High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 10 RAJ CK 0018

Suo- Moto vs Principal Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 5 October 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramchandra Singh Jhala
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
14676 of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

72 paragraphs · 760 words
1.

Instant public interest litigation was initiated by the Court to

protect not only ecology but even migratory birds popularly called

''Kurja'' in the State of Rajasthan. These birds ''Demoiselle Cranes''

migrate from North part Russia, Ukraine and Kajakistan to the

State of Rajasthan every winter season and the reason is the

habitat available in village Khichan, in Phalodi Tehsil. The Court

took cognizance of the fact that on account of high tension

electricity lines being laid near the site where the migratory birds

nest, large number of them are injured every year.

2.

Article 48A of the Constitution of India enjoins upon the

State to endeavour to protect and improve the environment and

to safeguard the forests and wild life. Thus, the Court felt that it

was the duty of the Court to ensure that the State takes

appropriate measures for care and protection of these migratory

birds.

3.

Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Counsel and Mr. Vineet Dave,

Advocate were requested to assist the Court.

4.

We place on record our gratitude and appreciation for the

work put in by the learned Senior Counsel and the briefing

counsel, not to miss to record the assistance given to this Court

by the Additional Advocate General as also the officers of the

State of Rajasthan.

5.

Happily, the problem has been solved.

6.

The State has examined the alignment of the 400 KV

electricity line which was proposed to be established and was

passing through the area of habitation of the migratory birds.

Five towers have been agreed to be shifted. There are towers

No.83-0, 83-1, 83-2, 83-3 and 83-4. Under orders of this Court

learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Additional Advocate

General were directed to visit the site and submit a report. The

said report was submitted and was placed for consideration before

the State authorities. The report brought out inadequate land for

feeding of the migratory birds. The State has since taken a

decision to make available 3000 square meter land adjoining the

land of the existing ''Chuggaghar'' so that the area of ''Chuggaghar''

can be increased by 3000 square meter. Another decision taken is

to make available 400 bigha of land on the other side of the road

in the vicinity of the ''Chuggaghar''. This would also augment

feeding place for the migratory birds. The State has taken a

decision that this 400 bigha of land would be used only as birds

habitat and for no other purpose. The Tourism Department has 12

bigha of land in its possession near the site and the department

proposes to develop tourism facilities including sitting places and

watching towers for the bird lovers to watch these migratory birds.

The Tourist Department has also agreed that this 12 bigha of land

would be appropriately fenced and the funds available under the

MGNREGA Scheme would be used for said purpose.

7.

There are three water bodies in the area which are essential

for the birds to nest. At present there is inadequate water in

these three water bodies.

8.

In view of the compliance report submitted on behalf of the

State, reference wherefor we had made hereinabove wherein the

commitments by the State have been referred the only further

direction which needs to be issued is that the State would ensure

that the three water bodies are filled with adequate water from

the month of August each year and it be ensured that adequate

water remains in three water bodies till the month of February of

the next ensuing year. Learned Senior Counsel appointed as

Amicus Curiae states that there is a lift canal passing by at a

distance of about 2-3 kilometers from the site of these water

bodies and prays for a direction to be issued that adequate water

be made available to the water bodies from the lift canal. Learned

counsel for the State submits that the State would ensure adequate water at the three water bodies and should alternative

source to bring water to the water bodies be available the same

source would be sourced to bring water, failing which the State

would ensure that water from the lift canal is used to augment the

availability of water in the three water bodies from the month of

August each year till the month of February next ensuing year.

9.

Taking on record the commitments of the State referred to

hereinabove and binding the State to the same and passing

additional direction concerning augmenting water at the three

water bodies in the area, we dispose of the writ petition.