MR. NARENDRA BELIMALE v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),ASHOK S.KINAGI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2020-03-04. MR. NARENDRA BELIMALE v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF MARCH, 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 1072/2018 (GM-FOR-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. MR. NARENDRA BELIMALE S/O LATE HONNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS BELIMALE HOUSE 2. MR. UDAYA KOPPADKA S/O LATE THIRTHARAMA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS KOPPADKA HOUSE 3. MR. LAVITH P K S/O KRISHNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS PADPU HOUSE 4. MR. SHESHAPPA S/O ANGARA MAILA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS SANTHADKA HOUSE 5. MR. MAHESH K P S/O PARAMASHIVAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS GOONDKA HOUSE 6. MR. SHIVAPPA S/O KUSAPPA MALE AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS ANJANAKAJE 7. MR. K R GOPALAKRISHNA S/O K N RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS IDYADKA HOUSE 8. MR. K P ANANTHASHAYANA S/O LATE PUTTANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS KINNANA HOUSE 9. MR. MUSTHAFA P M S/O LATE MOHAMMAD P AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS PADNADKA HOUSE (PETITIONER NOS. 1 TO 9 ARE R/OF KALMAKARU VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK – 574 218, D. K. ) 10.
MR. JAYARAM . A S/O LATE PUTTANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALKABE HOUSE 11. DR. SOMASHEKAR K L S/O LATE LAKSHMANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS KUJUGODU KATTEMANE HOUSE 12. MR. RADHAKRISHNA K S/O LATE KUSHALAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS KUJUGODU KATTEMANE HOUSE 13. MR. JAYANTH B S/O DHARMAPALA GOWDA B AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS BALAGODU HOUSE 14. MR. BABU K S/O LATE MOONTA K AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BETTUMUKKI HOUSE 15. MR. SHEENAPPA P S/O PODIYA P AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS POYYAGADDE HOUSE 16. MR. BHAVITH KUMAR S S/O VASUDEVA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS SHIVALA HOUSE 17. MR. SHIVAKUMARA S P S/O PERAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS SHIVALA HOUSE 18. MR. RAJESH S S/O PURUSHOTHAM GOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS SHIVALA HOUSE 19. MR. TEJAKUMARA T S/O LATE GODDAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS THALOORU HOUSE 20. MR. DEVIPRAKASH K K S/O K R MOHAN GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS KIRIBAGH HOUSE (PETITIONER NOS. 10 TO 20 ARE R/O BALAGODU POST & VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK -574 218 D. K.
) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI BRIJESH PATIL FOR SRI P N HEGDE, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE (ESZ-DIVISION) ND # 205, VAYU, 2 FLOOR INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN ALIGANG, JOR BAGH ROAD NEW DELHI-110 001 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01 3. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST TH ARANYA BHAVAN, 18 CROSS MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-03 4. MONITORING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN PUSHPAGIRI WILDLIFE SANCTUARY ECO SENSITIVE ZONE OFFICE AT REGIONAL COMMISIONER MYSORE – 570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UNNIKRISHNAN . M, CGC FOR R-1; SRI A C BALARAJ, AGA FOR R-2 & 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION AT ANNEXURE-C DATED 28. 06. 2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned CGC appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the second and third respondents. By consent, the petition is taken up for final disposal. th 2. On 13 January 2016, a draft notification was published by the first respondent in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1) read with clause (v) and clause (xiv) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (for short ‘the said Act of 1986’) proposing to declare certain areas around the boundary of Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary as Eco-sensitive Zone. The draft notification was published as required by sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (for short ‘the said Rules’). th On 28 June 2017, a final notification was published by the first respondent.
The final notification provided that the Village Kalmakar of Sulya Taluk was included in the Eco-sensitive Zone around Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary. 3. The contention of the petitioners in this petition is that in view of clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the said Rules, whenever the first respondent proposes to impose prohibition or restriction on the location of an industry or carrying on the processes and operations in an area, it may, by a notification in the Official Gazette, give notice of its intention to do so. Clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 requires that the notification in terms of clause (a) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 must give a brief description of the area, the industries, operations and processes in the area about which such notification pertains.
Under clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5, any person interested in filing an objection against the imposition of proposed prohibition or restriction is entitled to file objections within sixty days from the date of publication of the notification in the Official Gazette. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as the area of the Village Kalmakar was not included in the draft notification th dated 13 January 2016, the petitioners were prevented from exercising the right of filing objections as required by clause (c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the said Rules. He would, therefore, th submit that the impugned notification dated 28 June 2017 to that extent is illegal and deserves to be set aside. 4. The learned CGC appearing for the first respondent does not dispute that the area falling within the jurisdiction of the village Kalmakar was not included in the draft notification dated th 13 January 2016. 5.
In view of this undisputed factual position, the th impugned notification dated 28 June 2017 only to the extent to which the name of the Village Kalmakar is included in the Eco-sensitive Zone around Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary becomes illegal and deserves to be set aside. The reason being that the petitioners were denied an opportunity to object to the inclusion of the name of the said village in the notification. 6. We make it clear that we are not disturbing any other part of the impugned notification relating to any other area. The name of the village Kalmakar appears at Sl. No. 6 in Annexure-IV to the impugned notification which records that the said village falls within the Eco-sensitive Zone around Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary. 7.
Accordingly, we pass the following order: th (i) The impugned notification dated 28 June 2017 (Annexure-C) only insofar as it includes the name of the village Kalmakar in Sulya Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District in Annexure-IV thereto is hereby quashed and set aside. The rest of the notification is not disturbed; (ii) It will be open for the first respondent to issue a fresh notification in terms of clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the said Rules in relation to the said Kalmakar village proposing to include its same in the Eco-sensitive Zone around the boundary of Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary.
If such a notification is issued, it is obvious that the petitioners will be entitled to file their objections in writing within sixty days from the date of publication of such notification in the Official Gazette; (iii) The issue whether the Village Kalmakar or any part thereof can form a part of Eco-sensitive Zone of Pushpagiri Wildlife Sanctuary is expressly kept open; (iv) The writ petition is partly allowed on the above terms. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.