Thiruvananthapuram: The first Pinarayi Vijayan Government (2016-21) too was aware of the Tamil Nadu Government's request for allowing tree-felling at Mullaperiyar dam site. K Raju, the Forest Minister in the last government, had reverted a file in this regard by noting that no action was needed from Kerala Government's side. This has been the latest revelation over the row even as the political leadership in Kerala has been trying hard to feign ignorance of the order granting nod to the neighbouring state to cut trees.
Raju took a decision on the file based on the advice received from experts. After Raju reverted the file, Forest Department Secretary Rajesh Kumar Sinha handled the file that contained official letters between Kerala and Tamil Nadu and from among various Government Secretaries of the Kerala Government.
Interestingly, it was on the basis of this very same file that came to Raju that Chief Wildlife Warden Bennichen Thomas, who was recently suspended, took a decision to grant permission for tree-cutting.
The argument of the present government functionaries that they didn't know about the matter does not hold any truth as it is clear that the matter was under consideration of the previous state government headed by the same leader.
In the past too, Kerala had turned down the application of Tamil Nadu for cutting trees at the Mullaperiyar dam citing various reasons.
When Tamil Nadu gave such a request on May 4, 2015, Kerala demanded that documents to be filed with the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) be submitted through "Parivesh" portal.
After submitting these documents through the portal, Tamil Nadu again approached Kerala. Then, the Forest Principal Secretary took up the issue with the then Forest Minister K Raju. On the basis of the expert opinion he had received, Raju reverted the file.
PRINCIPAL SEC DEFENDS FOREST MINISTER
In a new development, Forest Principal Secretary Rajesh Kumar Sinha, in the explanation letter given to the government, has said that all the files and official communications on the tree-felling issue had been handled by himself. He further said that Forest Minister A K Saseendran had not seen the files.
In the report given to the Minister, Sinha assured him that in future all important files would be submitted for the clearance of the minister. But the report did not point out any lapse on the part of anyone with regard to the handling of the issue.
The report justifying the Forest Minister was submitted by the Forest Principal Secretary amid the raging row whether the current Forest Minister and the Water Resources Minister had seen the file or not on tree-felling.
The report by Sinha also said that no decision was taken at the meeting held at the Secretary-level in which the matter was discussed. Sinha also said that he did not give final permission for cutting the trees.
SINHA'S CLAIMS GO AGAINST BENNICHEN'S VERSION
However, the contents of Sinha's report submitted to the Forest Minister went against the arguments of the suspended Chief Wildlife Warden of the Forest Department, Bennichen Thomas.
Sinha, in his report, clarified that no decision on tree-felling was taken at the Secretary-level talks between Kerala and Tamil Nadu on September 17 though the matter was discussed.
But in the explanation submitted to the government by Bennichen, it was stated that the decision to allow permission for Tamil Nadu to cut trees at the baby dam site was taken at the meeting held on November 1 in which Water Resources Department Additional Chief Secretary T K Jose and Forest Principal Secretary Rajesh Kumar Sinha attended. But Sinha is keeping mum about such a meeting.
SINHA CONTRADICTS SASEENDRAN'S STATEMENT
Another dichotomy is that contrary to Sinha's explanation that Saseendran did not see any controversial files on the issue, Saseendran himself had told the Assembly that he saw the minutes of the Secretary-level meeting held on November 1.
Though Sinha said in his explanation letter that the permission of the Central Government was needed for cutting trees at the forest in Mullaperiyar, Bennichen took the position that there was no need for such a permission.
