Contempt petition dismissed as the requested wildlife clearance is still pending with a lower stage authority. Respondents directed to expedite processing.
Contempt petition closed; respondents directed to process application expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 CONT.P.(MD)NO.621 OF 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:11.07.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
CONT.P.(MD)No.621 of 2022 IN W.P(MD)No.11658 of 2021
A. Desika Sankar ... Petitioner / Petitioner
Vs.
New Delhi-3. ... Respondent No.1 / Contemnor
2. The District Forest Officer / The Wildlife Warden, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
3. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Panagal Maligai, 1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
4. The Secretary to Government, Department of Forest, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. (R-2 to R-4 are suo motu impleaded vide order dated 11.07.2022) ... Respondents 2 to 4
1/8
2 CONT.P.(MD)NO.621 OF 2022
Prayer: Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971, to punish him for the disobedience of the order of the Court in W.P.(MD) No.9171 of 2019 dated 16.04.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.T. Lajapathi Roy
For Respondent : Shri.R.Sankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by, Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri, Assistant Solicitor General of India.
O R D E R
Th e petitioner herein filed W.P.(MD)No.9171 of
2019. The said writ petition was disposed of in the following
terms:-
“ 4.I find the said request to be reasonable.
The learned Senior Counsel also drew my attention to the common order dated 24.04.2017 made in W.P. (MD)Nos.7374 and 7375 of 2017 in which the following order was passed:
2/8
3 CONT.P.(MD)NO.621 OF 2022
“10.Since the petitioner has already applied for clearance certificate on 29.08.2016 to the first respondent which is pending with him and in view of the fact the petitioner has already produced all the other necessary certificates as required under the Act, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the applications of the petitioners dated 28.08.2016 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the second respondent shall not take any coercive action against the petitioners.
5. I am of the view that similar order can be
passed in the present case also. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the applications filed by the petitioners seeking clearance. The first respondent shall pass orders on the online applications made by the petitioners on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that
3/8
4 CONT.P.(MD)NO.621 OF 2022
this Court has not pronounced anything on the merits of the matter. ”
2 . Contending that this direction has not been complied with, the present contempt petition came to be filed.
3 . The petitioner's counsel was permitted to serve papers on the learned Assistant Solicitor General so that the instructions can be furnished to the Court. Today, Shri.R.Sankaranarayanan, learned Additional Solicitor General, assisted by Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri, learned Assistant Solicitor General appeared and submitted that the stages of granting wildlife clearance to project proposals are as follows:-
| S. No. |
Office / Stage | Process | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | User Agency | The proposal is subm user agency on portal to the |
itted by the PARIVESH concerned |
| DFO /Wild Life Ward | en |
4/8
| 2. | DFO/Wild Warden |
5 Life |
CONT.P.(MD)NO.621 OF 2022 The DFO scrutinizes the proposal and sends an acceptance letter to the user agency if all relevant documents are uploaded properly by the user agency. If any document is missing or any other information is needed, the DFO may ask the user agency by raising EDS (Essential Details Sought) to upload the required information on PARIVESH. After getting the desired information, the DFO uploads his / her recommendation and Site Inspection Reports on the online portal and forwards to the Chief Wild Life Warden. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3. | Chief Wild Warden |
Life | The Chief Wild Life Warden, after scrutiny, gives his / her recommendation and Site Inspection Report and forwards the proposal to the State Government. |
| 4. | Consultation State Board Wildlife recommendat of Government |
with for and ion State |
The State Government forwards the proposal to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and climate Change with the recommendations of the State Government and the State Board for Wild Life for consideration of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wilk Life. |
5/8
| 6 | CONT.P.(MD)NO.621 | OF 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5. | Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change |
The Ministry scrutinizes proposal received from States and places it before standing Committee of Nati Board of Wild Life for consideration. |
the the the onal its |
| 6. | Consultation with Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife |
The proposal is discussed in meeting of the Stan Committee of the National Bo for Wild Life. Recommendations of Standing Committee of National Board for Wild Life communicated to the States. |
the ding ard the the are |
4. He pointed out that the petitioner had sent his application to the user agency maintained by the portal. The system generated automated response. It can be seen that the application given by the petitioner is still pending only with the District Forest Officer / Wildlife Warden, Kanyakumari.
5. The learned Additional Solicitor General would state that the standing committee of National Board of Wildlife would scrutinise the proposal only at the final stage and not before that. Since the proposal has not yet reached the standing committee, the question of complying with the Court's direction does not arise at all.
6/8
7 CONT.P.(MD)NO.621 OF 2022
6 . I am more than satisfied with the submission made
by the learned Additional Solicitor General. This contempt petition is closed. However, in the interest of justice the impleaded respondents are directed to process the petitioner's application as expeditiously as possible.
11.07.2022
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No PMU
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
7/8
8 CONT.P.(MD)NO.621 OF 2022
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
To:
2. The District Forest Officer / The Wildlife Warden, Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari.
3. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Panagal Maligai, 1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.
4. The Secretary to Government, Department of Forest, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.
CONT.P.(MD)No.621of 2022 IN WP(MD)No.9171of 2019
11.07.2022
8/8
A. Desika Sankar
Mr. Bhupender Yadav, The Chairman, Standing Committee of National Board of Wildlife
The District Forest Officer / The Wildlife Warden, Kanyakumari District
The Chief Wildlife Warden, Panagal Maligai, Chennai
The Secretary to Government, Department of Forest, Government of Tamil Nadu
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
