The National Green Tribunal’s dismissal of a public interest petition seeking to halt widespread tree felling in Bolangir underscores a critical procedural threshold in environmental litigation: general allegations of ecological harm, however compelling, are insufficient without specific, substantiated claims of legal violation. This judgment reinforces that courts cannot act as investigative bodies in the absence of precise factual grounding.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Hemanta Kumar Panda, a social activist and RTI practitioner, alleged that over 15,000 roadside trees - including neem, pipal, banyan, mango, and Ashok - were felled across Bolangir District between 2010 and 2025 without environmental clearance, public consultation, or compensatory afforestation. He submitted that this large-scale deforestation had led to rising summer temperatures, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, and disruption of rural livelihoods. The applicant framed the issue as a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting the right to a healthy environment as integral to the right to life.
Procedural History
- The applicant filed Original Application No. 113/2025/EZ before the National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
- He relied exclusively on RTI responses obtained from state authorities, which provided year-wise data on tree felling by road segment.
- No affidavits, site photographs, expert reports, or specific instances of illegal felling were submitted.
- The applicant did not identify any particular road, date, authority, or violator responsible for unlawful tree removal.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought eight reliefs, including: halting future tree felling without environmental clearance; constituting an independent inquiry; mandating a district-level compensatory afforestation plan; requiring tree transplantation in infrastructure projects; framing a state-level policy on green corridors; and establishing a high-powered committee to approve felling of 25 or more trees.
The Parties' Positions
The applicant appeared in person. The State respondents did not file written replies, but the Tribunal examined the record and found no evidence of illegal activity, only statistical data without contextual legal violation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a public interest petition under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 can succeed based solely on aggregated statistical data of tree felling, without specific allegations of illegal conduct, violation of statutory norms, or identification of violators.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant argued that the sheer scale of tree felling - over 15,000 trees in 15 years - constituted a prima facie violation of the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and Article 21. He contended that the cumulative ecological impact, coupled with the absence of public consultation, justified judicial intervention. He cited M.C. Mehta v. Union of India to assert that environmental rights demand proactive judicial oversight, even in the absence of detailed individual complaints.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not file a formal response. However, the Tribunal inferred from the record that the applicant had not demonstrated any breach of statutory procedure. The data presented showed felling by road projects, but did not establish whether permissions under the Forest Conservation Act or environmental clearances under the Environment Protection Act were obtained or denied.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal emphasized that while environmental protection is a constitutional imperative, the burden of initiating litigation lies with the petitioner to provide concrete, actionable information. The Court observed that the applicant’s reliance on RTI data, though commendable, was insufficient to trigger judicial intervention under Section 14 of the NGT Act, which requires a ‘substantial question relating to the environment’ arising from a ‘violation of environmental law’.
"This Tribunal is not required to make general and roving enquiry for ascertaining in respect of each tree felled as to whether the requisite permission was taken or not whether there was any violation of environmental laws/norms or not."
The Court distinguished between environmental awareness and legal enforceability. While the applicant’s emotional appeal to cultural and ecological loss was acknowledged, the Tribunal held that judicial remedies cannot substitute for procedural diligence. The absence of specific details - such as dates, locations, names of authorities involved, or evidence of non-compliance with statutory procedures - meant the petition lacked the requisite legal foundation.
The Tribunal further noted that the RTI data did not distinguish between lawful felling (e.g., under approved infrastructure projects with clearance) and unlawful felling. Without this distinction, no violation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act or Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 could be established.
The Verdict
The applicant’s petition was dismissed. The Court held that generalized statistical data without specific allegations of illegal conduct cannot sustain an environmental petition. However, the Tribunal directed district authorities to act on future complaints if filed with precise details of illegal tree felling.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Specificity Is Non-Negotiable in Environmental PILs
- Practitioners must identify exact locations, dates, and statutory provisions allegedly violated.
- RTI data alone is not proof of illegality; it must be paired with affidavits, expert opinions, or official denial of permissions.
- Petitions must name the authority responsible for the violation, not merely the state as a whole.
Courts Will Not Conduct Independent Investigations
- NGT and other environmental courts are not investigative agencies.
- Petitioners must present a prima facie case of violation before the court will initiate inquiry.
- Blanket allegations of ‘mass felling’ without context will be dismissed as frivolous or speculative.
Strategic Use of RTI Data Is Essential
- Use RTI responses to obtain official records of permissions granted or denied.
- Cross-reference felling data with public notices, environmental clearance orders, and forest department records.
- File follow-up applications with specific grievances to trigger enforcement action under the Tribunal’s direction.
