ORDER : 1. Heard the matter on the preliminary issue of maintainability of the petition. 2. The petitioners by way of this petition has challenged the final/stag-II approval of Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for non forestry use with respect to 30.725 hectares over 740, 741 PF forest land at village Saraitola and Village Mudagaon. The petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: “10.1. Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside the order dated 27.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Forts, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. 10.2. Pass any other order the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are the residents of Villages Mudagaon and Saraitola Gram Panchayat -Sraitola, Tahsil Tamnar, Ragiarh which is declared scheduled area under the 5 th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Petitioner No.1 is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Saritola, Village Mudagaon and has been granted community forest resources rights title over 29.642 hectares on compartment No. 740, 741 PF in the year 2020-21 under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Similarly, Gram Sabha Saraitola has been granted Charagaah rights over 1.083 hectares on 741 PF. The village is spread across mountains, forests and plain land. The entire village population is dependent of agriculture, the collection of forest produce like mahua, chaar, karil, tendu and harra, baheda, amla, firewood, jadi-buti (medicinal plants), cattle and livestock. The respondent No.12 has granted forest clearance with respect to 740,741 PF in violation of the rights of the petitioners and other villagers of the villages Mudagaon and Saraitola. The petitioners were unaware of the said unilateral proceedings carried out by the respondents and it came to their knowledge only after the information was sent by the SDO Gharghoda to Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Mudagaon with respect to felling of trees on compartment No. 740 and 741 PF. The petitioners are aggrieved for the reason that the State has transferred the village forest land without complying the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.1993, Panchayat Raj Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 1996, Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Hence the present petition. 4. The petitioners are aggrieved for the reason that the State has transferred the village forest land without complying the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam.1993, Panchayat Raj Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 1996, Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. Hence the present petition. 4. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the substantial question of law which arises for consideration at the threshold is with respect to the maintainability of the present petition. The issue that falls for determination may be formulated as follows: “1. Whether, in the absence of any expressive authorization by the Gram Sabha, the present petition instituted by the petitioners in maintainable under the law? 2. Whether the conferment of community forest resource rights and chaaragah right under the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of forest Rights) Act, 2006 vests locus standi in the petitioner, including petitioner No.1 as Sarpanch, to maintain the present petition for enforcement of such rights? 3. Whether the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy under the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 and /or the National Green Tribunal ct, 2010, would bar the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 4. Whether the alleged grant of forest clearance by Respondent No.12 without due notice to the petitioner and in violation of the statutory safeguards under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, raises a jurisdictional issue sufficient to clothe this Court with power to entertain the present petition notwithstanding the plea of alternative remedy? 5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 granting final forest clearance issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Forests, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. She submits that the petitioners are challenging the order on the ground that it is arbitrary and based on extraneous considerations and it was passed without following the principles of natural justice without hearing the members of the Gram Sabha. She further submits that alternative remedy does not act as a bar for the High Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and placed reliance in the matter of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. She further submits that alternative remedy does not act as a bar for the High Court to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and placed reliance in the matter of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others , (1998) 8 SCC 1 , wherein the Apex Court has held that the legal intricacies of trademark registration and the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Courts were brought to the forefront. The case provides valuable insights into the conditions under which High Courts may entertain writ petitions despite the existence of alternative statutory remedies. 6. She contended that the petitioners have approached the High Court for securing their rights guaranteed under Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. She submits that it is a settled position of law that a statute cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts. She has further placed her reliance in the matter of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India , 1997 (3) SCC 261 . The constitutional validity of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 was challenged by the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association and Another before the Apex Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 639 and it upheld the provisions on the ground that the provisions do not per se and cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court. It is submitted that the petitioners have challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same has been passed without taking into account the community forest rights titles granted to Gram Sabha Mudagaon and Saraitola under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 is not enlisted in Schedule 1of the NGT Act 2010 and therefore the instant petition doe not fall within the jurisdiction of the NGT. Apex Court in the matter of Bhopal Gas Peedit Udhyog Sangathan & Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 2012 (8) SCC 326 , has held that the Forest Rights Act, 2006 is not enlisted in Schedule 1 and is beyond the jurisdiction of the NGT. Therefore, the subject matter of the instant petition does not raise an environmental issue but the right to community resources and land under the Forest Right Act, 2006 and the right to determine title and ownership over the land cannot be decided by the National Green Tribunal. 7. Therefore, the subject matter of the instant petition does not raise an environmental issue but the right to community resources and land under the Forest Right Act, 2006 and the right to determine title and ownership over the land cannot be decided by the National Green Tribunal. 7. She contended that so far as the locus of the petitioners is concerned, the petitioners are the residents of village Mudagaon and Saraitola and since they are the members of Gram Sabha, they are entitled to raise the issue of denial of rights of the Gram Sabha under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the diversion of the land by way of the impugned order will affect the livelihood of the petitioners and thus, have file the present petition. 8. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and submits that the instant petition pertains to the diversion of forest land for non-forest use under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. In the year 2015, pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in Coal Block de-allocation and the ensuing auctions, the Gare Palma Sector-II coal block (village Khamharia, Tamnar Tehsil, District Raigarh was statutorily allotted to Mahagenco- owned by the Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited. Th substantial investments and steps have been undertaken since 2015 in furtherance of this project. After due satisfaction of all stipulated conditions, the stage-1 forest clearance was granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Thereafter, first stage forest clearance was issued from the Union of India, Environment and Climate Change. The compliance report was submitted by Mahagenco on 9.12.2022 and State Govt. of Chhattisgarh notified the compensatory afforestation land in the Extraordinary Gazette notification dated 28.12.2022 and after fulfillment of all the conditions prescribed in the stage-1 clearance, compliance report was submitted by the User Agency to the Divisional Forest Officer, Raigarh. Thereafter stage-II (final) forest clearance was granted vide letter dated 27.01.2023. He submits that all the necessary compliance from the forest department have been duly undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Van (Sanrakshan Evam Sanvardhan) Adhiniyam 1980 as well as the applicable Rules and guidelines issued thereunder and the proposal for diversion of forest land was processed after due diligence, including site inspection, enumeration of trees, Gram Sabha consent and compliance with compensatory afforestation requirements. He submits that the petitioner is barred by delay and laches as the petitioners were unaware regarding the unilateral proceedings carried out by the respondents whereas the petitioners themselves have submitted vide Annexure P/7 that the village Mudagaon and Saraitola could be used for the mining purpose by the Mahagenco as this is a resolution passed by Special Gram Sabha and therefore, the petitioners cannot take the plea that they were unaware of the fact. Lastly, it is submitted that the ground raised by the petitioners in the instant petition are devoid of merits and therefore is not maintainable. 9. Counsel for respondent No.11 submits that the main grievance of the petitioners is against the respondent No.13/Union of India. He submits that he is a Secretary of Gram Panchayat Saraitola and has only put his signature in the resolutions dated 26.08.2017 and 10.03.2018. 10. Dr. N.K.Shukla and Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned Sr. Counsels for respondent No.12 opposing the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the approval of Central Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act vide order dated 27.01.2025. He submits that under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, any person aggrieved by the order made under Section 2 on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 may file appeal to the National Green Tribunal. Section 16(e) of the NGT Act, 2010 also provides for an appeal against an order or decision under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It has been further contended that there is no averment made whatsoever as to why the said statutory remedy has not been availed. In respect of forest, its conservation, tree-felling, the issue raised is substantially a question relation to environment and the permission granted under the Forest Conservation Act which is also covered under Schedule 1 at Serial No. 3 of the NGT Act, 2010. Therefore, the issue involved in the present petition and the order impugned are triable and within the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal in view of the provisions and the scheme of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, particularly, Sections 14, 29 and 33. Therefore, the issue involved in the present petition and the order impugned are triable and within the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal in view of the provisions and the scheme of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, particularly, Sections 14, 29 and 33. The petitioners have not stated on affidavit any reason for not availing the statutory remedy and approaching the National Green Tribunal, hence, no case for exercising extra-ordinary, discretionary writ jurisdiction by the High Court is made out and the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. It is also contended that the petitioners have no personal or individual right effected and there is no locus standi to maintain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in their individual capacity. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Others , (2013) 6 SCC 476 , wherein it has been held that “the Forest Rights Act, neither expressly nor impliedly, has taken away or inferred with the right of the State over mines or minerals lying underneath the forest land, which stands vested in the State. The State holds the natural resources as a trustee of the people, Section 3 of the Forest Rights Act, does not vest such right on the ST or other TFDs. The PESA Act speaks only of minor minerals which say that the recommendations of the Gram Sabha shall be mandatory prior to grant of prospecting license or mining lease for minor minerals in the scheduled areas.” 11. In view of the dictum of the law laid down by the Apex Court, Forest Rights Act doe not vest the grantees of the right over mineral which in the present case is coal, a major mineral. Even the PESA Act requiring recommendation of the Gram Sabha is applicable in case of Minor Minerals only and for grant of prospective licenses and lease and not for de-reservation of forest under Action 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. There being no right which can be said to have been conferred on the petitioner under the Forest Rights At, 2006 and the PESA not being applicable, petitioners have no locus or ground to maintain the present petition which deserves to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.13/UOI submits that after compliance report received from the Govt. There being no right which can be said to have been conferred on the petitioner under the Forest Rights At, 2006 and the PESA not being applicable, petitioners have no locus or ground to maintain the present petition which deserves to be dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.13/UOI submits that after compliance report received from the Govt. of Chhattisgarh and examining the same, Ministry vide letter dated 27.01.2023 granted Stage -II final approval with conditions under Section 2 of the Van Adhiniyam, 1980 for diversion of 214.869heectares of forest land in favour of Mahagenco for open cast coal mining project the Mand Raigarh Coalfield. It is pertinent to mention that the specific conditions of the Stage II approval with regard to the settlement of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and the rehabilitation and resettlement are as follows: Condition No. (A) Conditions which need to be complied prior to handing over of the forest land by the State Forest department. i) The State Government shall ensure that the complete compliance of the FRA, 2006 shall be implemented. 13. Further it has been contended that the rehabilitation and resettlement of the project affected people is the responsibility of the State Government and the same has to be effectuated as per the relevant schemes of the State Government and the provisions of FRA 2006 are also to be implemented by the State government. So far as the tree felling is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that Specific condition No. xxiii prescribes as under: “the user agency shall explore the possibility of translocation of maximum number of trees identified to be felled and shall ensure that any tree felling shall be done only when it is unavoidable and that too under strict supervision of the State Forest Department.” 14. Heard learned counsels for the parties on the question of and perused the documents available on record. 15. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent NO.12 has been granted forest clearance in respect of Compartment Nos. 740 and 741 PF in complete disregard of the statutory rights vested int eh petitioners and other villagers of Mudgaon and Saraitola. 15. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent NO.12 has been granted forest clearance in respect of Compartment Nos. 740 and 741 PF in complete disregard of the statutory rights vested int eh petitioners and other villagers of Mudgaon and Saraitola. The petitioners assert that they were kept in dark regarding the said unilateral proceedings and they became aware of the same only upon receipt of communication addressed by the SDO, Gharghoda to the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mudagaon intimating about the felling of trees in the said compartments. 16. In the instant petition, it is manifest that the petitioners are not duly authorized by the Gram Sabha, and as such the same is defective and not maintainable. However, there is an efficacious alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act as well as the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is a settled proposition of law, as reiterated by the Apex Court in the matter of MP High Court Advocate Bar Association (supra) as under: “15. It is also noteworthy that nothing contained in the NGT Act either impliedly or explicitly, out the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 and 227 and the power of judicial review remains intact and unaffected by the NGT Act. The prerogative of writ jurisdiction of High Courts is neither taken away nor it can be ousted as without any doubt, it is definitely a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The High Court’s exercise their discretion in tandem with the law depending on the facts of each particular case. Since the High Court’s jurisdiction remain unaffected, the first question is answered in the negative, against the petitioners.” 17. Thus, upon consideration of the pleadings and submissions advanced, it is manifest that the petitioners have approached this Court without any express authorization or resolution of the Gram Sabha. The rights claimed under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dweller (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 as also the community forest resource rights and Charagah rights, are collective in nature and are vested in the Gram Sabha as a statutory body. The rights claimed under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dweller (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 as also the community forest resource rights and Charagah rights, are collective in nature and are vested in the Gram Sabha as a statutory body. In absence of a resolution of the Gram Sabha authorizing the institution of the present proceedings, the petitioners cannot be said to have the requisite locus standi to maintain this petition and where a specific statutory mechanism is provided, recourse must be had thereto rather than invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court which is wholly unwarranted. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as not maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy as permissible under the law.