The Supreme Court has observed that forest department cannot impose damages under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and it has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the same.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna was adjudicating upon an appeal assailing judgement by which the High Court set aside the order/notice imposing damages of ₹10,00,00,000/- for violation of the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, imposed in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
In the impugned judgement, the High Court held that under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest Department/ State has no jurisdiction and/or authority to impose damages. It was observed that imposing damages was in breach of principles of natural justice as before imposing such damages, no opportunity of being heard was given to the original writ petitioners and as such there was no material to impose damages.
The Court at the outset noted that under the Act, the appropriate authority shall have wide powers to take such steps as well as to ensure the security of wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary and wild animals therein.
"The Chief Wild Life Warden also may take such measures, in the interests of wild life, as he may consider necessary for the improvement of any habitat and may also regulate, control or prohibit, in keeping with the interests of wild life, the grazing or movement of livestock."
In exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Chief Wild Life Warden/appropriate authority may even pass an order of closure of the institution, if the institution continues to discharge the effluent in the sanctuary which may affect and/or damage the environment as well as wild life in the sanctuary after following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law, the Court observed.
However, it opined that the authority cannot impose damages and for that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages.
In this view, the Court uphled the judgement, however it noted that if the authorities are very serious and are the opinion that the original writ petitioners have continued to discharge the effluent in the national sanctuary area which ultimately damages/affects the environment as well as wild life in the sanctuary, it will always be open for the department/authority to take steps as provided under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 including the closure of the institution and even stop discharging the effluent in the national sanctuary, however, of course, after following the principles of natural justice.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments