SATYAPAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be the President of Palamau Pramandal Khan Mazdoor Sangh, Daltonganj (Palamau) the President of the Motor Workers Union (Regd.), Palamau and a resident of the area in question. As such, he claims to be highly concerned and affected by the impugned order dated 14-9-2002, passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests-cum-Chief Wild Life Protector, the State of Jharkhand, prohibiting the plying of trucks loaded with Bauxite or any other major or minor mineral on the Public Works Department Road between Kutmu village and Mahuatanr through Betla Wilfe Life Sanctuary. The impugned notification has been issued in exercise of power under Section 33 (b) and Section 35 (8) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, as amended.

(2.) It is seen from the map annexed as Annexure C to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, that the road in question, as mentioned in the impugned order (Annexure-1), passes through the area of Palamau Tiger Reserve, Palamau Wild Life Sanctuary and Betla National Park. According to the writ petitioner, by the banning of the passing of heavy vehicles loaded with Bauxite or any other major or minor mineral, not only the right of the people of the area, but also the right of the daily wage workers has been badly affected. Except stating that and voicing an apprehension that the impugned order may lead to stoppage of movement of Bauxite and other minerals and that the alternative route is dangerous, nothing has been produced to show how the people of the locality or persons in general in that area are affected. According to the petitioner, Bauxite loaded trucks were passing through this road since long and there has been not a single instance of any wild life being run over and killed by any truck whatsoever and in that situation, there was no justification in issuing the notification prohibiting the passing of trucks loaded with Bauxite or any other major or minor mineral as well as the passing of vehicles in the night. A vague assertion has been made that the notification was issued with ulterior motive and was mala fide. According to the petitioner, there was no justification in preventing movement of the vehicles as has been done by issuance of the said notification under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. He has also submitted that the action of preventing movement of vehicles through the said road has badly affected the people of the area and such action has only helped the free movement of outlaws and extremist outfits such as MCC and Peoples War Group and from that angle also, the impugned order was not in public interest.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the impugned order has been issued in exercise of power under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. According to the respondents in order to ensure the security of wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary and for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wild life in the area in question and its environment, the notification has been issued under Section 33 (b) and Section 35 (8) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It is also submitted that plying of heavily loaded vehicles through the area has caused serious threat to wild life and has restricted the movement of animals since plying of vehicles used to produce a Jot of sound and exhaust fumes, which adversely affect the climate, which may cause injury to, or endanger, the lives of tigers and other wild animals of the sanctuary. It is submitted that under Article 48A of the Constitution of India, there is a duty on the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard forests and wild life of the country. Even a citizen like the petitioner has a duty to protect the environment and wild life in view of Article 51A (g) of the Constitution. It is submitted that there was no mala fides or oblique motive in issuing the impugned order. It was issued in exercise of statutory power and the said power has been exercised bona fide for protecting and improving the natural environment and wild life. It is also contended that this was not really a public interest litigation and the petitioner is a person who has been set up by the truck owners in view of the fact that the present route is a convenient route for them for plying their vehicles during night, ignoring the other route available for their use.