Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 555
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
The State of Tamil Nadu & Another - Appellant
Versus
M/s.Kaypee Industrial Chemicals (P) Ltd.& Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 723 to 725 of 2004 and W.A.M.P.Nos.3026, 3027, 4393 to 4395 & 1351 to 1353 of 2004
Decided On : 29 March 2005
Headnote:
Wild Life Protection - Coral - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 2(1), Section 2(2), Section 2(36), Section 39, Section 49B, Section 61 - The judgment discusses the inclusion of coral species in the schedule of the Act and the interpretation of the term 'coral' as a living organism or its secretions. The court emphasizes the protection of wild life and the ecological balance as the primary objective of the Act. It concludes that the Act does not apply to the dead coral reef fragments used by the petitioners for manufacturing lime, as they do not violate the provisions of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a notification that included various coral species in the schedule of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioners, engaged in lime manufacturing, used dead coral reef fragments washed ashore for their business. The Forest Department alleged that the collection of corals by the petitioners violated the Act and caused ecological damage.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Act does not apply to the dead coral reef fragments used by the petitioners, as they do not violate the provisions of the Act. It emphasized the distinction between living coral organisms and their secretions, stating that the latter does not fall within the ambit of the impugned notification.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the term 'coral' and its applicability under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The court also addressed the ecological impact and livelihood concerns related to the collection of dead coral reef fragments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the mischief rule of interpretation to understand the purpose of the Act, emphasizing the protection of wild life and ecological balance. It concluded that the dead coral reef fragments used by the petitioners for manufacturing lime did not violate the provisions of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ appeals were dismissed, and the court made it clear that the authorities had no right to interfere with the activities of the petitioners, as they did not violate the provisions of the Act.
The Honourable Chief Justice:
These three writ appeals have been filed against the common order in three writ petitions being W.P.Nos. 26363 of 2001 and 1511 and 40350 of 2002 dated 30.04.2003.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records.
3. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the notification dated 11.7.2001 issued by the first respondent, Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi. By that notification, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been amended by including various species to the schedule. The species with which we are concerned are as follows: -
“ Part IV A – Coelenterates
1.Reef Building Coral (All Scleractinians)
2.Black Coral (All Antipatharlans)
3.Organ Pipe Coral (Tubipora musica)
4.Fire Coral (All Hillipora species)
5.Sea Fan (All corgenians)”
4. The petitioner in W.P.No. 26363 of 2001 is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is engaged in the manufacture of Lime. It was established in the year 1996. It is alleged in paragraph-3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that on 08.10.2001, the Forest Ranger, Gulf of Mannar National Harine Park/the fourth respondent, orally informed the writ petitioners that all corals have been included in Schedule I, Part IV A of the Act. The said notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests warned of legal action under the Act against purchase, transportation or use of any kind of coral.
5. It is alleged in paragraph-4 of the petitioner’s affidavit that the petitioners are using a hard, white calcareous substance called ‘coral’. This coral is a lifeless substance which is secreted by marine polyps (also called coral). When the marine polyps die due to various reasons, the secreted calcareous lifeless substance breaks from the coral and falls on the sea floor, and the same is carried away by sea currents and washed ashore. The same is collected by the fisherfolk, and are sold to the petitioners for the manufacture of lime.
6. It is alleged that the coral reefs are protected by the formation of Gulf of Mannar National Marine Park by G.O.Ms.No.962, Fisheries and Forest Department dated 10.09.1986 issued by the State of Tamil Nadu/second respondent. It is submitted that only the white calcareous substances, which are washed ashore outside boundaries of the National Marine Park, are collected by the fisherfolk for supplying the same to the lime factory. It is alleged that the notification dated 11.7.2001 issued by the first respondent/ Union of India, is arbitrary and unreasonable, and it is liable to be quashed. It is alleged that there is no life in the calcareous substance purchased by the petitioners. It is not a living organism. Hence, it is alleged that it does not come within the purview of the Act. It is alleged that the livelihood of the persons employed in lime industries have been affected on account of the issuance of the impugned notification. It is alleged that the petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing before issuance of the impugned notification.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed in the aforesaid writ petition, and we have perused the same. In paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that corals are extremely slow growing and sedentary organisms with only the tip bearing the live animals. These live corals secrete calcareous substances around their bodies for protection from ocean currents. The status paper on coral reefs of Gulf of Manner prepared by Zoological Survey of India indicates that the coral reefs and their associates in Gulf of Mannar are under severe threat due to industrialization, pollution and mining of corals by the local people. It is alleged that large scale exploitation of corals, fishes, and others has driven many species to extinction in these islands. It is alleged that the corals are invariably col
