IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the authority of the Chief Wild Life Warden to issue removal notices under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, emphasizing the polluter pays principle and validly prioritizing environmental protection.

JUDGMENT :

These two Writ Petitions concern the same subject matter and raise common questions for consideration. Hence, they are considered and disposed of together.

Brief facts:

2. On 15.08.2010, at around 07:15 P.M., Indian flag General cargo vessel MV NAND APARAJITHA, bearing IMO No. 9082075, ran aground off Kavaratti island in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. As discernible from the report submitted by the Indian Register of Shipping (IRS) dated 22.11.2010 (produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.16039 of 2011), the vessel had sailed from Beypore to Lakshadweep Islands with a special voyage permission and a Short-Term Statutory certificate valid until 19.08.2010. She had on board 1373 tonnes of cargo comprising of building materials as well as a quantity of 20.79 KL HSD as bunker/fuel. Due to the grounding, serious environmental pollution and damage to the coral atoll were apprehended. Bunker oil from the vessel was transferred to shore with the help of the Coast Guard and all other potential pollutant oils including stern tube oil, hydraulic oil and oil sludge were thus transferred. The discharge of cargo, viz., solidified cement in bags lying within the two holds of the vessel commenced and it was being carried out even while the IRS inspection was done on 20.11.2010, i.e., around three months after the incident. Though 14 years have elapsed, the vessel MV NAND APARAJITHA, or whatever is left of her, still continues to remain on the ecologically fragile coral atoll along the Kavaratti island, awaiting removal. To date, no comprehensive environmental impact or damage assessment has been carried out with respect to the said incident mainly on the premise that any such assessment will have to wait the removal of the vessel.

3. The Conservator of Forests and Chief Wild Life Warden, Department of Environment & Forests, Kavaratti, had issued a show cause notice dated 15.10.2010 to the owner of the vessel inter alia calling on them to remove the vessel that was causing damage to the corals and associated fauna as well as to explain why action should not be initiated against the owner under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1972'). The said show cause notice was followed up by Chief Wild Life Warden with another notice dated 25.10.2010, to the vessel's owner, inter alia requiring them to remove the vessel from the territorial waters of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep within 14 days or to face legal proceedings under Section 51 of the Act of 1972.

4. W.P.(C) No.6178 of 2011 is filed by the owner of the vessel MV NAND APARAJITHA seeking to quash the above- mentioned notices issued by the Chief Wild Life Warden (produced as Exts.P1 and P3 in the said W.P.(C)] inter alia contending that the said notices are not legally sustainable and that the provisions of the Act of 1972 which had been invoked have no applicability to the incident involving MV NAND APARAJITHA. The legality of the notices is also challenged on the ground that the same had been issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is alleged that while issuing the said notices, the fact that the petitioner as the owner of MV NAND APARAJITHA had taken all immediate steps to prevent marine pollution and to remove the vessel had been overlooked. This Court admitted W.P.(C) No.6178 of 2011 and had granted an interim stay of Exts.P1 and P3 notices, which is still in force.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.6178 of 2011 controverting the averments in the Writ Petition. It is submitted that Exts.P1 and P3 notices had been validly issued and that the petitioner, being the owner of the vessel, is liable for causing damage to the environment by willfully refusing to remove the stranded vessel from the ecologically fragile coral atoll and deliberately letting it remain there for a long period of time, thus causing damage to the environment. An interlocutory applicati