Forest Department Cannot Itself Impose Damages Invoking Section 33 Wildlife Protection Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a forest department cannot impose damages under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

For that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna observed.

In this case, the Forest Department alleged that an educational institution in the area at Agra-Mathura Road and that too in the close vicinity of the National Chambal Sanctuary Project, is discharged the effluent which  resulted in serious environmental damage in the area and consequently endangered the wild life in the sanctuary. Therefore it imposed damages of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores) on this institution. This was assailed before the Allahabad High Court which set aside the order/notice imposing damages of Rupees Ten Crores, by holding that under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest Department/ State has no jurisdiction and/or authority to impose damages. Aggrieved with this judgment, the Forest Department approached the Apex Court.

Before the Apex Court, it was contended that the institution continued to act detrimental to the environment and wild life in the sanctuary, and therefore the authority was justified in imposing the damages while exercising the powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

The court noticed that as per Section 33,  the appropriate authority shall have wide powers to take such steps as well as to ensure the security of wild animals in the sanctuary and the preservation of the sanctuary and wild animals therein. 

"Therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Chief Wild Life Warden/appropriate authority may even pass an order of closure of the institution, if the institution continues to discharge the effluent in the sanctuary which may affect and/or damage the environment as well as wild life in the sanctuary. Mere issuance of notice is not suffice. There can be further steps, may be of closure of an institution in case of repeated breaches and/or the action in discharging the effluent which may damage the environment and wild life in the sanctuary, after following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. To that extent, the authority is not helpless..
However, at the same time, the authority cannot impose damages and for that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages. However, straightway in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the authority could not have imposed damages."

The court also noticed that before imposing damages of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores), admittedly, no show cause notice was issued to the institution calling upon them to show cause as to why damages may not be imposed for discharging effluent in the sanctuary, which damages/affects the environment and wild life in the sanctuary. While disposing the SLP, the bench observed:

"Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, setting aside the order of damages does not call for any interference of this Court. However, at the same time, if the authorities are very serious and are the opinion that the original writ petitioners have continued to discharge the effluent in the national sanctuary area which ultimately damages/affects the environment as well as wild life in the sanctuary, it will always be open for the department/authority to take steps as provided under Section 33 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and as observed hereinabove including the closure of the institution and even stop discharging the effluent in the national sanctuary, however, of course, after following the principles of natural justice. The authorities may not stop taking any further action and be satisfied by issuing notice only. If the discharge of the effluent is a threat to the environment and/or wild life in the national sanctuary, the authorities have to take further steps to stop such use and/or threat to the environment and wild life in the national sanctuary, in accordance with law"

Case details

State of Uttar Pradesh vs Anand Engineering College 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 626 | SLP(C) 10084-85/2022| 12 July 2022 | Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Headnotes

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ; Section 33 - The authority cannot impose damages and for that the authority has to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court/forum to determine/ascertain the damages. (Para 5)

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 ; Section 33 - Wide powers - Chief Wild Life Warden/appropriate authority may even pass an order of closure of the institution, if the institution continues to discharge the effluent in the sanctuary which may affect and/or damage the environment as well as wild life in the sanctuary, after following the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. (Para 5)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment