Karnataka Govt Has Not Given Permission For Radio-Collaring Of Tigers: High Court Closes PIL

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said,

"The State government had constituted an expert committee to conduct a detailed study on the death of tigers in Nagarhole National Park and by order dated 02-03-1993, the report of the expert committee report has been accepted. The expert committee has concluded that mortality reported among tigers and leopards is not due to chemical immobilisation and radio collaring and is in no way given trouble by the research project entitled to study ecology and management of large carnivores."

It added, "It is also pertinent to note that the state government by communication dated 17-9-2009 informed the Inspector General of Forest and Member of National Tiger Conservation Authority that permission to radio collar tigers in the State of Karnataka has been rejected. In view of the report submitted by the expert committee which has been accepted by the state government and order dated 17-09-2009, passed by Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, by which permission to radio collaring tigers has been refused under section 28 (1) (c) of the Act, the prayer in the petition also does not survive for consideration."

The court made the observation while disposing off the petition filed by Cheranda Nand Subbaiah who claimed to be an agriculturist. The petitioner had also prayed for direction seeking to quash permission granted on 16-11-2007, under section 28 (1) of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972.

Further, he sought a direction to the Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest and Principal Conservator of Forest for initiating action against Respondent 5 to 13 for unauthorisedly radio collaring tigers in Nagarhole National park in the year 2009. He also sought a direction to the Union of India and Government of Karnataka to refer allegations against R5 to R13 to the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigation.

The petitioner also sought enactment of laws governing NGOs that source foreign funding, making their activities accountable and transparent. Lastly, he assailed the validity of Section 28 (1) (a to d) of the Act as unconstitutional and ultra vires.

The bench referred to section 28 of the Act which reads thus:

28. Grant of permit.—(1) The Chief Wild Life Warden may, on application, grant to any person a permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary for all or any of the following purposes, namely:— (a) investigation or study of wild life and purposes ancillary or incidental thereto; (b) photography; (c) scientific research; (d) tourism; (e) transaction of lawful business with any person residing in the sanctuary. (2) A permit to enter or reside in a sanctuary shall be issued subject to such conditions and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.

The bench then observed that in exercise of power under section 28(1)(a), a permission issued on 16-11-2007 was in force for three years and came to end on account of efflux of time during pendency of petition.

It added, "So far as order dated 24-06-2009 granting permission under Section 28 (1) (a) of the Act is concerned, AGA has stated the aforesaid order is no longer in force and seized to operate, therefore the first relief claimed in the petition with regards to order dated 16-11-2007 and 24-06-2009, issued under section 28 (1) (a) does not survive for consideration due to efflux of time."

As regards regulation of NGO the bench said, "Such a relief cannot be entertained in writ petition. Apart from that it is worth mentioning that Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976, has been replaced by the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010."

Finally it held, "No ground is either argued to challenge validity of 28 (1) (a to d) of Wildlife protection Act. It has neither been contended that Parliament has no power to enact the aforesaid law. Nor it has been said that the same is in violation of any of the Fundamental Rights or statutory rights guaranteed to the petitioner. For the aforementioned reasons the writ petition is disposed of."

Case Title: CHERANDA NAND SUBBAIAH v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Others

Case No: WP 34294/2009

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 285

Date of Order: July 25, 2022