- (1.) The petitioner is stated to be a resident of Village Baghi in Tehsil Naugarh of District Chandauli. The grievance in these proceedings is that the Divisional Forest Officer, who is impleaded as the third respondent, addressed a communication on 2 May 2015 to the Executive Engineer of the fourth respondent stating that though the permission of the Union Government was required for carrying out any non-commercial activity in a reserved forest, electricity poles have been erected without requisite permission. In this connection, a meeting was convened by the Collector and the District Magistrate, Chandauli on 5 May 2015 noting the position and in the course of which necessary directions were issued to ensure that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that on 1 February 2013, the Union Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests has granted general approval for the construction of public roads involving not more than five hectares of forest land in 82 districts affected by Left Wing Extremism. According to the petitioner, Chandauli is one of the three districts in the State of U.P. which have been notified for the purpose. The petitioner also relied upon the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, enabling the Central Government, notwithstanding anything contained in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to provide for the diversion of forest land involving the felling of trees not exceeding seventy five trees per hectare for the management of various facilities including electric and telecommunication lines. The relief which the petitioner seeks is, in particular, an order directing the third respondent to grant a no objection certificate for the expeditious completion of projects such as the construction of roads and electrification.
(3.) We are unable to subscribe to the submission of the petitioner that a general mandamus, in terms as sought, can be granted by the Court. In the instructions which have been made available by the Divisional Forest Officer, it has been stated that the lands in question constitute a reserved forest and hence the permission of the Union Government is necessary for the diversion of any land for non-forest purposes in terms of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation), Act 1980. The issue as to whether such land would, or would not, fall within the purview of the general approval granted by the Union Government on 1 February 2013, would itself require a verification of facts, in the absence of which, this Court would not be justified in issuing a direction of the nature as sought in general terms in these proceedings. The Divisional Forest Officer cannot be faulted for having taken the view which he has before the Court.;