The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uday Education and Welfare Trust (2022)

Introduction 

This landmark judgment addresses the validity of provisional licenses granted to wood-based industries in Uttar Pradesh, where concerns about timber availability and environmental sustainability were raised before the National Green Tribunal. 

• The Supreme Court pronounced this decision in 2022, emphasizing the importance of relying on scientific expert assessments in environmental matters while maintaining a balance between environmental protection and sustainable development. 

Facts 

• An e-lottery was conducted on December 12, 2018, for granting licenses to various wood-based industries for establishment in 8 categories in Uttar Pradesh. 
• Between December 12, 2018, and December 31, 2018, online letters of offer were issued to 1,348 successful applicants following the lottery process. 
• During February and March 2019, provisional licenses were issued to 1,215 successful applicants across the 8 categories to establish their wood-based industries in the state. 
• On March 1, 2019, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notice communicating the grant of provisional licenses to the newly selected wood-based industries. 
• Uday Education and Welfare Trust filed Original Application No. 313 of 2019 before the National Green Tribunal in March 2019, challenging the grant of these licenses. 
• The National Green Tribunal directed maintenance of status quo on October 1, 2019, and subsequently on February 18, 2020, allowed the applications and quashed the notice dated March 1, 2019, along with all provisional licenses. 
• The State of Uttar Pradesh and provisional license holders filed review applications, which were rejected by the NGT through orders dated March 18, 2020, December 2, 2020, and December 21, 2020, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the National Green Tribunal correctly assessed the availability of timber and raw materials to sustain the new wood-based industries in Uttar Pradesh? 
• Whether the NGT was justified in rejecting the scientific assessment conducted by the Forest Survey of India regarding timber availability from Trees Outside Forest? 
• Whether the Tribunal properly applied the principles of sustainable development while examining the environmental impact of establishing new wood-based industries? 
• Whether courts should defer to expert scientific opinion in technical matters relating to resource availability and environmental assessments? 

Court's Observations 

• The Court held that the State Level Committee was properly reconstituted in Uttar Pradesh on May 17, 2017, in accordance with the 2016 Guidelines, with the duty to assess timber availability for wood-based industrial units. 
• The Court recognized that the Forest Survey of India conducted a comprehensive survey using satellite data and submitted its report in March 2018, applying proper scientific methodology across 101 pages of detailed analysis. 
• The Court found that the NGT erred in brushing aside the scientific exercise conducted by FSI and incorrectly characterizing scientifically-derived figures as mere estimations rather than realistic assessments. 
• The Court emphasized that the FSI, as an undisputed expert body, arrived at its estimation based on scientific methods, and the NGT should not have sat in appeal over expert opinion. 
• The Court ruled that the NGT grossly erred in deducting availability of timber from prohibited trees, as courts should not enter areas that belong to the domain of experts. 
• The Court acknowledged that while Section 20 of the NGT Act directs application of sustainable development, precautionary principle, and polluter pays principle, these principles cannot be applied in isolation from each other. 
• The judgment underscored that while protecting the environment, the need for sustainable development must be considered, and a proper balance between environmental protection and development must be struck. 
• The Court recognized that Trees Outside Forest are significant renewable resources making vital contributions to agro-ecology, socio-economy of rural areas, environmental amelioration, and providing raw material to wood-based industries while generating employment. 

Conclusion 

• This landmark judgment reinforces that judicial bodies must defer to expert scientific assessments on technical matters such as resource availability and environmental impact without substituting their own opinions. 
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the National Green Tribunal's orders, upholding the State Government's action in granting licenses to wood-based industries. 
• The decision establishes that environmental principles including sustainable development, precautionary principle, and environmental protection must be applied in balance rather than in isolation from each other.