ESSAR OIL LTD. versus HALAR UTKARSH SAMITI AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 19-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
ES SAR OIL LTD. 
v. 
HALAR UTKARSH SAMITI AND ORS. 
JANUARY !9, 2004 
[RUMA PAL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Wild life (Proleclion) Act, 1972--Sections 29 and 35(6)-Public Interest 
litigation petitions before High Court challenging grant of permission by 
C Stale Governmelll to oil companies for laying down pipelines through National 
Park and Sanc/UGJ)' in violation of the Act-High Court allowing the pelitiuns-
Correctness of-Held. satisfaction of State Government before granting permit 
for beuerment uf wild life is required for des/rue/ion, exploilalion or removal 
of an wild life and not for des/ruction or damaging the habitat of any wild 
animal or depriving any wild animal of its habitat-However, permits cannot 
D be given indiscriminale~y--Stale Government must see that the habitat of the 
wild life is sustained and that the damage to the habitat does not result in the 
des/ruclio11 of the wild life-There is nu a priori presumption of destruction 
of wild life in the laying of piple/ines-On evidence, State Governmelll and 
the oil companies have taken precautions afler consulting experts lo see that 
the pipeline route causes minimal and reversible damages lo the wild life-
E llence, Court cannot intetfere and make its own assessment-Fores/ 
(Conservation) Act, 1980; Section 2-Environment (Prulec/ion) Act, 1986. 
Three oil companies E, BORL and G sought to lay oil pipeline to 
pump crud(! oil from a single huoy mooring in Gulf of Kutch across a 
F portion of Jamnagar Marine National Park and Sanctuary to their 
respective oil refineries. The respondents filed Public Interest Litigation 
Writ Petitions before High Court challenging the grant of permission to 
..,, • 
the oil companies to lay oil pipeline across the National Park and 
Sanctuary hy the State Government in violation to the provisions under 
sections 29 and 35 of the Wild Life (Protectioni Act, 1972 (WPA). The 
G High Court took the view that the laying down of oil pipelines through 
the National Park and Sanctuary was not for the improvement and better 
management of the wild life and held that no permission can be granted 
by the State Government under section 29 of WPA. The High Court, 
.ti i 
however, held that BORL can proceed to lay down its oil pipelines since 
H the permission has already been granted by the State Government. The 
808 
ESSAR OIL LTD. v. HALAR UTKARSH SAMITI 
809 
High Court restrained the State Government from p;ranting any such A 
permission to oil companies through National Park or Sanctuary. Hence 
the appeals by the oil companies E, BORL and G and the State 
Government. The Writ Petition of the respondents before High Court 
was transferred to this Court. 
Appellant-oil company E contended that section 29 of WPA requires B 
the satisfaction of the State Government as a pre-requisite for grant of 
permit by the Chief Conservator only in respect of destruction, exploitation 
or removal of any wildlife from a sanctuary and not in respect of the 
destruction or damage of the habitat of any wild animal or deprivation 
of any wildlife of its habitat within such sanctuary. 
The State Government, supporting the appellant-oil companies, 
contended that section 29 of WPA does not envisage total prohibition of 
any development in an ecologically sensitives area but only stipulates 
that the permission can be granted subject to certain conditions. 
Respondent-Writ Petitioners contended that the permission granted 
c 
D 
to the oil companies under Section 29 of WPA for the laying of pipelines 
would defeat the mandate of Sections 26A(3) and 35(5) of WP.A since it 
would amount to an alteration of the area of the sanctuary or the national 
park; that a non-forest activity is not permitted until the State Legislature E 
de-notifies the affected area under Section 26A(3) ofWPA for sanctuaries 
and under Section 35(5) of WPA for national parks; and that Sections 
35(4) and 35(7) of WPA completely prohibits any non-forest activity 
within the National Park which is more stringent than the prohibition in 
respect of sanctuaries under Sections 24(2)(1) and 33(a) of WPA. 
F 
Disposing of the matters, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Section 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA) 
must be construed keeping in mind the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. 
The section provides for three prohibitions: (a) destruction, exploitation G 
or removal of any wild life from a sanctuary; (b) destruction or damage 
to the habitat of any wildlife; and (c) 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.