Madras High Court M.S.Murugan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 October, 2017 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.10.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE W.P.(MD)No.14688 of 2017 and W.M.P(MD)No.11523 of 2017 M.S.Murugan : Petitioner .vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai ? 9. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of the Department (Wildlife Division), Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai ? 15. 3.The District Collector, Virudhuangar District, Virudhunagar. 4.Wildlife Warden, Grizzled Squirrel, Wild Life Sanctuary, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District. 5.M/s.A.A.Solars, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.T.Venkatesan, 26, Meenakshi Gardens, VKL ? Avenue, N.G.G.O Colony, Coimbatore. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue appropriate G.O., with regard to preventing any domestic animals from entering into National Parks/Sanctuaries or any other protected area under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for any purpose in order to protect the wild lives, within the time stipulated by this Court on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 31.07.2017. !For Petitioner :Mr.S.Varadharajan for Mr.P.M.Vishnuvarthanan ^For R1 to R4 :Mr.M.Govindan, Special Government Pleader For R5 : No Appearance :ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.] The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to issue appropriate Government Order preventing any domestic animals from entering into National Parks/Sanctuaries or any other protected area under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for any purpose in order to protect the wild lives, within the time to be stipulated by this Court based representation of the Petitioner dated 31.07.2017. 2.Though Court notice was served as early as on 20.08.2017, there is no representation on behalf of the fifth Respondent either in person or through Learned Counsel. 3.Heard both sides. 4.According to the Petitioner, he is a public spirited person and has filed the present Writ Petition. On earlier occasion, he has filed numerous Public Interest Litigations pertaining to welfare of public and to protect the wildlife of Grizzled Squirrel Sanctuary, Srivilliputur, Virudhunagar District. He had also filed W.P(MD)Nos.14071 and 21185 of 2015 pertaining to construction of 'Check Dam' under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, W.P(MD)No.21160 of 2015 pertaining to shift a TASMAC shop from the residential area and W.P(MD)No.885 of 2015 pertaining to removal of encroachment in Sathuragiri Hills. 5. It is the stand of the Petitioner that he had also filed W.M.P(MD)No.16030 of 2016 in W.P(MD)No.2454 of 2015 pertaining to illegal granite quarry in Srivilliputhur and W.P(MD)No.1726 of 2014 to stop the construction of fire works etc. 6. The Petitioner came to understand from a newspaper article that the fifth Respondent/Registered Contractor was awarded with few contract works in Sathuragiri Hills relating to construction of four Antipoaching Sheds. The work was commenced from January, 2017. As a matter of fact, the fifth Respondent had filed W.P(MD)No.12009 of 2017 and obtained necessary orders on 29.06.2017 for police protection to engage 'Donkeys' in his contract works for loading and unloading the construction materials. 7. The core contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that all the sanctuaries are declared as 'Protected Area' under Section 2(24A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Indeed the first Respondent had sanctioned a huge sum of Rs.889.50 lakhs towards development of Sri Santhanamahalingasamy Temple at Sathuragiri Hills vide G.O.(D)No.32 dated 27.01.2015 and numerous contract works were allotted to various Contractors and in fact, few works were completed, especially, relating to the construction of pathway. No other Contractors, except the fifth Respondent had engaged donkeys for the construction work. 8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the fourth Respondent had given complete gobye to the Laws relating to Protection of Wild Life and in fact, the fourth Responden