SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 74

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. AGRAWAL AND A.P. MISRA, JJ
(Record of Proceedings)
CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, WWF-I -Petitioner;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents.
LA. No.2 in W.P. (C) No. 337 of 1995
Decided on January 16, 1998

The States and Union Territories are required to issue proclamations under Section 21 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, in respect of national parks and sanctuaries. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in contempt proceedings being initiated against the person/persons responsible.

Headnote:

WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972 - SECTION 21 - PROCLAMATION - ISSUANCE - DELAY - CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS - INITIATION.

Fact of the Case:

The Court was hearing a matter related to the issuance of proclamations under Section 21 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The Court had earlier directed the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations to issue proclamations within two months and complete the process of determination of rights and acquisition of land or rights within a period of 1 year.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that several States and Union Territories had not taken the necessary steps for issuing the proclamation under Section 21 in respect of the national parks/sanctuaries. Despite the Court's earlier directions, the States and Union Territories had failed to comply.

Issues: 1. Whether the States and Union Territories had complied with the Court's earlier directions to issue proclamations under Section 21 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972? 2. Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the States and Union Territories for non-compliance with the Court's directions?

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the States and Union Territories had failed to comply with its earlier directions to issue proclamations under Section 21 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The Court gave a last opportunity to the States and Union Territories to take steps to issue the requisite proclamation within a period of six weeks. The Court warned that in the event of failure to comply with this direction, contempt proceedings would be initiated against the person/persons responsible.

Final Decision: The Court directed the States and Union Territories concerned to file affidavits regarding compliance by 16-3-1998. The Court also dropped the contempt proceedings initiated against the Chief Secretaries of the States of Bihar and Manipur.

ORDER

Regarding constitution of Wildlife Advisory Boards

1. From the affidavits that have been filed after the passing of the order dated 7 -1l-1997t it appears that the Boards have been constituted in all the States/Union Territories.

Regarding appointment of Honorary Wildlife Warden

2. Affidavits have been filed by the States concerned which show that except the national capital territory of Delhi, Honorary Wildlife Wardens have been appointed in the other States/Union Territories. The learned counsel appearing for Delhi State states that the process for appointment is going on and the order for appointment would be issued within four weeks.

3. In our order dated 7-11-1997 we had noticed that only one Honorary Wildlife Warden had been appointed in the State of Uttar Pradesh even though there are a large number of districts. The learned counsel for the State had stated that the process for appointment of Honorary Wildlife Wardens for the districts was going on and that such appointments shall be made within four weeks. Shri R.C. Verma, the learned counsel for the State, states that it has not been possible to make the appointments on account of the impending general election and the model code of conduct. He prays for six weeks further time for making the appointment. We are not satisfied that this is a proper justification for not taking action in the matter of appointment of the Honorary Wildlife Wardens. We, however, give four weeks time to the State Government to make such appointments.

Regarding issuance of proclamations under Section 21 of the Act

4. We find that the requisite steps for issuance of such proclamations have not been taken in a large number of States.

Andhra Pradesh

5. In Andhra Pradesh there are four national parks but no proclamation has been issued in respect of any of them. There are 20 sanctuaries. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is admitted that proclamation has not been issued in respect of 7 sanctuaries. As regards 5 sanctuaries no information has been given as to whether proclamation has been issued or not.

Arunachal Pradesh

6. In the State of Arunachal Pradesh out of 10 sanctuaries final notification has been issued in respect of 8 sanctuaries. But no information has been given as to whether proclamation has been issued in respect of the remaining 2 sanctuaries.

Gujarat

7. There are 4 national parks and 21 sanctuaries in the State of Gujarat.

In the affidavits that have been filed on behalf of the State all that is stated is that initial notifications have been issued but the nature of the notification has not been disclosed. It is not clear as to whether the proclamations under Section 21 have been issued or not in respect of the national parks and the sanctuaries.

Haryana

8. In the State of Haryana there are sanctuaries. Final notification has been issued in respect of one sanctuary. It is stated that proclamation is not required to be issued in respect of 4 sanctuaries which are situate in the reserve forest. No information has been given regarding issuance of proclamation for the remaining sanctuaries.

Kamataka

9. In the State of Kamataka there are 5 national parks and 19 sanctuaries but in the affidavits that have been filed on behalf of the State no information has been furnished with regard to issuance of proclamation under Section 21 or the issuance of the final notification.

Manipur

10. In the State of Manipur there are 2 national parks and 3 sanctuaries.

Final notification has been issued in respect of one national park. There is no information as to whether a proclamation has been issued or not with respect to the other national park. Proclamation has not been issued in respect of the 3 sanctuaries.

Nagaland

11. There is 1 national park and 2 sanctuaries. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the State no information has been given as regards the issuance of a proclamation or the final notification in respect of the same.

Rajasthan

12. There are 2 national parks and 25 s


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top