Karnataka High Court
Niren Jain vs Anita Arekal on 12 August, 2011
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT B.ANG.ALORE
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR
W.P. Nos. 39706 of 2004 (GM-WLAI
Ciw
WP Nos. 39707. 39708, 42951 of 2004
& WP No.24497 of 2005 IGM-WLAI
In W.P.No. 39706 of 2004
BETWEEN:
Mr. Niren Jam
S/oV.K.Jaln
Aged about 30 years
No.3, Rathna Apartments
Kadri
Mangalore -575002
2. Dr. K. Ullas Karanth
Sb late Sri Shivaram Karanth
Aged about 56 years
Residing at No.403
Seebo Apartments
26-2. Aga Abbas All Road
Bangalore 560 042
-
3. Shri Praveen Bhargav
Sb V. S. Bhargav
Aged about 40 years
V
2
No.1235. 1t floor
26 A Main. Jayanagar
4" T Block
Bangalore 560 041
-
4. Skirt Sanjay Gubbi
5/0 N.B. Sreyamsha Ktunar
Aged about 32 years
823, thalthra'
7th Block.
Jayanagar
Bangalore . .Petltloners
(By Sri B. V. Acharva. Senior Advocate for
M/s. I-Jolla & Holla. Advocates)
AND:
Smt. Anita Arekal
Deputy Conservator of Forest
Kudremukh Wild Life Division
Karkala
2. Sri S. S. Hegde
Range Forest Officer
Belthangady Wild Life Range
Beithangady
D.K. District
3. State of Karnataka
Represented by Its
Principal Secretary
Forest, Ecology and Environment
Multistorled Building Phase-lI
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore -560001 ...Respondents
(By Sri K.M. Shlvayogiswamy. HCGP)
Lz
4
3
This Writ Petition is ified under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India. praying to quash the FIR
No.129/2004 dated 742004 vide Annexure-C filed by
respondent-2 In FOC No.3/04-05 on the file of the Court of
Civil Judge Jr.Dn.) & JMFC. Bekhangady.
In W.P No. 39707 of 2004
BETWEEN:
1. Sri Rohit S. Rao
S/oSriK.S.Rao
Aged 36 years
Kodial Guthu Road
Bejai
Mangalore 575 004
-
2. Sri M. Rammohan Rao
S/o Sri M. Sadashlv Rao
Aged about 62 years
Court Hill Cross Road
Puttur 574 201
-
Dakshlna Kannada
4
3. Sri Ananda V.M.
S/o Sri V. P. Mahendra
Aged about 32 years
No.5. Sankey Road
High Grounds
Bangalore 560 001
-
4. SrI K. M. Chinnappa
S/o Sri Late Medappa
Aged about 65 years
Kakur Post Office
4
Srirnangala
Kodaga District --571 217
5. SrI D.V. Girish
Aged about 35 years
5/0 D. P. Vasanth Kumar
Residing at Kalleshwara Estate
P.O. Kairnara
Chickmagalur 577 iç S
-
6. Sri S. GlriJashankar
Aged about 52 years
5/0 SrI Suryanarayana
AnJenya Street
Vijayapura
Chlckmagalur 577 101
-
7. SrI Thamoo Poovaiah
Aged about 55 years
Sb Sri A. D. Aivanna
College Road
Madikeri . . .Petitioners
(By Sri B. V. Acharya. Senior Advocate tbr
MIs. Holla & Holla, Advocates)
AND:
Smt. Anita Arekal
Deputy Conservator of Forest
Kudremukh Wild LIiè Division
Karkala
Udupi District
2. Mr. Srinivasa Reddy
Range Forest Officer
Kerekatie Wild Life Range
it---
5
Kerekatte. Srlngerl Taluk
Chlckmagalur District
4. State of Karnalaka
Represented by its
Principal Secretary
Forest, Ecology and Environment
Multistoried Building Phase-TI
Dr. Arnbedkar Veedhi
Bangalore 560 001
-
.. .Respondents
(By Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy. HCGP)
This Writ Petition Is filed under ArtIcles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India. praying to quash the FIR No.0682 18.
dated 16-5-2004 In FOC No.2/04-OS on the ifie of the Court of
the JMFC. Srlngeri. lodged by respondent No.2. '1de
Annexure-A.
In W.P No. 39708 of 2004
BEIWEEN:
1. Sri Rohit S. Rao
Sb Sri K. S. Rao
Aged 36 years
Kodlal Guthu Road
Bejal
Mangalore 575 004
--
2. Sri M Rammohan Rao
Sb Sri M Sadashiv Rao
Aged about 62 years
Court Hill Cross Road
Puttur 574 201
-
Dakshlna Kannada
6
3. Sri Anand V.M.
5/0 Sri V. P. Mahendra
Aged about 32 years
No.5, Sankey Road
High Grounds
Bangalore 560 001
-
4. SrI K. M. Chinnappa
5/0 Sri late Medappa
Aged about 65 years
Kakur Post Office
Srknangala
Kodagu Dlstrlct--571 217
5. Sri D. V. Ghish
Aged about 35 years
S/o D. P. Vasanth Kurnar
Residing at Kalleshwara Estate
P.O. Kalmara
Chickmagalur 577 156
-
6. SrI S. Girijashankar
Aged about 52 years
S/o Sri Suryanarayana
Anjenya Street
Vljayapura
Chickmagalur 577 101
-
7. Sri Thamoo Poovaiah
Aged about 55 years
S/o Sri A. D. Aivanna
College Road
Madikerl . . .Petitioners
'7--
4
7
(By Sri B. V. Acharva. Senior Advocate for
Mis. Elolla & Holla, Advocates)
AND:
1. Smi. Anita Arekal
Deputy Conservator of Forest
Kudremukh Wild Life Division
Karkala
2. SrI Srinivasa Reddy
Range Forest Officer
Kerekatte Wild Life Range
Kerekatte, Sringerl Taluk
Chlckmaalur
3. State of Karnataka
Represented by Its
Principal Secretary
Forest, Ecology and Environment
Multistorled Building Phase-lI
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore 560 001
-
. . .Respondents
(By Sri KM. Shlvayoglswamy, HCGP)
This Writ Petition is filed under ArtIcles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India. praying to quash the FIR
No.0619/2004 dated 13-5-2004 flied by respondent No.2 on
the ffle of the Court of Clvii Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC,
Beithangady, vide Annexure-A.
In W,PNo. 42951 of 2004
BETWEEN:
Fr, K. Ullas Karanth
S/o 1w e Sb Shivai'a in Karani h
Aged about. 56 years
Residing at \:u3U,3
Seebo Apart.nerit.s
262 SAga Abbas 421 Road
Bangalore 560 042
--
2. Shri Praveen Bbargav
S/o V, S. Bhargav
Agec ahoni 40 years
No.1235. 1St Floor
26 A Main. davanagar
4° T Block
Ban galore 560 041
--
3 5711CM;
U at t JtLCVicUetiJ[flt
Aged about 65 years
Kalcur Post Office
Sriroa.nga Ia
Kodagu District 571 217
4. Shri Saniay Gubbi
S/o NB. Sreyamsha Kcnnor
Aged aS out 32 rears
823 'C hai.thra'
t:
7
Block, Jayan.ayar
Ba.r.galore
5. Mr. Niren Jam
K. air
Aged about. 30 years
S
9
No.3, Rathna Apartments
Kadri
Mangaiore 575 002
-
6. Sri D.V. Girish
Aged about 35 years
5/0 D. P. Vasanth Kumar
Residing at Kaileshwara Estate
P.O. Kalmara
Chickmagalur 577 156
--
7. Sri Thamoo Poovaiah
Aged about 55 years
S/o Sri A. D. Alyanna
College Road
Madikerl
8. Sri Rohit S. Rao
Sb Sri K. S. Rao
Aged 36 years
Kodial Guthu Road
Bejai
Mangalore 575 004
--
9. SrlAnandaV.M.
5/0 Sri V. P. Mahendra
Aged about 32 years
No.5, Sankey Road
High Grounds
Bangalore 560 001
--
10. SrI M. Ram Mohan Rao
Sb Sri M. Sadashiv Rao
Aged about 66 years
Court Hill Cross Road
Puttur 574 201
-
. . .Petiuoners
0
([tv Sri [3. V Aeharva. Senior Advoeme br
t'Ls. [Jolla & Coda, A(lvoeatesi
AND:
I. Srrit, Anita Arekal
Depuiv Conservator ol Forost
Kndremukh Wild LiT Division
karkala
Udupi f)istriet
2 Sri S. S. Hegde
Range Forest Of leer
1 ndaJ \\ ild P
[3r'n ni_c
Beithangadv
D.K. District
3 State of Karnataka
Represented by its
Principal Secretary
Forest Eeoio&iv and Environment
%i11iL1 U ( 0 bti1l(IP
Dr. Anbedkar Veedhi
Bangalore 5(30 001
--
Re spondents
(By Sri 1CM, Shivayogiswamy, HCCP)
This Writ. PeP lien is hied nnoer Articles 226 and 227 of
he Co's stitol. ion ot india p.racing to (:1 nash the FiR No. 68 1 56,
dat Un i 2Ofl0C iAnriexnr. El) filed 0' the 5wrni;rr1 -l
Fo 3 Ku' us ne n o an Coent ol nfle nieiaI
Magi.strate, Fh'st Class. and Prinei.pal Civh Jndge, Beithangadi.
I
II
IS W.P,No, 24407 of 2005
BETWEEN:
Dr. K. UHas Kararit..h
Sb 1 iR Sri SHix t
ir Ki r 10
Aged about 56 years
Rtiuneai \o to
Seebo Apartrnen.ts
26 2. Ma Abbas AI Road
Bangalore -- 560 042
2. Shri Praveen Bhargav
S/o V. S. Bharav
Aged about 40 years
No. 1235. 1 Floor
26 A Main, dryanagar
4th T Block
Baugalore 560 041
3. Sri K. M. Chinnappa
/-, C:
5/ U I LitLC
-
1
V10
3 0504
Aged about 65 :vears
Kakur F,)5 Office
Srimangala
Kodayu Distriel 571 217 -
:1- Shri Sanjav Cubbi
Sb N. B1 Srevamsha humar
A Octl ::i---Nt t1
"'-'4- vn
33 'Chait.hra'
7th Block, Ja,raoauar
Itan.galore
5. ivir. l"Jiren lain
S/c) 'AK iotr/.
Jzu/yrI I-o)v1' 'D
)
2
12
No.3, Rathna Apartments
Kadrl
Mangalore 575 002
-
6. Sri DV. Girish
Aged about 35 years
Sb D. P. Vasanth Kurnar
Residing at Kalleshwara Estate
P.O. Kalmara
Chickmagalur 577 11.6
--
7. Sri Thamoo Poovalah
Aged about 55 years
S/oSrlA. D.Alyanna
College Road
Madikerl
8. SrI Rohit S. Rao
5/0 SrI K. S. Rao
Aged 36 years
Kodlal Guthu Road
8*1
Mangalore 575 004
-
9. SrlAnandaV.M.
5/0 Sri V. P. Mahendra
Aged about 32 years
No.5, Sankey Road
High Grounds
Bangalore 560 001
-
10. Sd M. Ram Mohan Rao
Sb Sri M. Sadashlv Rao
Aged about 66 years
Court Hill Cross Road
Puttur -574201 . . . Petitioners
lz
13
(By Sri B. V. Acharya. Senior Advocate for
MIs. Holla & Holla, Advocates)
AND:
1. Deputy Conservator of Forest
Kudremukh Wild Life Division
Karkala
Udupi District
2 Range Forest Officer
Kudremukh Wild Life Range
Kudremukh
3 State of Karnataka
Represented by its
Principal Secretary
Forest. Ecology and Environment
Multistoried Building Phase-Il
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore 560 001
-
...Respondents
(By Sri KM. Shlvayogiswaniy. HCGP)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the FIR No.49/20
04
dated 14-9-2004 vlde Annexure-H, filed by the respondent-i
In
FOC No.8/04-05 on the file of the Court of the Judicial
Magistrate. First Class & Principal Civil Judge. Madilcer
e.
These Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day. the
Court made the following:
14
ORDER
The petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking quashing of the complaint lodged by the respondents I and 2.
2. The first petlUoner-Niren Jam is a practicing architect In Mangalore and has been Involved in conserva tion of Kudremukh National Park for the past several years. He was working as a research assistant under Dr. Ullas Karanth for more than 2 years under the Karnataka Tiger Conserva tion Project. He has been instrumental In the campaign to stop the mining activities to save Kudremukh National Park. Working as a research assistant he acquired skills to scientifica lly monitor wildlife population using camera traps. line trans ect sampling and other scientific methods. He has been awar ded the Carl Zelse Roll of honour award for his contribut ion to wildlife conservation In Kudremukh, Karnataka.
3. Second petitioner-Dr. K. Ullas Karanth is an internationally reputed wildlife scientist, who has publ ished k7 15 o' % S I2 tit ft ilk frs in fifi 'milk nal cc tentthe pubhcatinn s of repute uc h as proc edins f lit fiticual Act cm of S lerne . EiSA Jour 'ial of Zologv Lcndon; Ecolog; Journa l of Animal Ccology. Consenation Biology and in boo ks publiehecl in Ce nibridge Univirsily Press, Columbia Unhersltv I ress and Island Prc ss. He has also authorcd/cdited two scie ntific books in Lngltsh and to populaz books in Kannada. His expertise In vildlife sciences has been recognized nationally and internationaly. Because of his professional 'ich ievements he has held the following professional positions: -
(I) Snioc Conscnat'oi Zoclogist rith die Wildlife Comic ryan in Soc it Lv. Ncw Y rat:
(9) nile Fdllow the Zoological Socien, of London and Adjunct Ascoc tale l'mfes% r - Jnnersity of M1rnc, ta.UaA.
13) He I' .ilso a Mcmbe Ch IlK 13o ird of Woild Wildhlc F inc InSa.
t) Mcnlxr 01 ii'.' Stecr vg C i ml k of I roject tiger:16
(5) A former Member of both the Indian Board for Wildlife and Karnataka Wildlife Mvisoiy Board.
He also serves/has served on the editorial boards of reputed scientific journals like Anhnal Conservation: Oryx: Journal of Bombay Natural History Society and Conservation and Society.
He is the Director of Centre for Wildlife Studies, a research institution, recognized by the Department of Sciences and Technology. Government of India and is also affiliated to the Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Deemed university. Dr. Karanth has also implemented a major conservation project titled Tiger Conservation ProJecr In collaboration with the Karnataka State Forest Department from 1997-2000.
4. The third petitioner-Praveen Bhargav has a Postgraduate degree in Mass Communication and a practicing advertising professional. He has been an active conservationist since 1982 when he co-founded a Wildlliè Conservation. NGO.
In 1998 he received an international certificate of recognition from the New York based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) I 17 for his contribution to Wildlife and Biodiversity conservation in Karnataka. He was appointed b.v the Government of Karnataka as an Honorary Wildlife Warden In 1998. AgaIn In 2001, Pravcen received the ESSO Honor for Tiger Conservation in recognition for his sustained Tiger Conservation efforts. In 2002 he was selected to participate in the seventh Environmental Research and Conservation. Columbia University, New York.
5. The fourth petitioner-Sanjay Gubbi. Is an Electrical Engineer who has been involved In wildlife conservation Issues since the past 15 years. He Is a leading feature writer on wildlife conservation Issues In major national, state dailies and magazines. He has collaborated with the Karnataka Forest Department on various Issues regarding conservation of forests and wildlife. He is a consultant to the Centre for Wildlife Studies. Bangalore and Is the founder of the NGO Green Watchers, Turnkur.
18BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
6. Ki.idremnkh Nat.ionai Park is t.he largest wilcIl jie teseweot ropwal wet evergreen Idrests in the Western OPaLs which are recoenizedas. one of the 25 hiodiversnv hotspots in iTh.e entire world, The Park is th.e sonree of three major rivers (Bhadra. Tontia and Nethravalhl) and harbors several species of endangered animals sneh a..s liger, leopard. wild, dog:. ganr, liontai.led ni aea çue, hor.nbills an.d king cobra, Because ot its biological wealth and importance as a water ealvhment. the area was notified as a national park exeindintt revenn.e villages, patta lands, revenne lands, gomal lands, various righi s of way, etc., which are in the park. The ennoners have imon.
closely involved whh its conservation park over the years, One maj.or conservation initiative ondertaic.en by Ihe (jovernrfleni 01 Karnataka was the Karnata.tka hger Conser.ratlon Proieet., Under thi.s project the petitioners organi.sa..tion pro vided 15 tour wrieei. drive ce-s 2 hht spe.eu Wi rot ooats, aroo rid 60 wireless, sets, more than 1 700 field ku s and insn ranee yolicies cc r front 1.ine lW t..eeti.oit staff a rid eonrto.et.ed a doze :1 train.iitg 4 19 programs for field staff. The project was carried out in collaboration with the forest department and the petitioners moved around In the National Park to execute project activities and document these activities. Letters of appreciation from the Chief Wildlife Warden/DCF. Kudremukh are produced.
7. In the report submitted It was stated that Community Leadership for 'Tiger Conservation primarily aimed at generating local community support for tiger conservation, promoting long-term habitat consolidation through voluntary resettlement/land acquisitions and continued efforts at tiger conservation including activities in collaboration with the forest department with its goals would be implemented at Kudremukh and other sites. After completion of 'Tiger Conservation Project, another project titled Community Leadership for Tiger Conservation was initiated In Kudremukh by Kudremukh Wildlife Foundation with guidance from petitioner No.1. Because of this new project primarily involved work with local communities outside the national park area 1 4 20 and did not Involve 'study or investigation of wildlife as Its goal', there was no need for a permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden under Section 28(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. 1972 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Acti. However, some of the project activities did involve Interaction with forest department staff and/or entry into the park. such activities were carried out with specific permission obtained from local officials and often in association with them. For example. petitioner No. I at the request of the then DCF traveled in the park and provided detailed suggestions for Improving the management of the park. Similarly, petitioners were Invited by officials to participate in the training of forest staff In wildlife monitoring as well as training in protection ditties and these activities were carried out with the Involvement of local officials. The petitioners were also involved In providing uniforms and field kits, etc., to staff under the banner of the CLTC project with official approval. All these project activities were carried out with full knowledge of local officials and in association with them is clearly shown by 21 numerous photographs and correspondences including invitations and appreciation letters from officials. Under the CUlt Project, the petitioners also interacted with local people living inside the revenue enclosures located In the Kudremukh area. but were outside the boundaries of the national park.
using public rights of ways. Even these activities were well known to the forest staff officials who sometimes even accompanied them In these interactions. Further in the case of a few poor families who had encroached on forest land In Bhagavathy and Bolie, interactions were carried out in the company of forest officials with their approval as shown by photographs.
8. In addition to implementing CLTC project, purely out of their concern for wildlife conservation, petitioners have been fighting for the cause of wildiitè conservauon In Karnatalca, associated with various other conservation advocacy groups.
These groups have been squarely confronting vested Interests and corn hat ii ig presstires that are inimical to wildlife 2 oner tior be ()idi rs ocMdl 3 gb it a nn r crsriztoz )attle iaim eted merets ad bes ome tcd uuth a tviti s u a a timbe xploitati i no ninia npoteetdael% N dhfr Fir t fled r Intro utcn Agplc t' n IA olO 20 nWT 202 lgg,lefr tli anile S pin t'nnn ndnpr 'zig orsopp c to o n i Kuke atrn Ii p tan ecntedci eq r em Ic ipieme Coi is In I a ii f ' ft et n, ss c a at As icr r I i a I A S 23
10. Petitioners were also involved in supporting the compilation of 10 minute long non-commercial educational video with archival that documented the deleterious impacts of iron ore mining on river ecology. biodiversity and rural livelihoods for the purpose of educating the public. The educational video titled 'Mindless Mining" was formally presented before the Honble Supreme Court. The State Forest Department and the Chief Wildlife Warden were fully aware of the study report and the educational video being made and presented as evidence before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as far back as the year 2001.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court In its Judgment in IA 670/2011 noted the ecological damage caused by the mining and ordered the winding up of the mining activities by 2005.
Thereafter, the petitioners have been persistently following Lii) the matter with the forest department trying to ensure that a 37 square kilometer area affected by mining be immediately 24 notified as part of the national park as per the order of the Honble Supreme Court. The then DCF, Kudremukh Wildlife Division had also written to the Government in March 2003 urging it to include the above area in the national park.
12. During Februaiy 2000. pile transporting iron-ore slurry broke and severely damaged rain forests. At that time the then DCF had recovered a heavy fine of 10 lakh rupees from the mining company. However, after the first respondent took over as DCF In July 2003. when a similar instance of ecological damage occurred during June 2003. the incumbent DCF. did not take similar action as required under the Act.
She has totally failed to pursue the matter with necessaiy urgency, thus potentially endangering the park from the ravages of continued mining and indirectly beneiltting the mining activities.
13. In all these cases the allegation against the petitioners/accused are thcy have conducted a study and tiger '-7.
25research without permit In Kudremukh Wildlife Rang e from July 2001 to June 2002 and thereby committed olTences under SectIons 27. 28. 35(6). 35(8). 50. 51. 52 and 58 of the Wlldlilè Protection Act The said offences were discovered by the forest officials from the documents seized from the petit ioners and the CUt project report In website. It Is also alleged that they have Illegally entered Naravi Reserve Forest In Belt hangady Wildlife Range using vehicle KA-21-M-2658 and othe r vehicles to Implement the CLTC project without permission from the CWW and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
14. it Is contended that the CLTC project does not require the petItioners to enter into the forest area.
The CUlt project which Is Implemented by KWD mainly focuses on wildlife conservation awareness aimed at generatin g local community support for tiger consen'atlon bordering Kudremukh National Park. CUlt is Involved in reducing human wildlftè conflict in the villages of Kudremukh.
CLTC Is also Involved In helping villagers who have volunteer ed to shift 26 out of the National park due to difficult living conditions In the forest. As all the activity of CLTC is only in revenue villages and not in forest areas which has a clear pub lic right of way. it does not require any permission from the CWW and the project does not have to submit any report to the fore st department regarding the same.
15. In none of the complaints filed the date and time of the alleged offences is mentioned. 6th petitioner Is the Hon Wildlife Warden and is a public servant and does not require to obtain permit under Section 28 of WLP Act.
Others are not Involved in the field activities.
16. A perusal of the complaint ified dearly demonstrates that, under the guise of accusing these peti tioners of violating the aforesaid clause what has been alleg ed Is, violation of statutory provisions and orders by these organiz ations of which these petitioners are member. The Dire ctor, Community Leadership for Tiger Conservation Project being executed as I 27 collaboration in Kudrcrnukh National Park by Kud rernukh Wildlife Foundation. Second project is. community leadership for 'flger Conservation Project being executed as colla boration in Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary by Bhadra Wildlife Con servation Trust. The third project, community leadership for Tiger Conservation Project being executed as a collabora tion In Nagarhole (Rajlv Gandhi National Park) through Living Inspiration for Tribals (LIFE') and Nagarahole Wildlife Conservation Education Project (NAWICOED). Therefore, it is clear that these three projects are undertake n by three independent organizations. Clause (6) referred to supra casts an obligation on the petitioner to Inform the undersign ed if It is conducting/Intending to conduct any other activ ities In Karnataka or any activities in rest of India or any activities abroad. The petltloner-organlsatlon Is not conducting the aforesaid three projects. The said three projects are conducted by three independent organisatlons. Therefore, on the face of It the violation complained of Is Incorrect.
liz' 28
17. In fact on the application filed by these Petitioners before the Committee constituted by the Apex Court to monitor the forest and wealth of the wild life which is calle d Central Empowered Committee. an order came to be passed on 28.4.2004 holding that the Deputy Conservator of Forests has made disparaging remarks on the body constituted by the Apex Court, violated the orders passed by such authority . Initiated these legal proceedings against the petitioners here in in spite of an order of stay being granted. In fact the proceedin gs sought to be initiated by her against the members of the committee was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on com ing to know of the same. In fact they have observed in the said order that, the role of NGO's in protection of forest and wildlife has been recognised in Chapter WA as one of the fundamen tal duties in the Constitution of India. Article 5 1A (g) specifically states that it shall be the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rive n and wildlife and to have compassion for all living creatures.
But this duty Is without any doubt, subject o statutory permissio ns wherever 1---
29required. Section 55(c) of the Act empowers any person to file complaint In the competent Court after giving 60 days notice to the Central or the State Government. A similar provision already exists In the Environment (Protection) Act. 1986. Besides. the notification dated 17.9.2002 by which the CEC was constituted. sub para (ii) of pan 2 provides that any person can approach the CEC in case any of the orders passed by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the forest matter are perceived to have been violated. Suffice to say that the NGO's and public spirited persons have a critical role to play in the protection of the forest. wildlife and the environment in general.
Wherever statutory permissions are required they have to be obtained by all concerned. Besides, the NGO's are expected not to make irresponsible statements or wild allegations. On the other hand, It has to be ensured that the provisions of the Acts are not used to harass the people Involved in genuine conservation efforts. The CEC was constraincd to obsen'e that the concerned senior officers of the State of Karnataka have preferred to remain as mute spectators to the entire happening 1--• 30 Instead of hitervening to prevent the matter from sliding downhill ignoring the larger interest of conservation of forest and wildlife. Thereafter. they recommended to the State of Kamataka to enquire into the propriety, legality and the circumstances leading to initiation of the criminal proceedings against the applicants and others and file an enquiry report within one month. It also directed the State of Karnataka to initiate appropriate action against Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kudremukh Wildlife Division. for willful violation of the CEC's order dated 28.4.2004 and for making derogatory comments against the CEC and Its members.
18. Therefore. in substance the complaint is these petitioners have contravened clause (6) of the order tinde r Section 28 of the Act Clause 6 reads as under: -
"6. The applicant orgczrilsarlon has to Inform the undersigned (1 It Is conducting/Intending to conduct (I) any oilier actlvWcs In Karnataka 31 (lii any activities in rest qf India (lii) any activities abroad This irgJbrmatlon Is intended to ensure that sufficient time and focus is given to this project by the applicant organIsalion.
19. From the aforesaid facts It Is clear ex - fade there Is no substance in the allegations made In the complain t. The material on record dearly demonstrates these petitioners are as much interested as the respondent-officials in prote cting the environment, forest, the ecology and the tribal peop le who are living In the forest In fact, they have spent their entire life in carrying on these activities. They have been Instrumental in placing relevant material beibre the Apex Court which has resulted in stoppage of mining activities in this region permanently. The facts set out above dearly demonst rates that probably the respondent is unable to realise the impo rtance of the services rendered by these petitioners. She appears to have mistake notion about what they are trying to do. May be she Is 32 hurt by the orders of the Apex Court. as well as the committee constituted. who have not shown her actions In the way she executed or wanted. Therefore, she has a grievance against the petitioners as they are behind these adverse orders passed against her. May be these petitioners who have all completely dedicated themselves in these activities belong to a different generation as that of the respondent. They seem to have not given sufficient importance to the respondent She may be under the impression that because she is a lady. she has not been shown respect that Is due to her In spite of her holding a high official position. In fact, the first respondent appeared in person and deiènded her action. As could be seen from the conduct of the parties, the material on record, I am satIsfied it Is a case of clash of egos. Both are interested in protecting the environment, forest and the wild life but they are not prepared to appreciate the effort of others. That appears to be the real reason for these proceedings. The respondent young in age has tasted power and wanted to show these petitioners what she can do and that is how she has shown special interest in 33 searr.h, seizure and in preparing mahazar, collecting n.iorntation and tiling a •5(riEi.5 01. ciEnnin.ai cases, on airnost all the provtsons nuder the Act to bring home the point that she is also entitled rc.speet from the petitioners. It is .lear from t.he material on record that these proceedings are not initiated tona fide t.o prevent any offenees under the .Aet or to punish.
the offenders who have violated die law. Proha.hlv ii is motivated by vindictiveness, For that, process of law is.
abused. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS vs BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS [1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335) had an oeeasi.on to go int,o the question in what, cate cries o cases by wuv of diustrat on wherein cever nrder Article 482 of the Cr,PC could be exerch.;ed either to prevent 'bn'.e of the pi0'tss of any Con ri or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, thou. h it may not be possible; to lay clown. a.nv piccice, c.ieari.y d.c.fined and snltlcien.t.ly cnannehsed mid.
inflexible eu. idehues or l 1 "i,çj r1 rn' ii ia..e ;Huici Ø'jyE ji"1 F."\'im'. h.s of myriad kind.s of eases wh.erein such power should be e t a 34
I) Where the allegations made in the first informa tion report or the complaint, even If they are taken at their face value and accepted In their entirety do not prima fade con stitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
2) Where the allegations in the first information rep ort and other nrnterlals. If any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence. justifying an inv estigation by police officers under SectIon 156(1) of the Cod e except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3) Where the uncontroverted allegations mad e in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in suppor t of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no Investigation is permitted by a police officer I 35 without ai order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act.
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudgc.
L..
4 3620. The Apex Court also has also given a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashin g a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. That the Court will not be justifIed in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliabfltiy or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extra ordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary juri sdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
21. In my view the present case falls tinder more than one type of illustration. The petitioners against whom these complaints and proceedings before the Magistra te Court are Initiated are not forest offenders. The material on record clearly shows as already stated they are as mu ch interested in protecting the forest environment, wild life, mine ral wealth in the forest as much as the respondents who are entrusted with the same responsibility. They are actively Involved with the respondents In (he forest department under various 37 programmes. They have spent their money In the process.
They have made documentatlons, they have written articles.
They have been recognized. They have been the honoured.
They are assisting the Apex Court by furnishing the relevant material In protecting the forest in passing appropriate orders from time to time. They are also assisting the committee constituted In this regard. They are also actively Involved In emancipation of the persons living within the forest or Inside the forest. Certainly the provisions of the Act are not meant to prosecute them as they have committed no offence under any of the provisions of the Act. As is clear from the allegations made against them they are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a Just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The so called evidence collected in support of the allegations. In support of FIR, do not show any commission of offence and make out a case against the accused. However, the proceedings is maliciously instituted with the ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance on frI 38 the accused with a view to spite them. Under these circumstances, it is in the interest of protecting forest, environment, water bodies. wild life and the mineral wealth found in the said national park. ft Is necessary to have active cooperation and assistance from these petitioners. They should be free from these malicious prosecution. The department would be well advised to have their cooperation so that their job would become easier. At the same time, the petitioners should also realise these officials hold a position.
They have all respectabilftv and they also are entitled to respect for the post they hold. I am sure both sides will sce thcsc aspects in a right perspective, cooperate with each other and protect the national wealth, instead of wasting their time and energy In fighting this frivolous litigation. In that view of the matter. in the facts of the case. a case for quashing of the complaint as well as the proceedings of the Magistrate Is made out. Hence. 1 pass the following order:
(a) Writ Petitions are allowed.39
(b) The complaint and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate are hereby quashed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/ JUDGE ckl/uJk