IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE [APed this the I A day at Autpis P 2.01 .1 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR Writ..Fetition ‘ 397Q9 of 2004 V’M ).:fjj BE2IVP EN: Dr. K. Ullas Karanth Sb late SB Shivaram Karanth Aged about 56 years Residing at No403 Seebo Apartments 2.6-2, Aga Abbas All Road fl1,% rZ2fl flAfl 1n.t1nctiu1 c i’ni j’t,c, 2. Sri N. Samba Knmar A n S P ia’ ana Ra 5 No823. tliaithra’ I. T. I UP v cSL II p4 1 \ C F S/a ç U. P. Vasantb Kumar at I P 11 -5 I I -‘ I It II hi IIii 4 2 4. ShrI V. Krishna Prasad Sb late Dr. V. Vlshveshwaraiah Aged about 43 years No.249, ‘4th MaIn Road Chamarajpet Bangalore - 560 018 5. SrlH.N.A.Prasad 5/0 Sri Nanjundasastry Aged about 57 years No.3. 14th MaIn 17” Cross Malleshwaram (West) Bangalore — 560 055 . . .Petltloners (By Sri B. V. Acharya. Senior Advocate for MIs. Holla & Holla. Advocates) AND: Smi. Anita Arekal Deputy Conservator of Forest Kudremukh Wild Life Division Karkala Udupi District 2. Sri Suresh Shetty Range Forest Officer Karkala Wild Life Range Udupi District 3. State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Forest. Ecology and Environment Muhistoried Building Phase-Il Dr. Ainbedkar Veedhi f3au±alore — rico (it) I ltUSj.)OIldCIll:5 (By Sri K. lvi Shivavotiiswan.nr 1ICCP) This Writ Pet.ition is fled, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Q onsh.tuti.on of India, praying to qn.ash the complaint. lodged by respondent. 1 and 2 before the Court of the Additional Ch’ll Judge (JrDu) aud JMFC, Karkala, iu CC No.1596/2004 vide AnnexurmAB aud the order dated 12-W 2004 by the Addit.tonal Civil Judge Jr. DnJ and J MFC, Karkala in CC No. 1 596/2004 vide Anriexurej This Writ Pet (11011 ronhjru ort (or hearni.hisciav, the Court made the. lblloxviuc: ORDER The pei:.itioners In this Writ Pethion are seekltig qna.sning of the complaint lodged by the respondents I an.d 2 before th.e; Court ot the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Karkala, i.n C.C No, 1596/2004: as per Annexure22B and the order dated 12,5,2004 pvvssed hy t.h.e Addi.f.ioual Civil Judge N (Junior DivisIon) an.d IIvlFV K.arkala, in r*l5ol3/2oc 34 , r — r I 5: Elf iiiI t 4 2. The first petitioner-Dr. K. Ullas Karanth is an internationally reputed wildlife scientist, who has published over 50 scientific articles in international scientific publications of repute such as proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. USA: Journal of Zoology. London: Ecology; Journal of Animal Ecology. ConservatIon Biology and in books published by Cambridge University Press, Columbia University Press and Island Press. He has also authored/edited two scientific books in English and two popular books in Kannada. His expertise In wildlife sciences has been recognized nationally and Internationally. Because of his prolèsslonal achievements he has held the following professional positions:- (1) SenIor Conservation Zoologist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, New York; (2) ScIentific Fellow of the Zoological Society of London and Adjunct Associate Professor — University of Minnesota. USA. 3) 15 Oc A ate ft 3oar f\A ldt\l i und I Wa: (4) Member of the Steering Committee ot Project Tiger: a) foir Mnhe 3 bth h Intha a I f IA iidlik and Karnataka Wildlife Adnsorv Board. lie’ si se es/h s Sen on e ed’ tilt rds frepi A ne Jo i als AC A umal iser ion, )n’x: ourna of Bombay Natural liistonr Society and Consen’ation and Society. lie he ieto fC ref Vii S les es h nslil ion. eogn ed f the )epad acm f Sete ‘ees and Tcehnoiogv, GovernmenT of india and is also affiliated to the A n ‘ig ‘A on en n sty Karan h hac also mplemented maler commsen’atlor 1 prnjct titled “Kantataka TWer (‘onsen atton Proleet’ in collaboration Ii K s I I 3. Second peilliuner N. Sanbha Kttm 41 has d C 5 1 5 C I I p I I r 6 Mysore and a M.Sc Degree in Ecology from Pondicherry Central University. He has also been specially trained in wildlife studies In University of St. Andrews. U.K. He has published more than 18 scientific articles/technical reports and participated In several seminars/workshops. He had earlier served as a Project Manager In Indian Space Research Organization, Government of India, for 14 years. 4. Third petitioner-D.V.Girlsh owns and manages a coffee estate in Chlkmagalur. Owing to his active involvement In wild life conservation activities, the Karnataka Government has selected him as the Honorary Wildlife Warden of Chikmagalur District twice between 1998. 5. Fourth petftioner-V.Krishna Prasad is an Electronics Engineer with a Master’s Degree In Computer Science from USA. He has been associated with the conservation movement since 1982. In 1998 Government of Karnataka appointed hint as an Honorary Wildlife Warden. In recognition of his 7 contribution to conservation of wildlife, he was nominated as a member of the Steering Committee. Project Tiger. Minisliy of Environment and Forests. 6. Fifth petitioner - Sri H.N.A Prasad Is a Mechanical Engineer and Industrialist who heads Uniglass Industries Private Limited. He iè an active social worker and a conservationist who volunteers time for the cause of forest and wildlife conservation. He is also an acclaimed wildlife photographer who has contributed his pictures for conservatIon education. He Is a trustee of Centre for Wildilic Studies. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 7. Kudremukh National Park is the largest wildlife reserve of tropical wet evergreen forests in the Western Ohats which are recognized as one of the 25 biodiverslty hotspots In the entire world. The Park Is the source of three major rivers (Bhadra. Tunga and NethravathI) and harbors several species V. 4, S of endangered animals such as tiger, leopard, wild dog, gaur, liontalled macaque. hornbills and king cobra. Because of its biological wealth and importance as a water catcbnient, the area was notified as a national park excluding revenue villages. patta lands, revenue lands, gomal lands, various rights of way, etc.. which are in the park. The petitioners have been closely Involved with Its conservation park over the years. One major conservation Initiative undertaken by the Government of Karnataka was the Kamataka ‘flger Conservation Project. Under this project the petitioners organisai.ion provided 15 four wheel drive jeeps. 2 hIgh speed patrol boats, around 60 wireless sets. more than 1700 field kits and Insurance policies for frontline protection staff and conducted a dozen training programs for field staft The project was carried out In collaboration with the forest department and the petitioners moved around In the National Park to execute project activities and document these activities. Letters of appreciation from the Chief Vlidllfe Warden/DCF. Kudremukh are produced. I, 9 8. In the report submitted it was stated that Community Leadership for Tiger Conservation primarily aimed at generating local community support for tiger conservation. promoting long-term habitat consolidation through voluntary resettlement/land acquisitions and continued efforts at tiger conservation including activities in collaboration with the forest department with its goals would be implemented at Kudremukh and other sites. After completion of ‘flger Conservation Project. another project titled Community Leadership for Tiger Conservation was initiated In Kudremukh by Kudrerriukh Wildlife Foundation with guidancc from petItioner No.1. Because of this new project primarily Involved work with local communities outside the national park area and did not Involve °study or Investigation of wildlife as Its goat. there was no need lbr a permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden under Section 28(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. 1972 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act. However, some of the project activities did involve Interaction with forest deparimern stall and/or entry into (lie park. such I 10 activities were c’anied out with specific permission obtained from local officials and often in association with them. For example. petitioner No.1 at the request of the then DCF traveled in the park and provided detailed suggestions for improving the management of the park. Similarly, petitioners were invited by officials to participate in the training of forest staff in wildlife monitoring as well as training In protection duties and these activities were carried out with the Involvement of local officials. The petitioners were also Involved in providing uniforms and field kits, etc.. to staff under the banner of the CLTC project with official approval. AU these project activities were carried out with full knowledge of local officials and in association with them is clearly shown by numerous photographs and correspondences including invitations and appreciation letters from officials. Under the CLTC Project, the petitioners also interacted with local people living Inside the revenue cnclosures located in the Kudreniukh area, but were outside the boundaries of the national park. using public rights of ways. Even these activities were well ‘I 11 known to the forest staff officials who sometimes even accompanied them in these interactions. Further in the case of a few poor families who had encroached on forest land in Bhagavathy and Bolle. Interactions were carried out in the company of forest officials with their approval as shown by photographs. 9. In addition to implementing CLTC project, purely out of their concern for wildlife conservation, petitioners have been fighting for the cause of wlldlilè conservation In Karnataka. associated with various other conservation advocacy groups. These groups have been squarely confronting vested Interests and combating pressures that are inimical to wildlife conservation. The NGO ‘Wildlife First’ based at Bangalore with which petitioners are associated has been engaged In conservation battles against vested interests and lobbies connected with activities such as timber exploitation and mining in protected areas. ‘K 12 10. WildlIfe First liled an Interlocutory Application l.A. 670/2001 in WP 202/1995 before the Honbie Supreme Court of India praying for stoppage of Iron ore mining In Kudremukh National Park. The petitioners presented crucial evldencc before the Honble Supreme Court. This evidence included findings from a scientific study involving petitioners with permissions from the Water Resources Department Government of Karnataka. The study was carried out In the revenue enclosures of Bhagavathy. Bilegal. Malleswara. Nellibeedu. etc.. which are outside the National Park Area. The study results higllghted the massive soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation problems caused in the Bhadra river system by the mining operations. 11. PetitIoners were also involved in supporting the compilation of 10 minute long non-commercial educaUonal video with archival that documented the deleterious impacts of Iron ore mining on river ecology. biodiversity and rural livelihoods lbr the purpose of educating the public. The 13 educational video titled “Mindless Mining” was formally presented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The State Forest Department and the Chief Wlldlilè Warden were ftally aware of the study report and the educational video being made and presented as evidence before the Honble Supreme Court as far baekastheyear200l. 12. The Elon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in IA 670/2011 noted the ecological damage caused by the mining and ordered the winding up of the mining activities by 2005. Thereafter, the petitioners have been persistently following up the matter with the forest department trying to ensure that a 37 square kilometer area affected by mining be immediately notified as part of the national park as per the order of the Honble Supreme Court. The then DCF, Kudremukh Wildlife Division had also written to the Government In March 2003 urging ft to Include the above area In the national park. I 14 13. During February 2000, pile transporting iron-ore slurry broke and severely damaged rain forests. At that time the then DCF had recovered a heavy fine of 10 lakh rupees from the mining company. However, after the first respondent took over as DCF in July 2003, when a similar instance of ecological damage occurred during June 2003. the incumbent DCF. did not take similar action as required under the Act. She has totally failed to pursue the matter with necessary urgency. thus potentially endangering the park from the ravages of continued mining and indirectly benefitting the mining activities. 14. It is in this background we have to see the allegations contained in the complaint as well as the charge sheet. A perusal of the complaintAnnexure-AB shows that the charge against the petitioners in this case is that, the Centre for Wildlife Studies has been collaborating and monitoring and actively participating in the implementation of community Leadership for Tiger ConservaUon Prqject In 1- S 15 Karnataka. The Centre for Wildlife Studies has also violated the order by willfully not Informing the contemplated projects that were being worked for quite some time. The contemplated projects are Community Leadership for ilger Conservation 2004-07 In Kudremukh Wildlife Division. Another project Is the Habitat Consolidation Project to be funded by Global Conservation Fund. They have clearly and willfully failed to mention these on going projects and the proposed/Intended projects. They have violated condition No.6 of the order of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) and Chief Wildlife Warden. Therefore, the trustees and associates are liable as per Section 2(24) and Section 58(1) & (2) of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The motive for their act Is they do not want the Government and the authorities to know that they are running these projects as they have no permit. 15. The Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, submitted a research project titled ‘Distribution and Dynamics of tiger and prey population In Karnataka’. Their proposal was 16 to carry out the project for three years duration. During that period they Intended to carry out distribution survey of tigers for the entire ICarnataka and to carry out intensive monitoring of tiger and prey populations In Nagarhole National Park, Bandipur ‘Tiger Reserve. Bhadra Tiger Reserve and Kudremukh National Park. On due consideration of the said project, under the powers vested in him under SectIon 28 of the Wildlife Protection Act, the Chief Wildlife Warden, Karnataka State. Bangalore, granted the pennisslon sought for by paslng an order, a copy of which Is produced along with the Writ Petition. On receipt of the said order. the Director and Principal Investigator. Centre for Wildlife Studies, wrote a letter accepting the various conditions and requesting them to issue such clarifications on certain points. As per Annexure-Z dated 12.11.2003 clarifications were issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest. It. is in pursuance of the said order and permission granted the petitioner was carrying out the distribution survey of tigers throughout the State and intensive study in the four selected NPs/Sanctuarles, based on 17 the data supplied under Si. No.2 and 3 above. The order granting permission at clause 6 provided that the applicant organisaUon has to inlbrni the undersigned If it Is conducting/Intending to conduct any other activities In Karnataka, any activities in rest of India, any activities aboard. This information was Intended to ensure that sufficient time and focus Is given to this project by the applicant organization. 16. A perusal of the charge sheet filed clearly demonstrates that, under the guise of accusing these petitioners of violating the aforesaid clause what has been alleged is, violation of statutory provisions and orders by these organizations of which these petitioners are member. The Director. Community Leadership Ibr tiger Conservation Project being executed as collaboration in Kudrernukh National Park by Kudremukh Wildlife Foundation. Second project is, community leadership for Tiger Consen’aUon Project being executed as collaboration In Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary by I3hadra Wildlife Conservation Trust. The third project, 1—• 18 community leadership for Tiger Conservation Project being executed as a collaboration in Nagarhole (Rajiv Gandhi National Park) through Living Inspiration for Tribals (LIF13 and Nagarahole Wildlife Conservation Education Project (NAWICOED). Therefore. it Is clear that these three projects are undertaken by three independent organizations. Clause (6) referred to supra casts an obligation on the petitioner to inform the undersigned if it is conducting/intending to conduct any other activities in Karnataka or any activities In rest of India or any activities abroad. The petitioner-organisation is not conducting the aforesaid three projects. The said three projects are conducted by three independent organisatlons. Therefore, on the face of It the violation complained of is incorrect. 17. In fact on the application flied by these petitioners before the Committee constituted by the Apex Court to monitor the foresi and wealth of the wild life vhIch is called Ccntral Empowered Conintitwe. an order came 10 be passed on 1—-- 19 28.4.2004 holding that the Deputy Conservator of Forests has made disparaging remarks on the body constituted by the Apex Court. violated the orders passed by such authority, initiated these legal proceedings against the petitioners herein in spite of an order of stay being granted. In fact the proceedings sought to be Initiated by her against the members of the committe was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on coining to know of the same. In fact they have observed in the said order that, the role of NG(Ys in protection of forest and wildlife has been recognised in Chapter WA as one of the fundamental duties in the Constitution of India. Article 51A (g) specifically states that It shall be the duty of every citizen to protect and Improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for all living creatures. But this duty is without any doubt. subject o statutory permissions wherever required. Section 55(c) of the Act empowers any person to file complaint In the competent Court aftcr givIng 60 clays notice to the Central or the State Government. A similar provision already exisi s In the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 20 Besides, the notification dated 17.9.2002 by which the CEC was constituted, sub pan (II) of pan 2 provIdes that any person can approach the CEC In case any of the orders passed by the Honbie supreme Court in the forest matter are perceived to have been violated. Suffice to say that the NGOs arid public spirited persons have a critical role to play In the protection of the forest, wildlife and the environment In general. Wherever statutoiy permissions are required they have to be obtained by all concerned. Besides, the NGO’s are expected not to make Irresponsible statements or wild allegations. On the other hand, it has to be ensured that the provisions of the Acts are not used to harass the people Involved In genuine conservation efforts. The CEC was constrained to observe that the concerned senior officers of the State of Karnataka have preferred to remain as mute spectators to the entire happening instead of intervening to prevent the matter from sliding downhill ignoring the larger Interest of conservation of forest and wildlife. Thereafter. they recommended to the State of Karnataka to enquire Into the propriety, legality and the 21 circumstances leading to Initiation of the criminal proceedings against the applicants and others and file an enquiry report within one month. it also directed the State of Karnataka to Initiate appropriate action against Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kudremukh Wildlife Division. for willful violation of the CEC’s order dated 28.4.2004 and for making derogatory comments against the CEC and Its members. 18. Therefore, In substance the complaint Is these petitioners have contravened clause (6) of the order tinder SectIon 28 of the Act. Clause 6 reads as undcr: - “6. The applicant organtsatiori has to inform the undersigned it Is conducting/Intending to conduct (ii any other activities in Ko.rraataka (11) any activities In rest of India ((lii any activities abroad 22 flits tqjhrination is intended to ensure that suffldera time andjbcus is given to this project by the applicant organlsatlorz. 19. From the aforesaid facts it Is clear ex — fade there is no substance in the allegations made in the complaint. The material on record clearly demonstrates these petitioners are as much Interested as the respondent-officials in protecting the environment, forest, the ecology and the tribal people who are living in the forest. In fact. they have spent their entire life in carrying on these activities. They have been instrumental In placing relevant material before the Apex Court which has resulted In stoppage of mining activities in this region permanently. The facts set out above clearly demonstrates that probably the respondent Is unable to realise the Importance of the services rendered by these petitioners. She appears to have mistake notion about what they are trying to do. May be she is hurt by the orders of the Apex Court. as weli as the committee constituted. who have not shown her actions In the way she I 1— 23 executed or wanted. Therefore, she has a grievance against the petitioners as Ihey are behind these adverse orders passed against her. May be these petitioners who have all completely dedicated themselves in these activities belong to a different generation as that of the respondent. They seem to have not given sufficient importance to the respondent. She may be under the Impression that because she is a lady. she has not been shown respect that is due to her In spite of her holding a high official position. In fact. the first respondent appeared in person and defended her action. As could be seen from the conduct of the parties. the material on record. I am satisfied It is a case of dash of egos. Both are interested in protecting the environment, forest and the wild life but they are not prepared to appreciate the effort of others. That appears to be the real reason for these proceedings. The respondent young in age has tasted power and wanted to show these petitioners what she can do and that is how she has shown special interest in search. seiztire and in preparing mahazar. collecting information and filing a series of criminal cases. on almost all he’pro\isIons coder tue ACT (0 DrUid name i Lit ilOifit I flat vile is also entitled re.spect.. from the. petit.ioners. It, is clear froni. the material on record that these urocced I ns are 11 ot initiated bona fide t.o prevent any offences tinder t.he Act or to pnnish. the olfenders who have violated the law. Prohahir (1 jcç niottxrated by vmdictiveness. For that, process of law is ahusech The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS vs BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS [1992 SUPP (1) SCC 3351 had an occaston to ‘o into the ouestiou in what categones of cases hr war of illustration wherein power under Article 482 of ‘tile CrPC t.ou.ld be. 3xercised eit.her to prevert. afluseoi I. he process oi any Court or othcrwtsc’t o secure the ends of justtce, i’.hot.j.h it. may not he possible to lay dow..:mu any oreizise. elc’arh’ dc[ineo ano suilIcienliv enanncliseo and ir.flexibie gnidehnes or rigid formniae and to give an exhanstl.ve iii: am mriad kinds of cases wHerein sm mcii. Dower sootild he exercised. Further, t.he have given t.he fdllowing iiinst.rat ion.s: 25 1) Where i..hc allcga.tions made in t.he ih.st. information re.port or the compla.int. even if they are ta.ken at th.c-ir i.hce xwine and accepted in t.heir e.ntiret do n.oi. prima facie constitnte any ofience or make on.t a case against the accnsed, 2) Where the ailegations in the first informat.ion report and other materiais, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, jnstiiying an investigation hy police officers nnder Section. 156(1) of the Code except nnder an order of a Magistrat.c within the pnnriew of Secfion 155(2) of the Code. 3) Where the nncontrovcrt.ed allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in snpport of l,he sa.me do not disclose the commission of any ofibnce and make ont a case against th.c accnscd, 4) Where., t.hc alicgat.ion.s in. the FIR do riot const.itnte. a cofin.izaf.lc offcr.cc hnt, c,.on.stit.ritc on.Iy a riom 26 cognizable offence. no investigation Is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and Inherently Improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a Just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6) Where there is