PETITIONER: CONSUMER. EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY . Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA &. ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/02/2000 BENCH: G.T.Nanavati, S.N.Phukan JUDGMENT:
DER
G.T. NANAVATI
In this special leave petition the judgment and order
passed by the High Court in Spedal Civil Application No.6707
or 1995 is challenged. The petitioner had filedi the writ
petition chllenging the government notification dated
9.8.1995 and the resolution dated 27.7.1995 passed by the
State Legislature reducing the area of “Narayan Sarovar
ChinKara Sanctuary” from 765.79 Sq. K.M. to 444.2.3 Sq.
K.M. The High Court dismissea that petition.
On 14.4.1981 the Government of Gujarat in exercise of
the powers conferred by Section 18(1) of the Wild Life
Protection Act, 1972, declared a part of the forest area in
Lakhphat Taluka of Kutch. District as a “Wild life
Sanctuary”. The total area of the sanctuary was 765.79 Sq.
K.M. On
27.7.1993 it cancelled that notification and issued
another whereby only a part of the said reserved forest:
was deciared as the “Chinkara Wild Life Sanctuary’, The
area so declared was 94.87 Sq.K.M. The said two
notifications were chalirnged by the petitioner by filing
writ petition? in the Gujarat High court The High Court
quashed both those notifications The result was. that the
earlier notification dated 14.4.1981 was revived.
Thereafter the State Government made certain inquires and
decided to delimit the area of that sanctuary as it was
found to be more than required and the delimitation was
likeiy to be helpful in systematically developing that area
economically by making use of its mineral wealth. It then
moved the State Legislature for passing an appropriate
resolution in that behalf. The State Legislature,
thereafter on 27.7.1995, passed a resolution to reduce the
sanctuary limit to 444.23 Sq.K.M. and make the area of
321,56 Sq.K.M. rich with minerals like limestone, lignite,
bauxite, and bentonite. available for the development of
the said backward area of Kutchh District. The resolution
was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section
26A(3) of the Wild Life Protection Act. Pursue to that
resolution the Government issued a notification Lo that
effect en
9.8.1995. The petitioner again chalienged those
notification by filing the writ a petition.
The High Court, after scrutinising the resolution was
of the view that “the State Legislature was quite aware
about the wild life as without in any way diluting the
commitment to protect wild Life and to Improve the -habitat.
positive steps are taken so neither wiidUfe is affected nor
the improvement is affected.” The High Court heid that for
about 12QO Chinkaras the area of 444.23 Sq.K.M. was quite
surfidsnt. It further has that econom’c development of the
araa was likely to banefit the people of Kutchh District at
large and help in protection, preservation and development
of flora and fauna of that area. As regards permission to
set up the cement pisnt near that arsa and to do mining In
the de-notified area. it heid that proper conditions have
been imposed for preventing pollution and to meet other
environmental requirements. Taking this vs^v it dismissed
the writ petition.
Initially an attempt was made to se«e if st was
possible to pass an agreed order. But that attempt did not
succeed. On 8.5.1997 the following inter^n order was
passed: