Dismissed

News Item Titled Erosion Pushes Turtle Nests 14 Km in Odisha Appearing in the Times of India Dt 14 04 2024 v. National Coastal Zone Management Authority through Chairman

NGT3 Feb 2025Original Application No. 127/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone Bench disposed of a suo motu application regarding turtle nest erosion by dismissing it, relying on a Supreme Court precedent affirming High Court jurisdiction when a writ petition is already pending with hierarchy involved.

What the court decided

AI extract

News Item Titled Erosion Pushes Turtle Nests 14 Km in… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.04

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.127/2024/EZ (Earlier O.A. No.575/2024/PB)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF :

¶7

News item titled "Erosion pushes turtle nests 14 km in Odisha" appearing in The Times of India, dated 14.04.2024,

¶8

…Applicant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

National Coastal Zone Management Authority, Through its Chairman,

¶11

Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road,

¶12

New Delhi – 110003,

¶13

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Integrated Regional Office, A/3, Chandrasekharpur,

¶14

Bhubaneswar – 751023,

¶15

Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden (Odisha), Odisha Prakruti Bhawan, Plot No.1459, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar,

¶16

Pin – 751007,

¶17

…Respondent(s)

¶18

Date of hearing: 03.02.2025

¶19

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶20

For Applicant(s) : Suo Motu ,

¶21

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjib Swain, AGA for State of Odisha (in Virtual Mode) Mr. Dibyendra Narayan Ray, Adv. for R-2, (in Virtual Mode) Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Adv. for R-3, (in Virtual Mode)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The Original Application No.575/2024/PB was registered suo motu by the New Delhi Bench of the National Green Tribunal on the basis of news item titled “Erosion pushes turtle nests 14 km in Odisha” appeared in The Times of India dated 14.04.2024. Thereafter, vide

¶24

¶25

order dated 22.05.2024 the case has been transferred to the Eastern Zone Bench of National Green Tribunal, Kolkata, and renumbered as Original Application 127/2024/EZ.

¶26

Affidavit dated 14.08.2024 has been filed by the Respondent No.3, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & Chief Wildlife Warden, Government of Odisha, and in para 8 (ix) of the affidavit it is stated that the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa has already registered a Suo Moto W.P. (C) PIL No.71185 of 2021 ( In Re: Olive Ridley Turtle Vs. Principal Secretary, Forest and Environment Department & Ors. ), on the issue of protection of Olive Ridley Sea Turtles and the Hon’ble High Court is monitoring the sea turtle protection activities in the State and has also issued several orders to various stakeholders/departments for purposes of implementation. The order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 23.02.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No.7118 of 2021 reads as under:-

¶27

“W.P.(C) No.7118 of 2021-PIL

¶28

02. 23.2.2021 1. The cause title of this petition shall read “In Re : Olive Ridley Turtles”.

¶29

2. An article dated 4th February, 2021 published in online news service www.downtoearth.org.in authored by Sri Ashis Senapati has been brought to the notice of this Court.

¶30

3. It mentions the death of 800 Olive Ridley in Odisha since January this year in the Gahirmatha marine sanctuary, the world’s largest rookery of the sea turtles. The article mentions that turtles are dying after getting stuck in fishing nets. Many of the dead turtles bore injuries and were found trapped in a trawl or gill nets.

¶31

4. The article goes on to state that a large number of sea turtles are in danger due to the presence of plastic, polythene and other litter at the sanctuary as well as the Rushikulya beach, which is another nesting

¶32

¶33

site for the Olive Ridley species. It is stated that many fishermen are dumping damaged fishing nets, plastic bottles, polythene and other hazardous materials into the ocean. The carcasses of the dead turtles are emanating a foul smell on the beaches, thus turning away the visitors. It is stated that forest officials are burying the dead turtles in shallow pits and that the beach is littered with dead Olive Ridley sea turtles.

¶34

5. The Court notices that earlier, this Court had examined this very issue more than 25 years ago in O.J.C. No. 3128 of 1994 (WWF India v. State of Orissa), wherein a detailed order was passed on 14th May 1998.

¶35

6. Again, this Court in O.J.C. No. 14889 of 1998 (Biswajit Mohanty v. State of Orissa) issued a large number of directions. When the Court realized that its directions required constant monitoring for their implementation, it revived the petition and the last of the orders issued is dated 7th March, 2003. However, for some reason, the petition does not appear to have been listed thereafter.

¶36

7. It is, therefore, time to revive the issue to ensure that the threat caused to the Olive Ridley turtles that have been visiting the beaches of Odisha over many years are not endangered and that the general health of the coast is improved and preserved. It is a matter of concern that despite several directions having been issued over the years, nothing much appears to have happened to improve the situation.

¶37

8. The article in question refers to the Government of Odisha imposing a ban on fishing activities in the Gahiramatha Marine Sanctuary upto 20 kilometers off the shore from 1st November 2020 to 31st May 2021. Despite the State claiming that surprise raids are being carried out to implement the above ban order, clearly not enough has been done.

¶38

¶39

9. Notice is issued in the first instance to the Government of Odisha through the Secretary, Department of Environment and Forests, Government of Odisha; Assistant Conservator or Forests, Mangrove Forest Division (WL), Rajnagar; Additional District Magistrate, Kendrapara; Deputy Director, Fisheries (SBW), Cuttack and the Collector, Kendrapara to apprise the Court on the next date of the steps taken to deal with the crisis mentioned in the article in question, on an urgent basis.

¶40

10. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice on their behalf.

¶41

11. The Court appoints Mr. Mohit Agarwal, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter.

¶42

12. Copies of the aforementioned article as well as the copies of the complete paper book and orders in OJC No.3128 of 1994 (WWF-India v. State of Orissa) and OJC No.14889 of 1998 (Biswajit Mohanty v. State of Odisha) be provided by the Registry of this Court to both Mr. Mohit Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate, immediately.

¶43

13. List on 26th February, 2021.

¶44

We are informed that the W.P. (C) PIL No.71185 of 2021 is still pending consideration in the Hon’ble High Court.

¶45

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 01.06.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4522-4524 of 2022 (The State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P. )), has held as under:-

¶46

“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶47

¶48

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4522-4524 OF 2022 (@ DIARY NO. 16486/2022)

¶49

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶50

APPELLANT(S)

¶51

VERSUS

¶52

RAGHU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU KANUMURU (M.P.)

¶53

RESPONDENT(S)

¶54

B.R. GAVAI, J.

¶55

J U D G M E N T

¶56

………………x……….x………..x……….x……….x………………….

¶57

2. The appellant was already running a resort at Rushikonda Hill, near Visakhapatnam. According to the appellant, after obtaining the necessary permission, it has demolished the existing resort and is re-constructing the resort at the same place with additional facilities. 3. A writ petition being W.P. (P.I.L.) No.241 of 2021, challenging the said construction, has already been filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. In the said writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court has passed the following order on 16th December 2021:

¶58

“In the meanwhile, the construction activities and other allied activities in relation to the subject project, if any undertaken, shall be strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as well as the existing master plan.”

¶59

4. It appears that the aforesaid writ petition before the High Court was filed on 8th December 2021. However, a letter addressed by the respondent was sent on 31st October 2021 to the learned NGT. The respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament from one of the constituencies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The learned NGT, after taking cognizance of the said letter, initiated the proceedings in O.A. No.361 of 2021. It further appears from the record that the learned NGT had appointed an Experts Committee on 17th December 2021 which submitted its Report on 29th March 2022. A perusal of the said report would reveal that the said Experts Committee consisting of four experts did not find any violation in the construction that was carried out by the appellant.

¶60

………………x……….x………..x……….x……….x………………….

¶61

7. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that when the High Court of

¶62

¶63

competent jurisdiction was already in seisin of the matter, the learned NGT could not have entertained a lis with regard to the same cause of action. He submitted that though this fact was brought to the notice of the learned NGT, the learned NGT refused to vacate the interim order dated 6th May 2022, which was in conflict with the order of the High Court dated 16th December 2021.

¶64

………………x……….x………..x……….x……….x………………….

¶65

11. In any case, no law is necessary to state that insofar as the Tribunals are concerned, they would be subordinate to the High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned. A reference in this respect was also made to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others.

¶66

12. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the orders passed by the statutory tribunals.

¶67

………………x……….x………..x……….x……….x………………….

¶68

16. Needless to state that though development is necessary for economical progress of the nation, it is equally necessary to safeguard the environment so as to preserve pollution free environment and ecology for the future generations to come.

¶69

………………x……….x………..x……….x……….x…………………

¶70

20. We further clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the parties would be at liberty to raise all the issues available to them before the High Court which shall be considered in accordance with law. Since the learned NGT has

¶71

¶72

already constituted an Experts Committee, the High Court would be at liberty to take into consideration the report of the said Experts Committee or if it finds appropriate may appoint other Committee as it deems fit.”

¶73

In this view of the matter, we dismiss the Original Application No.127/2024/EZ (earlier O.A. No.575/2024/PB).

¶74

I.As., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶75

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶77

Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶78

February 03, 2025, Original Application No.127/2024/EZ (Earlier O.A. No.575/2024/PB) AK

¶79

News Item Titled Erosion Pushes Turtle Nests 14 Km in Odisha Appearing in the Times of India Dt 14 04 2024 v. National Coastal Zone Management Authority through Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

News Item Titled Erosion Pushes Turtle Nests 14 Km in Odisha Appearing in the Times of India Dt 14 04 2024 v. National Coastal Zone Management Authority through Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kishor Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary Mineral Resources Department

1. Youth United for Sustainable Environment Trust Represented by Its President Santanu Kumar Bhukta S/O Golak Bhukta Aged About 32 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

1. Sanjib Dhal S/O Murali Dhal Aged About 47 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

1. Prakash Chandra Nayak S/O Duryodhannayakaged About 47YEARS at- Patarpada Po- Patamandirps- Parajang Dist- Dhenkanalodisha vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Additional Chief Secretary Forest and Environment Department Government of Odisha

Saira Begum vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Sanjay vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Rajiv Aggarwal vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Khalid Ansari vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

1. Youth United for Sustainable Environment Trust Represented by Its President Santanu Kumar Bhukta S/O Golak Bhukta Aged About 32 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

1. Sanjib Dhal S/O Murali Dhal Aged About 47 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

1. Prakash Chandra Nayak S/O Duryodhannayakaged About 47YEARS at- Patarpada Po- Patamandirps- Parajang Dist- Dhenkanalodisha vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Additional Chief Secretary Forest and Environment Department Government of Odisha

1. Jharana Dehury Aged About 39 Years vs 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

Khalid Ansari vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Rabindra Pradhan vs State of Odisha Representated by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha