On May 6, hearing a 500-page petition filed by Srushti Paryavaran Mandal, a Nagpur-based environment protection NGO, the NGT principal bench headed by Justice Swantanter Kumar, and expert members DK Agrawal and BS Sajwan restrained NHAI and any other authority from felling trees in the area.

As respondent state government, ministry of environment, forests and climate change (MoEFCC), National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and NHAI had not got notices, the earlier hearing was put off till Monday. Barring NHAI, other respondents failed to file their replies even on Monday. Finally, after 30-minute arguments, the matter was adjourned till July 3 when the NGT will reopen after vacation.

NHAI in its affidavit submitted on May 22 said it received Stage II (final clearance) on May 15 from the MoEFCC. It also said the project did not need National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and environment clearance (EC) as per MoEFCC letter issued on August 22, 2013. NHAI's high profile lawyer Pinaki Mishra told the tribunal that the highways authority started work as per permissions from the MoEFCC and state government. Besides, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court also gave a go ahead to the work.

While the NTCA was not represented by anyone, counsel for Maharashtra government Kartik Shukul said as the NHAI had received Stage II clearance, the government decision to withdraw working permission to fell trees did not hold ground now. As it is, after the NGT stay on May 6, government had stopped felling trees on NH7.

Interestingly, Stage II clearance to NHAI comes in midst of the legal battle in NGT. Now there is a question over legality of felling 4,800 trees without Stage II approval. The matter will also come up for hearing on June 10 at the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court. On Monday, the state government counsel told the tribunal that permission to fell trees was granted on the basis of MoEFCC circulars issued on August 25, 2014, and January 8, 2015, that stated that no NBWL permission and EC was needed for the project. However, the tribunal stated clearance could not be determined by bringing out one or two circulars. It also asked NHAI to submit details of mitigation plan on NH7.

Ritwick Datta, counsel for petitioner Srushti, told NGT that a holistic view needed to be taken of the issue. This was the only healthy wildlife corridor that maintained historical gene flow in a tiger metapopulation in the highlands of Central India. According to sources, the petitioner is likely to contest the very basis of the permissions granted to NHAI by the forest department by concealing information while submitting Form A under the Forest Conservation Act 1980. The deputy conservator, Nagpur, had lied that the area did not form part of the national park, wildlife sanctuary and corridor.

DyCF had further submitted that no rare and endangered species of flora and fauna in the project area were found during inspection. No details were given as to when and how the inspection was carried out. "The sole purpose was to report absence of endangered species," says the petition. DyCF gave fake comment knowing well that proposed road passed through vital wildlife corridor between Pench-Kanha and connected four tiger reserves.

MoEFCC fresh norm for forest clearance

Nagpur: In view of NGT direction in Milind Pariwakam & Union of India case, the MoEFCC has issued fresh guidelines on May 7, 2015, for simplifying process of issue of work permit and permission for tree felling for 'linear projects' like roads, canals, power lines and railway tracks. MoEFCC office memorandums (OMs) on August 8, 2014 & January 15, 2015 had diluted the process for obtaining forest clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 for linear intrusion projects. The primary issues in the case