Environment law -Assignment

Submitted by: M.P.Kousalya

BBA.LLB(Hons)
17BBLB027
7th Semester, 4th Year
Submitted to: Prof. Ramya Prakash
Environment law
Date of submission: 11/11/2020
CMR SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES
1. P is in possession of deerskin meant for sale without license. Examine its legality. 
The wildlife (protection) Act,1972 enacted to protect the plants and animal species. This Act
controls the poaching, smuggling, and illegal trade of wildlife animals. In this illustration, P is in
possession of deerskin which was for sale without license. 
Under section 40 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 deals with declaration. It states that no
person with possession, control, or custody of a captive animal (Schedule I, Part II of Schedule
II) can sell any meat, dried skin, deer musk, rhinoceros horn except for prior permission in
writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or authorized officer. 
Under section 44 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 states the dealing in trophy and animal
articles without license prohibited. This section deals with the licensing and states that the person
must take a license before selling any animal meat, trophy, animal article, snake venom, etc.
P cannot sell the deer meat without a license and if he sells, then he will be punished under
Section 51 of the Act, when he will be imprisoned for three years or fine of Rs.25000 or both. 

2. State Government granted a lease, without the prior approval of the Central Government
to a Private Company, were in the land formed part of reserved forest. Analyze if this is
valid.
The State Government had granted a lease without any prior approval from the central
government to a private company. The land is leased as a part of the reserved forest. 
Issue: is the lease land that has a part of a reserved forest leased to the private company by the
state government without central government approval is valid or not?
The term reserved forest can be said as the portion of land under the State government where it
protects the forest, animals, and plant species. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,1980
deals with the restriction on the de-reservation of forest or use of forest land for non-forest
purpose. It states that the State Government or any other authority has the right to grant any land
for “non-forest” use or lease it to a private person without the prior permission of the Central
Government. 
In the case of Kamal Nath Vs Union of India, the Private company (The Span Motels) had
encroached a land that included forest Land. The company had used earthmovers and bulldozers
to turn the river direction. Due to these activities, it led to the flooding of the river which
damaged crores worth property. Permission to the motel was given by the Divisional Forest
officer (The State of Himachal Pradesh). Here the court applied the Doctrine of Trust which
states that common properties such as rivers, seashores, forest land, air, etc. are under the
Trusteeship of the government. The court quashed the lease deed by which the forest land was
leased. 
The case of Nagarahole Budakattu Hakku v. State of Karnataka states that there is an absolute
prohibition on the grant of rights in respect of the part of the "national park" and "reserve forest"
in favor of a company without the prior approval of the Central Government is void and cannot
be acted upon
In the illustration, the lease that is granted by the State Government to the private company
without the prior approval of the Central Government will be Invalid. The under Section 51, they
shall be imprisoned for 15 days and no fine is stated under the Act. 

3. PQR Ltd set up an unauthorized electric fence around their farm to protect from wild
animals. An elephant came in contact with the fence and died. Examine.
The facts of the case are similar to the case Sri Erashetty Vs State of Karnataka. In this case, the
appellant has set up an unauthorized electric fence around his land. One night the elephant from
the adjourning forest came in contact with the live wire and died due to electrocution. The
appellant to get rid of the evidence had buried the dead body of the elephant in a pit. The Court
in the case convicted the appellant under section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910, and under
section 51 of the Wildlife(Protection) Act,1972.  
Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act,1910 states that anyone who dishonestly consumes or
uses energy dishonestly will be punished with an imprisonment that may extend to three years or
a fine of Rs.1000 or both. 
Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972 states that the person who has committed any
offense under the Act will be imprisoned for three years or with a fine of Rs.25,000 or both. 
In the case of PQR Ltd had set up unauthorized electric fence around their farm to protect
themselves from wild animals. Some elephants had contacted the fence due to which they died
from electrocution. Here, PQR Ltd will be held liable under Section 39 of the Indian electric
Act,1910, and Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,1972. 

4. A state government permitted a soft drink company to advertise on the hilly rocks and the
Company accordingly placed huge advertisements. A writ petition was filed challenging
such advertisements. The company however pleaded that they sought permission and
exercised their right to carry on lawful trade. Decide.
In the illustration, the State Government has permitted a soft drink company to advertise on the
hilly rock and the company accordingly has placed a huge advertisement. A writ petition was
filed challenging these advertisements. The company has pledged that they sought permission
and also exercised their right to carry a lawful trade. 
Analysis:
Article 51A (g) of the Indian Constitution states that every citizen of India has the duty to protect
and improve the natural environment and have compassion for all living creatures. Article 48 A
of the Constitution states that the State shall protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forest and the wildlife of the country. The main purpose of the two Articles is to
protect the environment as well as enforce the concept of sustainable development to make sure
there is development but not at the cost of the exhaustion of Natural resources. 
In the case, RLEK vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the hill range of Himalaya was used for carrying
our quarrying, and limestones were extracted by blasting the hills with dynamites. The court
stated that the natural resources cannot be exhausted for development. 
In another case, Sushila sawmill vs State of Orissa, the sawmill was ordered to stop its operation
immediately. The mill company stated that this notice to shut down operations was violative of
their fundamental right to carry out trade and commerce. They had sent a notice for renewal, but
it was rejected. Under this, the court states Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian constitution which
states that any business carried out is a nuisance to the public and the environment can be
stopped on the basis if reasonable restrictions and this is not an infringement of rights to carry
out business or trade.
In the above illustration:
- According to section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act,1980 the State Government cannot give
any permission without the prior approval from the Central Government. Therefore, the
permission given is invalid. 
- The Court may place reasonable restrictions (Article 19(1)(g)) as this advertisement placed on
the hilly rocks can create a nuisance to the public and the environment. 

5. The government of India banned the ivory trade in India and consequently, the ivory
merchants claimed that this was unfair and claimed for disposal of imported articles
before the ban, and for which the Government refused. Decide.
The illustration state that the Government of India banned the trade of Ivory in India and later the
Ivory merchants claimed that this was unfair, and they claimed for disposal of imported articles
before the ban. But the Government of India refused to do this. 
In the case of Indian Handicrafts Emporium vs Union of Indian, the appellant has a business of
manufacturing and selling articles that were made out of ivory. They have imported ivory
between the years 1971 and 1986. During 1977, under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Indian
elephants were brought under the purview. Due to this, there was a ban on the export of Ivory.
With the 1986 amendment, there was a restriction placed on the trade and commerce of wildlife
animals, animal articles, and trophies and with the 1991 amendment, the Act imposed a total ban
on the trade of imported ivory and provided 6 months to dispose of the stocks of ivory that was
held. The appellants challenged the constitutionality of the Act and had contended that ivory for
a long time was legally imported and that the Act violated the right to trade. 
Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, there can be reasonable restrictions placed on
trade and commerce and here the Supreme court stated that the Wildlife (Protection) Act was
indirectly protecting the elephants and the Court dismissed the case.
In the case (illustration), according to section 39 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act deals with wild
animals, to be the property of the Government. Section 39(1) (C) states that the import of ivory
or article made out of ivory is an offense under the Act. Therefore, the Government of India has
the right to refuse the claims according to Section 39 and Article 39.