Case title – In Re:T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India & Ors. In Re: Gaurav Kumar Bansal – Applicant
Case no. – I.A. No. 20650 OF 2023 IN Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 OF 1995
Decided on – March 06, 2024
Quoram – Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts of the case
Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, approached the Delhi High Court alleging illegal construction of bridges and walls within the Tiger Breeding Habitat of Corbett Tiger Reserve without the approval from the Competent Authority. He also brought this matter to the notice of Central Empowered Committee (CEC) by filing an application.
Later, the issue was placed before the Apex Court through an interlocutory application, in the proceedings of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case.
Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the State of Uttarakhand, Aishwarya Singh Bhati, ASG, appeared on behalf of the Union of India and Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal appeared as Applicant-in-person. Advocate K. Parameshwar was appointed as Amicus Curiae.
Statutory Provisions – The Court examined the intricacies of key provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 relating to the Conservation, Protection and Management of the Wildlife.
Guidelines issued by various authorities – The Court referred to the guidelines of National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) in deciding the matter.
- In 2007, the NTCA published guidelines for preparation of Tiger Conservation Plan (TCP) in 2007, highlighting the production sectors in the buffer zone and the importance of corridors.
- In 2012, the NTCA issued Guidelines for Normative Standards for Tourisms Activities and for Project Tiger in buffer and core areas of Tiger reserves. It aimed to strengthen the infrastructure within the tiger reserves.
- In 2016 and 2019, the NTCA issued guidelines to establish Tiger Safaries in buffer and fringe areas of Tiger Reserves. It provided basic criteria and procedure to be followed in areas of Tiger reserves.
The Court also referred to the resolution passed by the MoEF, Dept’ of Environment, Forests and Wildlife which provided the National Forest Policy, 1988
Court’s analysis and Judgement
The first question before the court was whether a ‘Tiger Safari’ would be permissible in the buffer zone or not. Addressing the question, the court pointed out that the concept of establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ was first introduced through the 2012 guidelines of the NTCA. The court noted the 2016 and 2019 guidelines of NCTA on the establishment of ‘Tiger Safaris’ in the buffer and fringe areas of tiger reserves.
The court observed no infirmity in the above guidelines except for the Clause 9 of the notifications. The court opined that this provision would be contrary to the purpose of the Tiger Conservation and held that NCTA will have the final authority on the establishment of ‘Tiger Safari’.
The second question before the court was whether the establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau is legal or not. The court analyzing the guidelines issued by NCTA, approved the establishment of the ‘Tiger Safari’ at Pakhrau and directed the Uttarkhand government to relocate the rescue center nearby the ‘Tiger Safari’.
The third question before the court was regarding the illegal construction and felling of trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The Court considered the survey reports of the ‘Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Tiger Reserves in India’ conducted in the year 2022.
The Court examined the reports submitted by CEC and noted various irregularities in the areas outside the Tiger Safari and in the Pakhrau Tiger Safari. The Court affirming the illegal construction activities in and around the Corbett National park, refused to make any rulings on this matter as a CBI probe was already instituted on this matter under the orders of the High Court.
The Bench also discussed the Public Trust Doctrine and observed that in the present case the Former Forest Minister Harak Singh Rawat and then Divisional Forest Officer Kishan Chand have disregarded the law and for commercial purposes indulged in the illicit felling of trees on a mass scale to construct buildings on the pretext of promotion of tourism.
The court referring to the ruling of M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors on ‘Public Trust doctrine’ held that it is clear beyond doubt that the Former Forest Minister Harak Singh Rawat and then Divisional Forest Officer (DOF) Kishan Chand have disregarded the law and for commercial purposes indulged in the illicit felling of trees on a mass scale to construct buildings on the pretext of promotion of tourism.
The Court discussed the principles of ecological restitution and held that the State cannot run away from its responsibilities to restore the damage done to the forest. The State, apart from preventing such acts in the future, should take immediate steps for restoration of the damage already done.
The Court gave following directions that need to be issued in the interest of justice:
The MoEF&CC shall appoint a Committee consisting of the following: (i) a representative of the NTCA; (ii) a representative of the Wildlife Institute of India (iii) a representative of the CEC; and (iv) an officer of the MoEF&CC not below the rank of Joint Secretary as its Member Secretary.
The Committee was directed to recommend the measures for restoration of the damages and lay down guidelines and procedures for the establishment of Tiger Safari in the buffer and fringe area.
The Court, thus, directed the Committee to submit the preliminary report and the CBI to submit the report within three months and thereby, listed the matter after 12 weeks.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
