Bombay High Court
Earth Brigade Foundation (Ebf), Thr. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Dept. Of ... on 22 October, 2018
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 pil 133.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
Public Interest Litigation No.133 of 2018
(Earth Brigade Foundation (EBF) and another V State of Maharashtra, thr
its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai and
others)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judges Order.
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Counsel for petitioners.
Shri Shukul, Counsel for resp. nos. 1 to 4.
Mrs. M. Chandurkar, Counsel for resp. no.5.
Shri Tembhare, AGP for resp. nos. 6 and 7.
Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari and S.M. Modak, JJ.
Dated : 22 October, 2018.
nd
The petitioners who have approached this Court even earlier in relation to tigress T-1 and her cubs are again before this Court with a grievance that the steps or stages through which the exercise is to be accomplished must proceed unaltered. Contention is, the chronology of events envisaged in order dated 04-09-2018, which attained finality, is being changed to the prejudice of the cubs vide order dated 10-09-2018.
2. Second contention is, shooter by name Shafat Ali Khan is not a person on whom the department can rely for true execution of the order dated 04-09-2018 or 10-09-2018. He is known only for the killing of animals and he will not be interested in tranquilization operation at all. To support this submission, our attention is invited to the fact that along with him his son and a team member of almost 7 to 10 persons have been authorized to participate in the exercise. Large number of guns available and likely to be used to eliminate is also pressed into service. We have ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 00:38:04 ::: 2 pil 133.18.odt heard the respective Counsel and passed the orders on 16-10-2018.
3. On 16-10-2018, we have taken note of the contention about change in the stages through which tranquilization or elimination has to proceed. On 19-10-2018, after hearing respective Counsel, we found it difficult to understand the mode and manner in which the various persons present on the field were functioning or then composition of teams with duties assigned to them. Thereafter, the matter came to be adjourned to today.
4. Today, an affidavit sworn in by the Deputy Conservator of Forest at Pandharkawada through Kasipalayam Maheswaran Abharna, is filed by respondent nos. 1 to 4. The exercise is going on in forest near Pandharkawada.
5. We find that the operation has to proceed through various stages like tracking of animals, affixing camera traps or identifying pug marks for that purpose, patrolling, safeguarding villages, graziers and cattle. It appears that these operations may go on simultaneously in different parts of the forest and such guns for tranquilization or then guns to eliminate may not be always available at the place where part of such exercise is carried out. There are about 7 tranquilizing guns which are made available to the teams. There are 6 guns of Police Department which can be used by Police to eliminate the animal and 2 more guns belonging to shooter-Nawab Shafat Ali Khan. The affidavit filed by the Forest Department shows that the number of guns provided by the Police Department are not constant as the same is subject to availability of ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 00:38:04 ::: 3 pil 133.18.odt shooters from the Police Department. It, therefore, shows that 7 tranquilizing guns and 2 guns belonging to Nawab Shafat Ali Khan are constantly available.
6. Though Nawab Shafat Ali Khan and his team consists of about 6 persons, they have only 2 guns. There are 5 Government servants to assist that team.
7. Hence, the contention that Shafat Ali Khan has been given a large contingent to operate, does not appear to be correct. Though his previous conduct is being pressed into service by the petitioners to urge that he has some criminal record, the decision to entrust him the job is not taken in ignorance of that history. The respondents have pointed out that he has not been found guilty as yet in any matter.
8. Learned Advocate Shri Bhandarkar for the petitioners has invited our attention to certain photographs, to urge that people in large number are present at the site. He has also submitted that one of them is a guard holding AK 47 gun. Learned Advocate Shri Shukul for respondent nos. 1 to 4, has submitted that the photographs are produced during hearing and he cannot comment upon it. Nature of operation looked into supra may require 4 to 5 persons in each team and also some security for their safety, if in forest or anywhere the problem tigress or any other animal suddenly attacks them. Hence, mere photographs cannot be relied upon by us to hold that only intention is to shoot and kill the animal.
9. Insofar as the contention about alteration in steps or stages of ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 00:38:04 ::: 4 pil 133.18.odt exercise is concerned, we are not in a position to read such steps or stages either in order dated 04-09-2018 or then in orders passed thereafter by this Court. The step to tranquilize the cubs has been accepted because of their potential to become man eaters.
10. The affidavit filed by Smt. Abharna, in paragraph 5, also points out the contingencies in which the shooters with guns may be required to fire to kill the problem tigress. The contingencies are obviously not exhaustive. In a forest, the situation may develope suddenly and may require quick response or decision. The situations, therefore, cannot be visualized from here.
11. Whether the cubs should be tranquilized first and after they are captured, their mother should be tranquilized or eliminated, or then it has to be other way round, again cannot be predicted. The fact that the tigress has become man eater cannot now be refuted. She, therefore, needs to be dealt with as per law and material on record is insufficient to show that the authorities are initiating steps and acting only with intention to eliminate her. They are also taking steps to protect the residents from her.
12. We, therefore, find no case made out warranting intervention, at least, at this stage. We, therefore, dismiss the present Public Interest Litigation. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Deshmukh
::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/10/2018 00:38:04 :::