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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, M. NIRMAL KUMAR, JJ.
Dr. T. Murugavel – Appellant
Versus
The Addl. Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 15200 of 2023 & WMP. No. 14710 of 2023
Decided On : 17-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Srinivas, Senior Counsel, Genicon & Associates, Advocates. For the Respondents:M. Ravindran, Additional Advocate General assisted by S. Mythraye Chandru, Special Government Pleader.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to protect the environment and wildlife in ecologically sensitive regions, and the importance of conducting feasibility studies and consulting with relevant authorities before implementing projects with potential adverse impacts on the environment.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Heli Tourism - The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, The Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, The Aircraft Act, 1934 - The court dismissed the preliminary objection on maintainability and proceeded to record the submissions on the PIL. The court found that the heli tourism project in Nilgiris would have a deep impact on the fragile ecology of the district and highlighted the deficiencies in planning and due diligence by the respondents. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the environment and wildlife in the ecologically sensitive region and granted an injunction against the conduct of heli tourism for the entire proposed period.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to forbid the conduct of 'heli tourism' as part of the May 2023 Summer Festival in Nilgiris. The respondents raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, which was dismissed by the court. The petitioner argued that the heli tourism project would have adverse impacts on the environment, wildlife, and ecological sensitivity of the Nilgiris region.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the heli tourism project would have a deep impact on the fragile ecology of the Nilgiris district and highlighted the deficiencies in planning and due diligence by the respondents. The court granted an injunction against the conduct of heli tourism for the entire proposed period.

Issues: The issues raised in the case included the maintainability of the Writ Petition, the impact of heli tourism on the environment and wildlife in the Nilgiris region, and the lack of planning and due diligence by the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need to protect the environment and wildlife in the ecologically sensitive region of Nilgiris. The court emphasized the importance of conducting feasibility studies and consulting with relevant authorities before implementing projects with potential adverse impacts on the environment.

Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition and granted an injunction against the conduct of heli tourism for the entire proposed period.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from conducting ‘heli tourism’ as part of the May 2023 Summer Festival in Nilgiris as advertised by the District administration.)

Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.

1. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed by a resident of Chennai seeking a mandamus forbearing the respondents being the Additional Chief Secretaries of the State of Tamil Nadu, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate change/R1 and R3, the Principal Secretary to the Government and Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation/R2, the District Collector/R4 and Forest Officer, Nilgiris District/R5 from conducting ‘heli tourism‘ as part of the May, 2023 summer festival in Nilgiris as advertised by the District administration.

2. At this juncture, we may as well deal with the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, for whom Mr.J.Ravindran, learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of and assisted by Mrs.S.Mythraye Chandru, learned Special Government Pleader. They would argue, albeit tentatively, that the petitioner, being based in the City of Chennai has no locus to move the present Writ Petition and that he has established no public interest. According to them, this petition is thus to be dismissed in limine.

3. We do not agree. The petitioner has established his connection to Nilgiris by way of owning properties as well as engaging in local activities. That apart, there is no dispute on the position that he espouses public causes frequently and has approached this Court on several occasions raising issues in public interest. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has a vested right in the matter.

4. That apart, the issue raised by the petitioner concerns the use of helicopters commercially for the purpose of tourism in the ecologically sensitive region of the Nilgiris. The questions raised go to the root of the matter, as to whether the respondents have carried out necessary due diligence, prior to embarking on the aforesaid activity. It is to be seen as to whether the interests of all stakeholders, particularly the Environment, including the animal and bird species in that habitat, have been borne in mind and due attention and safeguards put in place to insulate them against the consequences of such an endeavour.

5. The issue on merits is thus substantial. Needless to say, protection of the environment, specifically forest lands and various animal/bird species, including endangered ones are undisputedly in public interest. The respondents do not raise any objection to the significance of the issues raised per se, and thus the mere fact that the petitioner normally resides in Chennai would not, in our considered view, stand in the way of the petitioner agitating the matter in public interest. The preliminary objection on maintainability is thus dismissed.

6. Having got that out of the way, we now proceed to record the following submissions that Mr.R.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner has to make.

i) The PIL is filed bonafide by the petitioner as an attempt to protect and preserve environment, nature and wildlife. The petitioner is a keen nature enthusiast, familiar with the topography of the Nilgiris, owning property in Kothagiri and farming the same.

ii) The Department of Tourism, District Administration, the Nilgiris and Department of Horticulture has advertised, and issued a brochure displaying the logo of the State and the slogan of the Department of Tourism ‘Incredible India’, various events in celebration of the Nilgiris summer festival.

iii) Aside from heritage walks, a topography exhibition, film festival, flower and vegetable shows and other cultural programmes, for the first time ever ‘heli tourism’ has been advertised.

iv) The pamphlet states that

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top