1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT B.ANG.ALORE Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR W.P. Nos. 39706 of 2004 (GM-WLAI Ciw WP Nos. 39707. 39708, 42951 of 2004 & WP No.24497 of 2005 IGM-WLAI In W.P.No. 39706 of 2004 BETWEEN: Mr. Niren Jam S/oV.K.Jaln Aged about 30 years No.3, Rathna Apartments Kadri Mangalore -575002 2. Dr. K. Ullas Karanth Sb late Sri Shivaram Karanth Aged about 56 years Residing at No.403 Seebo Apartments 26-2. Aga Abbas All Road Bangalore - 560 042 3. Shri Praveen Bhargav Sb V. S. Bhargav Aged about 40 years V 2 No.1235. 1t floor 26 A Main. Jayanagar 4” T Block Bangalore - 560 041 4. Skirt Sanjay Gubbi 5/0 N.B. Sreyamsha Ktunar Aged about 32 years 823, thalthra’ 7th Block. Jayanagar Bangalore . .Petltloners (By Sri B. V. Acharva. Senior Advocate for M/s. I-Jolla & Holla. Advocates) AND: Smt. Anita Arekal Deputy Conservator of Forest Kudremukh Wild Life Division Karkala 2. Sri S. S. Hegde Range Forest Officer Belthangady Wild Life Range Beithangady D.K. District 3. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Principal Secretary Forest, Ecology and Environment Multistorled Building Phase-lI Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore -560001 ...Respondents (By Sri K.M. Shlvayogiswamy. HCGP) Lz 4 3 This Writ Petition is ified under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. praying to quash the FIR No.129/2004 dated 742004 vide Annexure-C filed by respondent-2 In FOC No.3/04-05 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge Jr.Dn.) & JMFC. Bekhangady. In W.P No. 39707 of 2004 BETWEEN: 1. Sri Rohit S. Rao S/oSriK.S.Rao Aged 36 years Kodial Guthu Road Bejai Mangalore - 575 004 2. Sri M. Rammohan Rao S/o Sri M. Sadashlv Rao Aged about 62 years Court Hill Cross Road Puttur - 574 201 Dakshlna Kannada 4 3. Sri Ananda V.M. S/o Sri V. P. Mahendra Aged about 32 years No.5. Sankey Road High Grounds Bangalore - 560 001 4. SrI K. M. Chinnappa S/o Sri Late Medappa Aged about 65 years Kakur Post Office 4 Srirnangala Kodaga District —571 217 5. SrI D.V. Girish Aged about 35 years 5/0 D. P. Vasanth Kumar Residing at Kalleshwara Estate P.O. Kairnara Chickmagalur - 577 iç S 6. Sri S. GlriJashankar Aged about 52 years 5/0 SrI Suryanarayana AnJenya Street Vijayapura Chlckmagalur - 577 101 7. SrI Thamoo Poovaiah Aged about 55 years Sb Sri A. D. Aivanna College Road Madikeri . . .Petitioners (By Sri B. V. Acharya. Senior Advocate tbr MIs. Holla & Holla, Advocates) AND: Smt. Anita Arekal Deputy Conservator of Forest Kudremukh Wild LIiè Division Karkala Udupi District 2. Mr. Srinivasa Reddy Range Forest Officer Kerekatie Wild Life Range it—- 5 Kerekatte. Srlngerl Taluk Chlckmagalur District 4. State of Karnalaka Represented by its Principal Secretary Forest, Ecology and Environment Multistoried Building Phase-TI Dr. Arnbedkar Veedhi Bangalore - 560 001 .. .Respondents (By Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy. HCGP) This Writ Petition Is filed under ArtIcles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. praying to quash the FIR No.0682 18. dated 16-5-2004 In FOC No.2/04-OS on the ifie of the Court of the JMFC. Srlngeri. lodged by respondent No.2. ‘1de Annexure-A. In W.P No. 39708 of 2004 BEIWEEN: 1. Sri Rohit S. Rao Sb Sri K. S. Rao Aged 36 years Kodlal Guthu Road Bejal Mangalore — 575 004 2. Sri M Rammohan Rao Sb Sri M Sadashiv Rao Aged about 62 years Court Hill Cross Road Puttur - 574 201 Dakshlna Kannada 6 3. Sri Anand V.M. 5/0 Sri V. P. Mahendra Aged about 32 years No.5, Sankey Road High Grounds Bangalore - 560 001 4. SrI K. M. Chinnappa 5/0 Sri late Medappa Aged about 65 years Kakur Post Office Srknangala Kodagu Dlstrlct—571 217 5. Sri D. V. Ghish Aged about 35 years S/o D. P. Vasanth Kurnar Residing at Kalleshwara Estate P.O. Kalmara Chickmagalur - 577 156 6. SrI S. Girijashankar Aged about 52 years S/o Sri Suryanarayana Anjenya Street Vljayapura Chickmagalur - 577 101 7. Sri Thamoo Poovaiah Aged about 55 years S/o Sri A. D. Aivanna College Road Madikerl . . .Petitioners ‘7-- 4 7 (By Sri B. V. Acharva. Senior Advocate for Mis. Elolla & Holla, Advocates) AND: 1. Smi. Anita Arekal Deputy Conservator of Forest Kudremukh Wild Life Division Karkala 2. SrI Srinivasa Reddy Range Forest Officer Kerekatte Wild Life Range Kerekatte, Sringerl Taluk Chlckmaalur 3. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Principal Secretary Forest, Ecology and Environment Multistorled Building Phase-lI Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore - 560 001 . ..Respondents (By Sri KM. Shlvayoglswamy, HCGP) This Writ Petition is filed under ArtIcles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. praying to quash the FIR No.0619/2004 dated 13-5-2004 flied by respondent No.2 on the ffle of the Court of Clvii Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Beithangady, vide Annexure-A. In W,PNo. 42951 of 2004 BETWEEN: Fr, K. Ullas Karanth S/o 1w e Sb Shivai’a in Karani h Aged about. 56 years Residing at \:u3U,3 Seebo Apart.nerit.s 262 SAga Abbas 421 Road Bangalore — 560 042 2. Shri Praveen Bbargav S/o V, S. Bhargav Agec ahoni 40 years No.1235. 1St Floor 26 A Main. davanagar 4° T Block Bangalore — 560 041 3 5711CM; U at t JtLCVicUetiJ[flt Aged about 65 years Kalcur Post Office Sriroa.nga Ia Kodagu District 571 217 4. Shri Saniay Gubbi S/o NB. Sreyamsha Kcnnor Aged aS out 32 rears 823 ‘C hai.thra’ 7 t: Block, Jayan.ayar Ba.r.galore 5. Mr. Niren Jam K. air Aged about. 30 years S 9 No.3, Rathna Apartments Kadri Mangaiore - 575 002 6. Sri D.V. Girish Aged about 35 years 5/0 D. P. Vasanth Kumar Residing at Kaileshwara Estate P.O. Kalmara Chickmagalur — 577 156 7. Sri Thamoo Poovaiah Aged about 55 years S/o Sri A. D. Alyanna College Road Madikerl 8. Sri Rohit S. Rao Sb Sri K. S. Rao Aged 36 years Kodial Guthu Road Bejai Mangalore — 575 004 9. SrlAnandaV.M. 5/0 Sri V. P. Mahendra Aged about 32 years No.5, Sankey Road High Grounds Bangalore — 560 001 10. SrI M. Ram Mohan Rao Sb Sri M. Sadashiv Rao Aged about 66 years Court Hill Cross Road Puttur - 574 201 . . .Petiuoners 0 ([tv Sri [3. V Aeharva. Senior Advoeme br t’Ls. [Jolla & Coda, A(lvoeatesi AND: I. Srrit, Anita Arekal Depuiv Conservator ol Forost Kndremukh Wild LiT Division karkala Udupi f)istriet 2 Sri S. S. Hegde Range Forest Of leer [3r’n 1 ndaJ \\ ild P ni_c Beithangadv D.K. District 3 State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Forest Eeoio&iv and Environment %i11iL1 U ( 0 bti1l(IP Dr. Anbedkar Veedhi Bangalore — 5(30 001 Respondents (By Sri 1CM, Shivayogiswamy, HCCP) This Writ. PeP lien is hied nnoer Articles 226 and 227 of he Co’sstitol. ion ot india p.racing to (:1 nash the FiR No. 68 1 56, dat Un i 2Ofl0C iAnriexnr. El) filed 0’ the 5wrni;rr1 -l Fo 3 Ku’ us ne n o an Coent ol nfle nieiaI Magi.strate, Fh’st Class. and Prinei.pal Civh Jndge, Beithangadi. I I I IS W.P,No, 24407 of 2005 BETWEEN: Dr. K. UHas Kararit..h Sb 1 iR Sri SHix tir Ki r 10 Aged about 56 years Rtiuneai \o to Seebo Apartrnen.ts 26 2. Ma Abbas AI Road Bangalore — 560 042 2. Shri Praveen Bhargav S/o V. S. Bharav Aged about 40 years No. 1235. 1 Floor 26 A Main, dryanagar 4th T Block Baugalore 560 041 3. Sri K. M. Chinnappa /-, C: - 5/ U I LitLC V1004 1 305 Aged about 65 :vears Kakur F,)5 Office Srimangala Kodayu Distriel - 571 217 :1- Shri Sanjav Cubbi Sb N. B1 Srevamsha humar A Octl ::i—-Nt t1 vn “‘-‘4- 33 ‘Chait.hra’ 7th Block, Ja,raoauar Itan.galore 5. ivir. l”Jiren lain S/c) ‘AK iotr/. Jzu/yrI I-o)v1’ ‘D 2 ) 12 No.3, Rathna Apartments Kadrl Mangalore - 575 002 6. Sri DV. Girish Aged about 35 years Sb D. P. Vasanth Kurnar Residing at Kalleshwara Estate P.O. Kalmara Chickmagalur — 577 11.6 7. Sri Thamoo Poovalah Aged about 55 years S/oSrlA. D.Alyanna College Road Madikerl 8. SrI Rohit S. Rao 5/0 SrI K. S. Rao Aged 36 years Kodlal Guthu Road 8*1 Mangalore - 575 004 9. SrlAnandaV.M. 5/0 Sri V. P. Mahendra Aged about 32 years No.5, Sankey Road High Grounds Bangalore - 560 001 10. Sd M. Ram Mohan Rao Sb Sri M. Sadashlv Rao Aged about 66 years Court Hill Cross Road Puttur -574201 . . .Petitioners lz 13 (By Sri B. V. Acharya. Senior Advocate for MIs. Holla & Holla, Advocates) AND: 1. Deputy Conservator of Forest Kudremukh Wild Life Division Karkala Udupi District 2 Range Forest Officer Kudremukh Wild Life Range Kudremukh 3 State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Forest. Ecology and Environment Multistoried Building Phase-Il Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore - 560 001 ...Respondents (By Sri KM. Shlvayogiswaniy. HCGP) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the FIR No.49/2004 dated 14-9-2004 vlde Annexure-H, filed by the respondent-i In FOC No.8/04-05 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate. First Class & Principal Civil Judge. Madilcere. These Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day. the Court made the following: 14 ORDER The petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking quashing of the complaint lodged by the respondents I and 2. 2. The first petlUoner-Niren Jam is a practicing architect In Mangalore and has been Involved in conservation of Kudremukh National Park for the past several years. He was working as a research assistant under Dr. Ullas Karanth for more than 2 years under the Karnataka Tiger Conservation Project. He has been instrumental In the campaign to stop the mining activities to save Kudremukh National Park. Working as a research assistant he acquired skills to scientifically monitor wildlife population using camera traps. line transect sampling and other scientific methods. He has been awarded the Carl Zelse Roll of honour award for his contribution to wildlife conservation In Kudremukh, Karnataka. 3. Second petitioner-Dr. K. Ullas Karanth is an internationally reputed wildlife scientist, who has published k7 15 o’ % S I2 tit ft ilk frs in fifi ‘milk nal cc tentthe pubhcatinns of repute uc h as proc edins f lit fiticual Act cm of S lerne . EiSA Jour ‘ial of Zologv Lcndon; Ecolog; Journal of Animal Ccology. Consenation Biology and in books publiehecl in Ce nibridge Univirsily Press, Columbia Unhersltv I ress and Island Prc ss. He has also authorcd/cdited two scientific books in Lngltsh and to populaz books in Kannada. His expertise In vildlife sciences has been recognized nationally and internationaly. Because of his professional ‘ichievements he has held the following professional positions: - (I) Snioc Conscnat’oi Zoclogist rith die Wildlife Comicryan in Socit Lv. Ncw Y rat: (9) nile Fdllow the Zoological Socien, of London and Adjunct Ascoc tale l’mfes%r - Jnnersity of M1rnc, ta.UaA. 13) He I’ .ilso a Mcmbe Ch IlK 13o ird of Woild Wildhlc F inc InSa. t) Mcnlxr 01 ii’.’ Stecr vg C i ml k of I roject tiger: 16 (5) A former Member of both the Indian Board for Wildlife and Karnataka Wildlife Mvisoiy Board. He also serves/has served on the editorial boards of reputed scientific journals like Anhnal Conservation: Oryx: Journal of Bombay Natural History Society and Conservation and Society. He is the Director of Centre for Wildlife Studies, a research institution, recognized by the Department of Sciences and Technology. Government of India and is also affiliated to the Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Deemed university. Dr. Karanth has also implemented a major conservation project titled Tiger Conservation ProJecr In collaboration with the Karnataka State Forest Department from 1997-2000. 4. The third petitioner-Praveen Bhargav has a Postgraduate degree in Mass Communication and a practicing advertising professional. He has been an active conservationist since 1982 when he co-founded a Wildlliè Conservation. NGO. In 1998 he received an international certificate of recognition from the New York based Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) I 17 for his contribution to Wildlife and Biodiversity conservation in Karnataka. He was appointed b.v the Government of Karnataka as an Honorary Wildlife Warden In 1998. AgaIn In 2001, Pravcen received the ESSO Honor for Tiger Conservation in recognition for his sustained Tiger Conservation efforts. In 2002 he was selected to participate in the seventh Environmental Research and Conservation. Columbia University, New York. 5. The fourth petitioner-Sanjay Gubbi. Is an Electrical Engineer who has been involved In wildlife conservation Issues since the past 15 years. He Is a leading feature writer on wildlife conservation Issues In major national, state dailies and magazines. He has collaborated with the Karnataka Forest Department on various Issues regarding conservation of forests and wildlife. He is a consultant to the Centre for Wildlife Studies. Bangalore and Is the founder of the NGO Green Watchers, Turnkur. 18 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE 6. Ki.idremnkh Nat.ionai Park is t.he largest wilcIljie teseweot ropwal wet evergreen Idrests in the Western OPaLs which are recoenizedas. one of the 25 hiodiversnv hotspots in iTh.e entire world, The Park is th.e sonree of three major rivers (Bhadra. Tontia and Nethravalhl) and harbors several species of endangered animals sneh a..s liger, leopard. wild, dog:. ganr, liontai.led niaeaçue, hor.nbills an.d king cobra, Because ot its biological wealth and importance as a water ealvhment. the area was notified as a national park exeindintt revenn.e villages, patta lands, revenne lands, gomal lands, various righi s of way, etc., which are in the park. The ennoners have imon. closely involved whh its conservation park over the years, One maj.or conservation initiative ondertaic.en by Ihe (jovernrfleni 01 Karnataka was the Karnata.tka hger Conser.ratlon Proieet., Under thi.s project the petitioners organi.sa..tion provided 15 tour wrieei. drive ce-s 2 hht spe.eu Wi rot ooats, aroo rid 60 wireless, sets, more than 1 700 field ku s and insn ranee yolicies ccr front 1.ine lWt..eeti.oit staff a rid eonrto.et.ed a doze :1 train.iitg 4 19 programs for field staff. 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 Wildlife Warden/DCF. Kudremukh are produced. 7. 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 ‘Tiger Conservation Project, another project titled Community Leadership for Tiger Conservation was initiated In Kudremukh by Kudremukh Wildlife Foundation with guidance from petitioner No.1. Because of this new project primarily involved work with local communities outside the national park area 1 4 20 and did not Involve ‘study or investigation of wildlife as Its goal’, there was no need for a permission from the Chief Wildlife Warden under Section 28(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. 1972 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Acti. However, some of the project activities did involve Interaction with forest department staff and/or entry into the park. such activities were carried out with specific permission obtained from local officials and often in association with them. For example. petitioner No. I 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 ditties 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. All these project activities were carried out with full knowledge of local officials and in association with them is clearly shown by 21 numerous photographs and correspondences including invitations and appreciation letters from officials. Under the CUlt Project, the petitioners also interacted with local people living inside the revenue enclosures located In the Kudremukh area. but were outside the boundaries of the national park. using public rights of ways. Even these activities were well 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 Bolie, interactions were carried out in the company of forest officials with their approval as shown by photographs. 8. In addition to implementing CLTC project, purely out of their concern for wildlife conservation, petitioners have been fighting for the cause of wildiitè conservauon In Karnatalca, associated with various other conservation advocacy groups. These groups have been squarely confronting vested Interests and cornhat ii ig presstires that are inimical to wildlife 2 oner tior be ()idi rs ocMdl 3 gb it a nn r crsriztoz )attle iaim eted merets ad bes ome tcd uuth a tviti s u a a timbe xploitati i no ninia npoteetdael% N dhfr Fir t fled r Intro utcn Agplc t’ n IA olO 20 nWT 202 lgg,lefr tli anile S pin t’nnn ndnpr ‘zig orsopp c to o n i Kuke atrn Ii p tan ecntedci eq r em Ic ipieme Coi is In I a ii f ‘ ft et n, ss c a at As icr r I i a I A S 23 10. Petitioners were also involved in supporting the compilation of 10 minute long non-commercial educational video with archival that documented the deleterious impacts of iron ore mining on river ecology. biodiversity and rural livelihoods for the purpose of educating the public. The educational video titled ‘Mindless Mining” was formally presented before the Honble Supreme Court. The State Forest Department and the Chief Wildlife Warden were fully aware of the study report and the educational video being made and presented as evidence before the Hon’ble Supreme Court as far back as the year 2001. 11. The Hon’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 Lii) the matter with the forest department trying to ensure that a 37 square kilometer area affected by mining be immediately 24 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 it to include the above area in the national park. 12. During Februaiy 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 necessaiy urgency, thus potentially endangering the park from the ravages of continued mining and indirectly beneiltting the mining activities. 13. In all these cases the allegation against the petitioners/accused are thcy have conducted a study and tiger ‘-7. 25 research without permit In Kudremukh Wildlife Range from July 2001 to June 2002 and thereby committed olTences under SectIons 27. 28. 35(6). 35(8). 50. 51. 52 and 58 of the Wlldlilè Protection Act The said offences were discovered by the forest officials from the documents seized from the petitioners and the CUt project report In website. It Is also alleged that they have Illegally entered Naravi Reserve Forest In Belthangady Wildlife Range using vehicle KA-21-M-2658 and other vehicles to Implement the CLTC project without permission from the CWW and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. 14. it Is contended that the CLTC project does not require the petItioners to enter into the forest area. The CUlt project which Is Implemented by KWD mainly focuses on wildlife conservation awareness aimed at generating local community support for tiger consen’atlon bordering Kudremukh National Park. CUlt is Involved in reducing human wildlftè conflict in the villages of Kudremukh. CLTC Is also Involved In helping villagers who have volunteered to shift 26 out of the National park due to difficult living conditions In the forest. As all the activity of CLTC is only in revenue villages and not in forest areas which has a clear public right of way. it does not require any permission from the CWW and the project does not have to submit any report to the forest department regarding the same. 15. In none of the complaints filed the date and time of the alleged offences is mentioned. 6th petitioner Is the Hon Wildlife Warden and is a public servant and does not require to obtain permit under Section 28 of WLP Act. Others are not Involved in the field activities. 16. A perusal of the complaint ified dearly 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 for Tiger Conservation Project being executed as I 27 collaboration in Kudrcrnukh National Park by Kudrernukh Wildlife Foundation. Second project is. community leadership for ‘flger Conservation Project being executed as collaboration in Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary by Bhadra Wildlife Conservation Trust. The third project, community leadership for Tiger Conservation Project being executed as a collaboration In Nagarhole (Rajlv Gandhi National Park) through Living Inspiration for Tribals (LIFE’) 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 petltloner-organlsatlon 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. liz’ 28 17. In fact on the application filed by these Petitioners before the Committee constituted by the Apex Court to monitor the forest and wealth of the wild life which is called Central Empowered Committee. an order came to be passed on 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 committee was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on coming to know of the same. In fact they have observed in the said order that, the role of NGO’s in protection of forest and wildlife has been recognised in Chapter WA as one of the fundamental duties in the Constitution of India. Article 5 1A (g) specifically states that it shall be the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, riven and wildlife and to have compassion for all living creatures. But this duty Is without any doubt, subject o statutory permissions wherever 1--- 29 required. Section 55(c) of the Act empowers any person to file complaint In the competent Court after giving 60 days notice to the Central or the State Government. A similar provision already exists In the Environment (Protection) Act. 1986. Besides. the notification dated 17.9.2002 by which the CEC was constituted. sub para (ii) of pan 2 provides that any person can approach the CEC in case any of the orders passed by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the forest matter are perceived to have been violated. Suffice to say that the NGO’s and public spirited persons have a critical