PRADEEP KRISHEN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner, an environmentalist actuated by public interest, has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and constitutional validity of an order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Forest, No. F. 14/154/91/10/2 dated March 28, 1995, permitting collection of tendu leaves from Sanctuaries and National Parks by villagers living around the boundaries thereof with the avowed object of maintenance of their traditional rights. The petitioner contends that this act of the State Government is ultra vires the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as well as the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and is even otherwise inconsistent with the Directive Principle contained in Article 48A and the Fundamental Duty cast on every citizen under clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further contends that the said order is malafide and against public interest. The order complained of reads as under:

(2.) According to the petitioner, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, 11 areas have been declared as National Parks and 33 areas as Sanctuaries covering a total area of nearly 16,790 sq. Kms. i. e. 12.4% of the total forest area of the State admeasuring 1,35,396 sq. Kms. He refers to a news item published in 'The Sunday Times' dated April 16, 1995, headlined "Forest cover shrinking in MP" and further refers to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India stating that excessive grazing, reckless felling of trees and forest fires are responsible for the depletion of the forest area by 145 sq. Kms. between 1991 and 1993. He further contends that indiscriminate felling of trees had resulted in depletion of the forest area in the entire country including Madhya Pradesh, causing concern to not only environmentalist, but also to every right thinking citizen. He has also referred to the criticism appearing in the media in regard to the issuance of the order dated March 28, 1995. He says that in the year 1982, the State Government had taken a decision to ban commercial exploitation of minor forest produce from the National Parks and Sanctuaries, but the said ban was lifted by the Department in 1992 when it allowed, commercial exploitation of minor forest produce, in particular, tendu leaves from National Parks and Sanctuaries. A copy of the order lifting the ban dated April 16, 1992, has been produced on record. He further points out that thereafter, at a meeting held on August 18, 1994 by the State Wild Life Advisory Board, a unanimous decision was taken whereby the State Government was requested to withdraw the order of April 16, 1992, thereby continuing the ban on commercial exploitation of minor forest produce from National Parks and Sanctuaries. Thereafter, by an order dated December 13, 1994, the earlier order of April 16, 1992 was cancelled. Yet again, contends the petitioner, the State of Madhya Pradesh succumbed to pressure from the business lobby and passed the impugned order of March 28, 1995, permitting collection of tendu leaves from the National Parks and Sanctuaries in respect whereof no notification under Section 26A and 35 of the Act has been issued.

(3.) The petitioner contends that while the impugned order dated March 28, 1995 permitting collection of tendu leaves has been issued ostensibly with a view to providing employment and reasonable livelihood to people living in the vicinity of the National Parks and Sanctuaries, it has ignored the need to protect the flora and the fauna as well as wild life which are, so to say, nature's laboratory where evolutionary process of life in all forms takes place and which ought not to be interfered with. The presence of human beings, albeit in earmarked Parks, will not only adversely affect the flora and the fauna but will also scare away wild life. That is because, contends the petitioner, the collection of tendu leaves is a destructive process and can cause extensive damage to ecology and regeneration of tress etc. Besides, the destruction of organic matter is bound to affect the structure of the soil and there is the real apprehension of forest fires. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition with a view to preserving the ecology, environment and wild life in the National Parks and Sanctuaries which are likely to be adversely affected by the implementation of the impugned order. On the above pleadings and contentions, the petitioner has raised two contentions which have been formulated as under:-