforestry should be encouraged. The opinion is based on availability of wood, assessed by the State, which assessment was found to be unscientific. Thus, the opinion of MoEF&CC could not be accepted without authentic scientific data. The other points are based on inferences without any foundation.