Gujrat Navodaya Mandal v. State of Gujrat
1992 (2) Guj L. Her.359
[Pandit J.,]
[Laying pipeline in the Sanctuary]
The petitioners, Gujrat Navodaya Mandal, a registered filed this Writ Petition challenging Chief Wildlife Warden’s permission to Reliance Petroleum Ltd., to lay the pipeline in Marine National park/Sanctuary, Jamagas.
Respondent No. 4 Reliance Petroleum Ltd., (RPL) has Undertaken ‘Moti Khadi Refinery Project” for the production of petroleum products RPL in order to function the said project has to import crude oil by sea fare and then to refine the same and to produce the petroleum products in their refinery.
RPL has taken clearance from the State Government and no objection certificate (NOC) from Gujarat Pollution Control Board. The Environment Department of the Government of India gave clearance under Environment Protection Act, 1986 on certain conditions. Lastly RPL sought permission under section 2 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and section 2(ii) of Forest Conservation Act and granted Chief Wildlife Warden gave clearance.
The petitioner argued that the Chief Wildlife Warden has no jurisdiction to pass said order under Section 29 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The petitioner also contended by the said order will damage to the forest as well as the marine life and environment.
The petitioner prayed for striking down the order. The respondent, RPL claimed that the order will not cause damage to environment. RPL also engaged National Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) as well as National Institute Oceanography (NIO) to survey the implementation of the project. These organization carried out the project and cleared the project of RPL. The respondent also responded that spillage control system and will prevent cause any damage to marine life.
Te court after hearing to the both sides observed that “if section considered as a whole, then it would be quit eclear that the destruction done only with the permission granted by Chief Wildlife Warden is required to obtain a permission from the State Government which is to be satisfied that the some is necessary for tbetter management and improvement of Wildlife. That condition is applicable only in case there is destruction or exploitation or removal of wildlife.
The court also held that both the Central Government and the State Government have been taken necessary precaution in seeing neither the ecology nor environment is damaged while implementing the project in question the Court rejected the petition.
In this case, ROL had applied for the consent of the Chief Wildlife Warden u/s 29 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 for lying of pipelines through the Marine National Park, Jamnagar. The said permission was given along with other approvals required under Environment Protection Act, 1986.
The Gujarat Navodaya Mandal contended that the permission given by the Warden was outside the purview of S 29 and therefore ultra vires the power of the Warden. Further, GNM argued that the said order by the warden was likely to lead damage to forest, marine life and the environment in the National Park. It was the contention of the petitioner that section 29 doesn’t allow the Warden to pass an order that would lead to the destruction of wildlife or its habitat unless it is for the purpose of better management of the wildlife in the sanctuary.
On the other hand, RPL argued that besides the fact that the central government and the state government had taken all necessary safeguards to ensure protection of wildlife and the environment while giving the statutory approval; the company had also engaged this assistance of the national institute of oceanography and other expert bodies all of whom had cleared the respondent’s project. Further, the respondent argued that the project was national importance and would assist in the saving of foreign exchange every year. The high court of Gujarat have finally ruled in favor of the company and the state government and held that under section 29 of the WPA.