Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Cheranda Nand Subbaiah vs The Union Of India on 25 July, 2022

Author: Alok Aradhe

Bench: Alok Aradhe

                          1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                       PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

       WRIT PETITION NO.34294/2009(GM-FOR)

BETWEEN:

CHERANDA NAND SUBBAIAH
S/O ACHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
COFFEE PLANTER
BADAGA BAWANGALA VILLAGE
MALDARE POST, SIDDAPURA HOBLI
VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT.         ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI SAMRUDHI HEGDE, ADV FOR
 SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADV)

AND:

1.     THE UNION OF INDIA
       BY ITS SECRETARY
       MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS
       PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, CGO COMPLEX
       LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

2.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
       DEPARTMENT OF FOREST,ECOLOGY &
       ENVIRONMENT,M.S. BUILDING
       BANGALORE.

3.     THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
       KARNATAKA STATE,II FLOOR, ARANYA BHAWAN
                           2

      18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
      BANGALORE - 03.

4.    THE PRINCIPAL CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
      WILD LIFE & CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN
      II FLOOR, ARANYA BHAWAN
      18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM
      BANGALORE - 03.

5.    DR. ULLAS KARANTH
      WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY
      INDIA PROGRAM,26-2,AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD
      403 SEEBO APARTMENTS
      BANGALORE - 42.

6.    PRAVEEN BHARGAV
      WILDLIFE FIRST,1235,I FLOOR
      26TH 'A' MAINJAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK
      BANGALORE - 41.

7.    SANJAY GUBBI
      GREEN WATCHERS OUTREACH
      # 2208/B, SADHANA ROAD
      TUMKUR - 572 101.

8.    D.V. GIRISH
      GREEN WATCHERS OUTREACH
      # 2208/B SADHANA ROAD
      TUMKUR - 572 101.

9.    NIREN JAIN
      CO-ORDINATOR
      KUDREMUKHA WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
      NO.3,GROUND FLOOR
      RATHNA APARTMENT,KADRI
      MANGALORE - 575 002.

10.   K.M. CHINNAPPA
      NAGARHOLE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PROJECT
      SRIMANGALA,VIRAJPET TALUK
      KODAGU DISTRICT.

11.   THAMMU POOVAIAH
      LIVING INSPIRATION FOR TRIBALS
      P.B.NO.30, HUNSUR-571 105
                           3
      ALSO AT AMBIKA ELECTRONICS
      MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTTRICT.

12.   M.K. APPACHU
      LIVING INSPIRATION FOR TRIBALS
      P.B.NO.30, HUNSUR-571 105
      MYSORE DISTRICT.

13.   G.R.SANATH KUMAR
      WILDLIFE FIRST,1235, I FLOOR
      26TH A MAIN, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK
      BANGALORE - 560 041.

14.   CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI)
      NO.36, BELLARY ROAD,GANGANAGAR
      BANGALORE - 560 032.            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S. SHIVA KUMAR, CGC FOR R-1;
 SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R-2 TO R-4;
 SRI. ASWIN PRABHU S.D, ADV., FOR R-6 & R-10 TO R-13;
 SRI. T.I. ABDULLA, ADV., FOR R-5 & R-7 TO R-9;
 MISS. ANITHA KRISHNA MURTHY, ADV;
 SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMA, ADV., FOR R-14)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PERMISSION GRANTED VIDE LETTER DATED
24.06.2009 & DATED 16.11.2007 PRODUCED AT ANN-N & P
RESPECTIVELY AS INOPERATIVE & VOID, ETC.

     THIS PETITITON COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                       ORDER

The Petitioner claims to be an agriculturist and engaged in plantation of coffee. The Petitioner has filed this public interest litigation, seeking a direction to quash the permission dated 24.06.2009 and 4 16.11.2007 granted under Section 28(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ('the Act' for brevity). The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka State and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wild Life and Chief Wildlife Warden, to initiate appropriate action against the respondent Nos.5 to 13 for unauthorised radio collaring of tigers in Nagarahole National Park in the year 2000.

The Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India as well as Government of Karnataka to refer all the allegations made against the respondent Nos.5 to 13, to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The petitioner also seeks enactment of laws governing the activities of the NGOs, who are funded by foreign sources, to make their activities accountable and transparent. The Petitioner has also assailed the validity of Section 28(1)(a) to (d) of the Act as ultra-vires.

5

2. Section 28 of the Act deals with grant of permit. It provides that the Chief Wild Life Warden may, on application, grant to any person a permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary for the purposes of investigation or study of wild life and purposes ancillary or incidental thereto. In the present case, in exercise of powers under Section 28(1)(a) of the Act, a permit was issued on 16.11.2007. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that the said order was in force for a period of three years and has come to an end on account of efflux of time, during the pendency of the petition. It is also relevant to note that the aforesaid permission has not been renewed further.

3. Insofar as the order dated 24.06.2009 granting permission under Section 28(1)(a) of the Act is concerned, the learned Additional Government Advocate has stated that the aforesaid order is no longer in force as it has ceased to operate. Therefore, the first relief claimed in the petition with 6 regard to the orders dated 24.06.2009 and 16.11.2007, issued under Section 28(1)(a) of the Act, does not survive for consideration on account of efflux of time.

4. Insofar as the second relief with regard to radio-collaring of tigers in Nagarahole National Park is concerned, the State Government has constituted an Expert Committee to conduct a detailed study on the death of a large number of tigers in Nagarahole National Park and by an order dated 01.03.1993, the report of the aforesaid Expert Committee has been accepted. The Expert Committee in its report has concluded that mortality reported amongst the tigers and the leopards in Nagarahole National Park is not due to chemical-immobilization and radio-collaring and is in no way attributable to the research project entitled "Ecology and Management of Large Carnivores".

7

5. It is also pertinent to note that the State Government by a communication dated 17.09.2009 informed the Inspector General of Forests and Member-Secretary, National Tiger Conservation Authority, New Delhi, that the permission for radio- collaring of tigers in the State of Karnataka has been rejected. In view of the report submitted by the Expert Committee, which has been accepted by the State Government and in view of the order dated 17.09.2009 passed by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden, by which the permission for radio-collaring of tigers in the State of Karnataka has been refused in exercise of powers vested under Section 28(1)(c) of the Act, the second prayer in the petition also does not survive for consideration.

6. The relief has been prayed for conducting of an enquiry for collection of animal bones. It is noteworthy that the Field Director viz., an Indian Forest Service Officer had conducted an enquiry 8 wherein it has been stated that the skull and bones of Tigers, Leopards and other wild animals were returned by respondent No.5 viz., Dr.Ullas Karanth and the same are presently stored at the Saw Mill Building in the Kallahalla Forest Range.

7. Insofar as the relief of enactment of the laws relating to governing the activities of the NGOs, who are funded by foreign source is concerned, suffice it to say that such a relief cannot be granted in the writ petition. It is worth mentioning here that Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, which was in force, has been repealed by the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and the said Act is in force.

8. No ground has either been pleaded or argued to challenge the validity of Section 28(1)(a) to (d) of the Act. It has neither been contended that the Parliament has no power to enact the aforesaid law nor has it been argued that the same is in 9 violation of any of the fundamental rights or statutory rights guaranteed to the petitioner.

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE KNM/-