M. Ganapathi vs Government Of Karnataka And Ors

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The applicant, who is stated to be an agriculturist and a resident of Thippinajaddu Village, Sagaar Taluk, Shivamogga District complains about the conduct of the respondents 11 to 17 for indulging in illegal cutting of various trees which are of medicinal value and inspite of the complaint having been lodged, the official respondents 2 to 10 have not been taking any action against the respondents 11 to 17, particularly respondent No.11. It is admitted that the 11th respondent who is a Nati Vaidya has been treating the patients suffering from cancer by providing native medicine prepared from the bark of medicinal trees that grow in the said area viz, Anandapura.

The 2nd respondent in his reply dated 27.4.2017 has stated that the Government of Karnataka by virtue of G.O. dated 22.9.2015 has constituted a committee to consider the issues relating to the unscientific removal of medicinal plants from the forest area by the 11th respondent viz., N.S. Narayanamurthy, Nati Vaidya, Narasipura Village, Sagaar Taluk, Shivamogga District. In the reply it is further stated that the said committee had verified various facts and circumstances and submitted its report on 28.12.2015. It was based on the said report, the State Government is stated to have issued a direction to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Karnataka to permit the 11th respondent to collect the medicinal plants required for Nati Vaidya within the limits of his village without harming the plants and trees in any way by imposing a condition that he should utilize the same for bonafide reason and shall not utilize such medicines for commercial purpose. Accordingly the 11th respondent was given permission by the government on 31.12.2015 to collect the medicinal plants required for Nati Vaidya within the limits of his village without harming the plants and trees in any way.

However, the Chief Conservator of Forests (Forest Resource Management) in his letter dated 7.4.2017 has stated that the 11th respondent has now stopped local collection of bark and other forest produce such as leaves, roots etc., for Nati Vaidya and is procuring the same from sources outside the District. However, the Ayush Department has filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and Additional JMFC, Saagar Taluk, Shivamogga District against the 11th respondent for illegally giving medicines to the people for cancer and other incurable diseases in Narasipura Village without holding any licence or permission given by the government. In those circumstances, the Chief Conservator of Forests in his letter dated 7.4.2017, referred to above, has recommended to withdraw the permission granted to the 11th respondent dated 31.12.2015. It is stated that since the procurement of bark from the medicinal plants has been stopped completely in the areas concerned by the 11th respondent and during the period when he collected the bark and other produce and gave treatment there was a valid permission, there is no question of restoration of trees and plants at this point of time. However, the respondents 1 to 10 have taken action against the respondents 11 to 17 for causing damage to the forest and on other grounds and six offence cases have been filed by the Forest and Police Departments viz.,

S.N.

Document which constitutes the FIR

Booked by

Date

Offences under/Type of offence

1.

Annexure-2 (2a)

Police

09.03.2016

Karnataka Forest Act, Indian Penal Code and the Forest Conservation Act.

2.

Annexure-3 (3a)

Forest

09.04.2015

Karnataka Forest Act and Rules.

3.

Annexure-4 (4a)

Forest

27.02.2014

Karnataka Forest Act and Rules.

4.

Annexure-5 (5a)

Forest

09.03.2015

Karnataka Forest Act and Rules.

5.

Annexure-6 (6a)

Forest

18.02.2015

Karnataka Forest Act and Rules.

6.

Annexure-8 (8a)

Police

02.04.2016

Indian Penal Code.

Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, the prayer of the applicant has become infructuous.

Even though it is the case of the learned counsel appearing for the 11th respondent that the applicant as well as his brothers are involved in various illegal activities and to that extent records are available before this Tribunal, we are of the view that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction since this issue is not connected with the environment. As far as case the relating to the 11th respondent, the 11th respondent has been collecting the bark affecting the trees thereby the environment and forest area and the permission granted was not challenged before the competent authority and at this stage, it is not possible for this Tribunal to hold that during that period the activity of the 11th respondent was illegal or outside the purview. Even if the records show as it is stated in the reply that the Police and Forest Department have been taking action against the 11th respondent, we make it clear that any criminal case or any other case which has been filed and which is connected with the 11th respondent, shall continue to be prosecuted and appropriate orders shall be passed by the competent authority. In so far as it relates to the environment, since as stated above, during the relevant point of time the 11th respondent has obtained permission and the said permission was subsequently withdrawn, there is no question of restoration at this point of time. However, it is for the Forest Department to ensure the protection of forest and not to allow illegal collection of medicinal plants and wherever required, undertake the afforestation works and recloth the forests.

With these observations, the application stands closed. No order as to costs.