S Manoj Immanuel V Union of India and Ors

WP(MD)No.
19771 of 2018 and 2 cases
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Special Original Jurisdiction )
Wednesday, the Tenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

and
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice N.SATHISH KUMAR
WP(MD) No.19771 of 2018

and
WMP(MD)No.22415 of 2018
and
SUO MOTU 23901 of 2018
and
WP(MD)No.19652 of 2020
WP(MD)No.19771 of 2018:
S.MANOJ IMMANUEL ... PETITIONER

Vs
1.UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE,
INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN,
ALI GANJ, JORBAGH ROAD,
NEW DELHI – 110003.
2.UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
501, C WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI – 110015.
3.THE DIRECTOR OF PROJECT ELEPHANT,

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT,
PARYAWARN BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX,
LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110003.
4.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU,
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI - 600 009.
5.THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,

STATE OF TAMIL NADU,
NO.1, JEENIS ROAD, PANAGAL BUILDING,
SAIDAPET, CHENNAI 600 015.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/18
WP(MD)No.19771 of 2018 and 2 cases
6.THE WILDLIFE WARDEN,

MEGHAMALAI WILDLIFE DIVISION,
KRR NAGAR,
THENI DISTRICT- 625531.
7.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THENI DISTRICT.
8 THE CHAIRMAN,
TANGEDCO,
MOUNT ROAD, CHENNAI.
9.SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
THENI ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE,
THENI DISTRICT.
(*)
R10.THE DIRECTOR,
WILDLIFE CRIME CONTROL BUREAU,
2ND FLOOR, TRIKOOT-I,
BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-600 015.
R11.THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR(SR),

WILDLIFE CRIME CONTROL BUREAU,
C2A, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR,
CHENNAI-600 090.
R12. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION(CBI),
III FLOOR, SHASTRI BHAVAN No.26,
HADDOWS ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM,
CHENNAI- 600 006.
(R10 TO 12 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 13.12.2018 IN WMP(MD)No.22414/2018)
... RESPONDENTS
Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated

therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein
to ensure the safety of the Wild animals by providing by raising the
height of high voltage/ electricity transmission cables passing
through the reserve forest, wild sanctuary, tiger reserve, National
Park and also by insulation of all high voltage/electricity
transmission cables passing through the reserve forest/National park
or convert the high voltage cable to underground cable wherever
possible to prevent the death of wild life within the time frame as
may be fixed by this Hon'ble court and pass such further or other
order.
2/18
PRAYER IN WMP(MD)No.22415 of 2018 :

To Direct wild life crime Control Division and central
Bureau of investigation to constitute special investigation team for
investigation the cases relating to the death of elephants in
Magamalai wildlife division for the post three years and submit
report and take action in accordance with law W.P.(MD) No.19771 of
2018.
SUO MOTU WP(MD)No.23901 of 2018:
THE REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL),

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,
MADURAI. ... PETITIONER
Vs
1 THE PRINICIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

(FOREST DEPARTMENT), CHENNAI.
2 THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,

CHENNAI.
3 THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER,

THENI.
4 THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE,

VANNIYAR RESERVE FOREST,
CUMBUM RANGE, THENI. ... RESPONDENTS
PRAYER IN WP(MD) No.23901 of 2018:
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus or
direction or any other order in the nature of writ a) directing
the respondents to change the low-level electric wire in vanniyar
Reserve Forest, Cumbum Range, Theni District with the help of
officials of TANGEDCO within a time stipulated by the Hon'ble Court.
b)or any other writ or direction or order in the nature of writ as
this Hon'ble Court.
WP(MD)No.19652 of 2020:
BALU RAJASEKARAN ...PETITIONER
- Vs. -
1.UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,
3/18

3.THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU,

REP.BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST,
SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI.
4.THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST/WILDLIFE WARDEN,

REP.BY
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS/
WILDLIFE WARDEN, CHENNAI.
5.THE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGION,

WILD LIFE CRIME CONTROL BUREAU,
RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI.
6.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

O/O THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
7.CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,

TAMILNADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED,
(TANGEDCO) NO.144,
ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-2
8.THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER,

O/O. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER,

KALAKAD MUNDUNTHURAI TIGER RESERVE,
TIRUNELVELI.
10.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

TIRUNELVELI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE,
TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of
Mandamus, to directing the Respondents to take effective measures
for prevention of unnatural death of elephants from extinction by
means of electrocution and other human-animal conflicts and
consequently issue directions for improving the wild animal habitat
works in Tamil Nadu.
4/18
ORDER : These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the

petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing
the arguments of Mr.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate for Mr.R.ALAGUMANI,
Advocate for the petitioner in WP(MD)No.19771 of 2018 and
and Mr.K.SAMIDURAI, Advocate for the petitioner in SUO MOTU WP(MD)
No.23901 of 2018 and Mr.R.VENKATESAN, Advocate for the petitioner in
WP(MD)No.19652 of 2020 and of Mrs.L.VICTORIA GOWRI, Central
Government Standing Counsel for Central Government Officials in all
these petitions, and Mr.SRI CHARAN RENGARAJAN, Additional Advocate
General assisted by Mr.K.P.KRISHNADOSS, Special Government Pleader
for State Government Official in all these petitioins, Mrs.S.
SRIMATHI, Advocate for Mr.S.M.S.JOHNY BASHA, Standing Counsel for EB
for R8 & R9 in WP(MD)No.19771 of 2018, the court made the following
order:-
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]
''Man is the most insane species. He worships an

invisible God and destroys a visible Nature, unaware that
this Nature he's destroying is this God he's
worshipping.''
... Hubert Reeves
2.About 2000 years ago, the Great Thinker, Saint Thiruvalluvar

emphasized the primary function and duty of a human being stating
that a Man, who shares his belongings with fellow living beings and
takes care of them is more virtuous endowed, with wisdom than what
the greatest Literatures would teach.
''gFj;Jz;L gy;YapH Xk;Gjy; E}NyhH

njhFj;jtw;Ws; vy;yhe; jiy. -
To share your food with and cherish all that woes, is the list of
precepts in the Books of the World.''
3.The Universe is sustained by the role being played by living

beings and nature. It is the co-existence, which makes the World a
beautiful place to live. The same logic applies with more vigour to
a Forest. Each specie contributes for the subsistence and
development of the Forest. Any interference with the chain of
biodiversity would visit dire consequence. Such consequence would
not only be felt on the forest, but the World as a whole. The Forest
is not only the lung space, but provider of rain water.
4.Man in his wisdom brought forth by his folly, continues to

turn furtive look, refusing to acknowledge the implication of
selfish adventurism. Any activity in the name of development sans
environmental concern, having a narrow view from the perspective of
one specie, certainly would have its own cascading effect.
5/18
5.An Elephant being a gentle Giant is rightly called as

''Guardian of the Forest''. It is a non-ruminant mammal, not having
a multi-chambered stomach. As a result, a substantial part of intake
of food comes out after undergoing an element of change enriching
the Forest. The Elephant dung produces beetles, which, in turn, help
cycle nutrition in the soil. It also contains Algae and Fungi
assemblage, apart from functioning as an excellent compost. It
actually grows the Forest, as the same contains seeds of trees and
plants sowed at different places, as it spreads from one area to
another. Being an intelligent animal, it also provides water by his
ability to identify to dig a water source. Additionally, it prunes
the Forest by removing the death wood, leaves and branches of trees.
6.Continuous poaching of male Elephants affects its population

rather adversely. The ratio between the male and female Elephants
has already got reduced. For survival, many male Elephants do not
develop tusks, a situation brought forth by the credence of man. It
is reported in many places, including Sri Lanka that male Elephants
called ''Magna'' are more prevalent recently. Healthy Elephant
population would certainly mean a healthy Forest with respect to
flora and fauna, animal population including carnivorous.
7.With the above understanding of the need to protect the

Elephants and forest, we would now deal with the case on hand.
8.Though in all these Writ Petitions, different prayers have

been sought for with respect to protection of the Elephants from
electrocution, taking into consideration the indiscriminate poaching
going on unabated and taking note of the prayer in W.M.P.(MD)
No.22415 of 2018 in W.P.(MD)No.19771 of 2018, wherein transfer of
investigation is prayed, relating to the death of the Elephants.
Accordingly, a series of orders were passed by us. These orders
pertain to the prevention of electrocution and poaching and the
review of the steps taken and required to be taken. In one such
order, dated 01.11.2018, we directed the Wildlife Crime Control
Bureau, Chennai, to file a report after making an intensive study
keeping in mind the mandate of Section 38-Z of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''].
9.The following is the order passed by us, on 01.11.2018:
''The petitioner seeks a detailed enquiry on the

death of 7 elephants in Megamalai Wildlife Division
and 12 elephants in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve.
2.Though it is claimed that the elephants died of

electrocution, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that a detailed enquiry is
required, as similar incident may take place.
3.In our considered view, the concern expressed
6/18
by the petitioner is very serious. Therefore, we

direct the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Chennai, to
investigate into the matter and file a report before
this Court within a period of twelve weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4.The Registry is directed to post this matter

after twelve weeks.''
10.Similarly, another order has been passed by us directing the
very same authority to file a report towards the prevention of
electrocution. We further directed the Principal Chief Conservator
of Forests to have a meeting with the Chairman of TANGEDO to stop
and prevent the accidents occurring by electrocution.
11.The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Chennai, filed two

reports on two different dates, viz., 23.09.2019 and 29.03.2019,
pertaining to poaching of Elephants and prevention of electrocution.
We wish to first deal with the report, dated 23.09.2019, on the
poaching of Elephants.
12.The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau made an extensive study,

which is inclusive of review of the cases filed already. Statements
have been obtained from various persons including the accused both
arrayed and proposed. A Chart has been furnished indicating the
involvement of different persons at various levels. They are,
accordingly, divided with the accused, who had actually committed
the offence at the bottom and the main Kingpins at the top. We deem
it appropriate to reproduce the particulars furnished by the
Wildlife Crime Control Bureau on the same day.
''Poachers
From Kerala From Tamil Nadu
Vasu (Expired) Kubendran

Singam
Nagaiah
Vanaraj
Middle Men Siva
Sendrayan
Preston Silva Selvakumar
Chakka Ravi Bose
Rajasekaran Nair Thangam
Dasan Anbazhagan
Thangarajan Rangan
Udyasankar Chandran
Elangovan
Stalin
Mani
http://www.judis.nic.in Sudevan
7/18
Pandi
Jose
Middle Men
Babu Jose Benny Joseph
Aji Bight
Main King Pin of Tamil Nadu
Aji Bright
Main King Pins of Kerala
Aji Bright Eagle Rajan Preston Silva
Main King Pins of India
Mumbai Delhi Calcutta
Thanvachi @ Sindu
Pi Mundi Umesh Agarwal
Sudhi (Husband)
Ajessh (Son)''
13.We would like to take only a sample case, by reproducing the
statement of one another accused by name, Eagle Rajan, as under:
''1.In the year 1995-96 – Eagle Rajan received Rs.8

Lakhs from S.K.Bangur, owner of S.K.Paper Mills,
Calcutta, for the supply of Ivory artifacts.
2.In the year 1995-96 – Eagle Rajan received Rs.30

http://www.judis.nic.in Lakhs from Kamal Murah Babu Bichu, Gun Metal owner for
8/18
the supply of Ivory statue.
3.In the year 2010-2011 – Eagle Rajan handed over

hundred Kg of two pairs of tusk (4 pieces) to
A.C.Muthiah of Adyar Villa, Chennai. He has sent two
artisans namely Kumar of Kumarapuram (Thiruvanathapuram)
and Vijayan of Marthandam to the residence of
A.C.Muthiah at Adyar Villa. Both of them were stayed for
four months and carved Mahabaratha and Krishna Leela
statues of Ivory for A.C.Muthiah.
4.In the year 2012 – Eagle Rajan received Rs.5 Lakhs

from Pooja Dalmia. Prithviraj Road, New Delhi, for an
Ivory statue.

from Sanjiv Goenka and Preethi Goenka, for an Ivory
statue.

from Ashok Poddar of Poddar Group, for an Ivory statue.
7.In the year 2012 – Eagle Rajan received 13.5 Lakhs

from Susheela Nagotia, Alipur Road, Calcutta, for an
Ivory statue.
8.In the year 2013 – Eagle Rajan handed over Ram

Darbar Ivory statue to A.C.Muthiah at Adyar Villa.

from Anitha Hemanth Singha, Birla Mandir, Gurusafari
Road, Calcutta, for an Ivory statue.
10.In the year 2013 - Eagle Rajan received Rs.7

Lakhs from A.C.Burman / Ashok Burman, Dabur House, New
Delhi, for an Ivory statue.
11.In the year 2013 – Eagle Rajan received Rs.4.5

Lakhs from Sonal Modi, Khan Market Road, Delhi, for an
Ivory statue.''
14.A copy of the diary of the said Eagle Rajan, having made
addresses and mobile numbers of his customers, was also enclosed in
Annexure -15. Under Annexure – 16, a Statewise and Countrywise
abstract of the phone numbers of customers was annexed.
15.From the above, it appears that the crime which happened on

ground in the forest over a decade prior to 2015, got extended
beyond the boundaries of not only the State but also the Country. It
further indicates the network involved across such boundaries.
Therefore, we are not dealing with a mere case of poaching, but also
9/18
a demand created by customers, whose names would double up only

after investigation, other than the names we have already recorded.
The investigation also further reveals that the details of the
transactions, inclusive of transfer of money through Bank Accounts.
The greed of the man could well be seen from the transactions that
happened. It is not a mere case of poaching for livelihood, but a
trading on wildlife driven by the sadistic pleasure of man. We do
not wish to say anything more. The report speaks for itself.
16.Having perused the records, we sought for response from the

respondents, giving sufficient time and after furnishing the
reports.
17.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the

State produced materials to show that at least, in couple of cases,
arrests have been made.
18.The persons mentioned in the report are numerous hailing

from different places and their roles are also different. The
arrests made is with respect to a few cases and that too, at the
bottom level. Suffice it to state that middlemen and Kingpins are
left untouched. We do not know whether it is an oversight or
design. Suffice it to state that even after the report having been
addressed, the respondents turned a furtive look feigning ignorance.
These cases involve investigation crossing the borders as indicated
earlier. Thus, we are not in a position to agree with the
submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General that
further investigation would be made with the co-operation of the
nearby State. Under the Wile Life (Protection) Act, 1972, not only
the poaching but also mere possession is an offence.
19.Now, prima facie, poaching has happened on orders being

placed to carry out the work for different purposes. Therefore, it
is a demand, which made the accused persons, who have been charged,
to undertake the said exercise. The quantity of ivory recovered
appears to be a large. For example, in one case, 300 Kgs. of ivory
was ordered and handed over. The statement made would show that
eight Elephants have been killed at a time. Though the report also
suggests that ivories have been removed from the electrocuted
Elephants, we are at a loss to understand as to why only the male
Elephants could get killed more than the female Elephants and calf
also died.
20.The incidental question is that as to how the accused could

have access to the tusks as against the Department. We do not know
as to how they could have access to the male elephants died of
electrocution. Forest is protected through the Forest Guards and
Forest Watchers. How such deaths escape from their watchful eyes is
a mystery. Though it raises a serious concern, we do not wish to go
into it being in the realm of speculation.
10/18
21.The question may arise on the role of the Court in such

cases and power available under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI] to take up
the investigation. We have already stated that the crimes indicated
do not restrict themselves to the State of Tamil Nadu alone, though
the poaching per se is taken place here. The issue is no longer res
integra. A similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Moti Lal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2002
Supreme Court 1691. The question for consideration was, as to
whether the investigation over the various offences can be
transferred and thereafter, investigated by the CBI. The Hon'ble
Apex Court after extensively construing Sections 50 and 55 of the
Act vis-a-vis Section 4(2) Cr.P.C., was pleased to hold that the
said Act merely facilitates a Designated Officer of the Forest
Department to inspect and file a report. We may profitably
reproduce the following paragraphs for better appreciation:
''10. Further, considering Sub-section (1) of Section 50,

it is apparent that under the Wild Life Act, the Director or
any other officer authorised by him in this behalf or the
Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer or any
Forest Officer are empowered to exercise the powers mentioned
in Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c). Not only this, but it
specifically empowers the Police Officer not below the rank
of Sub-Inspector to inspect, conduct search or hold inquiry
or seize articles. as provided in Clauses (a), (b) and (c).
This would certainly mean that the Police Officers are not
excluded from investigating the offences under the Act. Sub-
section (1) starts with a non-obstante clause that
'notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force' which would include the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the Officers mentioned therein are also
entitled to inspect, search or seize the articles mentioned
in Clauses (a), (b) and (c). This would mean that apart from
the Police Officers not below the rank of Sub-Inspector,
other officers as mentioned as mentioned above are given
special powers for the purpose of prevention and detection of
the offence under the Act.
11. Similar, Sub-section (8) empowers the officer not
below the rank of an Assistant Director of Wild Life
Preservation or Wild Life Warden for the purposes of making
investigation into any offence against any provision of the
Act:- to issue search warrant; to enforce the attendance of
witnesses; to compel the discovery and production of
documents and material objects; and to receive and record
evidence. Further Sub-section (9) provides that evidence
recorded by such officer would be admissible in the trial if
it is taken in presence of the accused person. But this would
have no bearing on the question whether the Police Officers
11/18
are entitled to investigate the case or not.
12. As provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 50

'police officers' are not excluded for the purpose of
investigation including inspection, search and seizure of the
offending articles. No doubt, special powers are conferred to
other officers but that is in consonance with Sub-section (2)
of Section 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 4 of the
Code reads thus:-
"4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code

and others laws. - (1) All offences under the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired
into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the
provisions hereinafter contained.
(2) All offences under any other law shall be

investigated inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt
with according to the same provisions, but subject to
any enactment for the time being in force regulating
the manner or place of investigating inquiring into,
trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.''
The aforesaid section inter alia specifically provides that

all offences under any other law shall be investigated,
inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to
the Code of Criminal Procedure but it shall be subject to
any enactment for the time being in force regulating the
manner or place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or
otherwise dealing with such offences. In view of specific
provision under the Wild Life Act, apart from the police
officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, the Director or
any other officer authorised by him in this behalf or the
Chief Wild Life Warden or authorised officer or any Forest
officer can inspect, conduct search or inquire, seize
article mentioned in the Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-
section (1). To this extent, there is contrary provision
under the Wild Life Act and would prevail as provided under
Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
14. In our view the aforesaid judgment has no bearing in

the present case. As stated above, the Central Government
has issued notification dated 21.3.2000 under Section 5 read
with Section 6 of the Act empowering the CBI for
investigation of the case against the appellants under the
Wild Life Act and Indian Penal Code. The scheme of Section
50 of the Wild Life Act makes it abundantly clear that
Police Officer is also empowered to investigate the offences
and search and seize the offending articles. For trial of
offences, Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be
followed and for that there is no other specific provision
12/18
to the contrary. Special procedure prescribed is limited for

taking cognizance of the offence as well as powers are given
to other officers mentioned in Section 50 for inspection,
arrest, search and seizure as well of recording statement.
The power to compound offences is also conferred under
Section 54. Section 51 provides for penalties which would
indicate that certain offences are cognizable offences
meaning thereby police officer can arrest without warrant.
Sub-section (5) of Section 51 provides that nothing
contained in Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
or in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 shall apply to a
person convicted of an offence with respect to hunting in a
sanctuary or a national park or of an offence against any
provision of Chapter 5-A unless such person is under 18
years of age. The aforesaid specific provisions are contrary
to the provisions contained in Code of Criminal Procedure
and that would prevail during the trial. However, from this,
it cannot be said that operation of rest of the provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure are excluded.
15. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in

the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant that Section 50 of the Wild Life Act is complete
Code and, therefore, CBI would have no jurisdiction to
investigate the offences under the said Act. Hence, it
cannot be said that the judgment and order passed by the
High Court rejecting the petition filed by the appellant is
in any way illegal or erroneous.''
22.Thus, the power of the Police Officer to investigate is not

excluded. Furthermore, the offence under the Arms Act would also get
attracted. In this connection, we may note that under Section 56 of
the Act, other laws are not barred. Therefore, there is no
difficulty for issuing appropriate direction on construing Section 4
(2) Cr.P.C. with Sections 50 and 55 of the Act conjointly. In this
connection, we may note that the Government of Tamil Nadu in
G.O.Ms.No.1239, Forest and Fisheries Department, dated 17.12.1985,
has issued notification authorizing the officers above the rank of
Sub-Inspector of Police in the Forest Cell Criminal Investigation
Department to lay complaints before the competent Court for taking
cognizance of offences under the said Act.
23.Though the report submitted by the learned Additional

Advocate General appearing for the State on behalf of the District
Forest Officer, Coimbatore, suggests the action taken, they do not
deal with the specific case as projected by the Wildlife Crime
Control Bureau nor the subsequent action taken against the middlemen
and the Kingpins. Therefore, despite the fact that it has been
brought to the notice by the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau as early
as on 23.09.2019, nothing fruitful happened. The submission made by
the learned Additional Advocate General that this delay is because
13/18
of the fact that some of the middlemen are in Kerala will not hold
water, as no steps have been taken towards the same apart from not
making any attempt to investigate those who are available here. The
report suggests, the persons, who are in possession of the tusk and
quantity of the ivory, which are subject matter. Suffice it to
state that there is a studied reluctance, apart from logistics,
which may not facilitate the respondents from a thorough
investigation, as it involves examining the persons from different
States and possibly outside the country as well.
24.Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the

petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.19771 of 2018 submitted that considering
the report, which suggests that poaching took place pursuant to the
demand made, one can seriously infer that they are meant to be sent
to abroad. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submitted that in some of the foreign countries, they are still in
high demand and they are used for different purposes. We do not
wish to go into the said statement made, as it is for the
investigating agency to do so.
25.Having arrived at a conclusion to direct the CBI to take up

the investigation, we, accordingly, posed a question to
Mrs.L.Victoria Gowri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India
on the investigation to be taken up by the said Agency. The learned
Assistant Solicitor General of India fairly submitted that
considering the gravity of the offence committed and the involvement
of persons hailing from different parts of the country, the
direction issued by this Court would be complied with by undertaking
the investigation.
26.There are two different types of cases before us as could be

seen from the report filed. In some cases, no complaint has been
filed invoking Section 55 of the Act. In other cases, despite the
information available along with the materials, no steps have been
taken seeking further investigation or re-investigation, as the case
may be. Therefore, in cases, where complaints have been taken
cognizance by the Court, the CBI is directed to take over the
investigation and thereafter, seek the leave of the Court for
further investigation or re-investigation, as the case may be. With
respect to other cases, where no complaint has been given, the CBI
is directed to act in co-ordination with the Wildlife Crime Control
Bureau, Chennai and make investigation and thereafter, file the
complaints. We make it clear that even for the investigation with
respect to the pending cases, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau is
expected to assist CBI, as the entire episode has come to light
pursuant to its thorough investigation done. Furthermore, it is the
competent authority to take the said exercise in tune with Section
38-Z of the Act. The CBI is directed to file a status report on the
investigation to be made on 10.06.2021 before this Court.
14/18
27.While parting with this issue, we make it clear that our

observations are only prima facie in nature. Therefore, they have to
be taken in their own context, which is inclusive of the ones made
against the State Governments and its officials. In this
connection, we may note that the report clearly suggests that the
poaching has been in vogue for over a decade prior to 2015 and
obviously, there are few reported now. The CBI is also at liberty
to have its investigation without being influenced by our
observations.
28.The second issue is with respect to the death of Elephants

by electrocution. The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Chennai, in
its report, dated 29.03.2019, has given a series of suggestions and
recommendations. Those recommendations are oppositely referred to
hereunder:
''Hence WCCB is suggesting that electricity board may

be directed to revisit their entire transmission lines
along the reserve forest, Wildlife Sanctuary, Tiger
Reserves and National Parks in strict accordance with the
guidelines of National Board for Wildlife as stated above.
At needed locations electricity board may consider

rerouting of transmission lines.
The height of the transmission lines shall be strictly

in accordance with the guidelines of National Board for
Wildlife.
Electricity Board may consider erecting of additional

towers to increase the height of transmission lines at
suitable locations.
Electricity Board may consider converting the high

voltage overhead cable to underground cable.
Insulation of high voltage transmission cables which

are passing through the reserve forest may also be
considered.
Most of the Elephants in STR were died due to solar

power fences which are erected around the Purampokku land
which is adjacent to the forest land. Hence, the Revenue
Department may be directed to remove the encroachments and
illegal solar power fences.
The Forest Department in liaison with TANGEDCO shall

monitor the annual maintenance as per the guidelines of
National Board for Wildlife.''
15/18
29.Though the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for

the State submitted that the process of complying with the said
recommendation is on at least with respect to Megamalai Forest
Region and the recommendations are for the entire State, the
recommendations aforesaid take note of two important factors. One
is, the death of Elephant due to overhead line and the other due to
the roles played by individual third parties, including the nearby
private land owners by taking electricity unauthorisedly to charge
their solar power fencing. It appears that the solar fencing are
put up unauthorisedly. These fencing cause death, apart from the
specific activity of the land owners aforesaid. In our earlier
order, we have made it very clear that the stakeholders viz.,
TANGEDCO, Forest Department and the Revenue Department will have to
act in unison to address this issue.
30.Accordingly, we direct the aforesaid three authorities to

take appropriate action conjointly after having a meeting with each
other and file a report before this Court on the action taken.
Though the affidavit filed in one of the Writ Petitions pertaining
to Megamalai Forest Region speaks about the action, that is being
taken, the progress appears to be slow. At this point, the learned
Additional Advocate General submitted that the suggestions made in
the report have been accepted and the consequential work is under
progress at least in respect of Megamalai Forest Region.
31.While recording the said statement, we direct the

respondents to take appropriate steps to give effect to and
implement the report of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Chennai
and file a compliance report before this Court on 10.06.2021.
32.At the cost of repetition, we make it clear that the

aforesaid action would govern the entire forest area in the State of
Tamil Nadu and not restricted to Megamalai Forest Region alone.
Post the matters for hearing on 10.06.2021.
sd/-
10/02/2021
/ TRUE COPY /
/ /2021
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai - 625 023.
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a

web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
16/18
TO
1.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,UNION OF INDIA,

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE,
INDIRA PARYAVARAN BHAVAN,
ALI GANJ, JORBAGH ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110003.
2.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA,

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
501, C WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI – 110015.

4.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU,
ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT,CHENNAI - 600 009.
5.THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,

STATE OF TAMIL NADU,
NO.1, JEENIS ROAD, PANAGAL BUILDING,
SAIDAPET, CHENNAI 600 015.

MEGHAMALAI WILDLIFE DIVISION,
KRR NAGAR, THENI DISTRICT- 625531.
7.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THENI DISTRICT.
8 THE CHAIRMAN,
TANGEDCO, MOUNT ROAD, CHENNAI.
9.SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,
THENI ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE,
THENI DISTRICT.
10.THE PRINICIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

(FOREST DEPARTMENT), CHENNAI.
11.THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, CHENNAI.
12.THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER, THENI.
13.THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE,

VANNIYAR RESERVE FOREST,
CUMBUM RANGE, THENI.
17/18
14.THE SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA,

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,
15.THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU,

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST,
SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI.
16.THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST/WILDLIFE WARDEN,

REP.BY
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS/
WILDLIFE WARDEN, CHENNAI.
17.THE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGION,

WILD LIFE CRIME CONTROL BUREAU,
RAJAJI BHAVAN, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI.
18.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

O/O THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.
19.CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,

TAMILNADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LIMITED,
(TANGEDCO) NO.144, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI-2
20.THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER,

O/O. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER,

KALAKAD MUNDUNTHURAI TIGER RESERVE, TIRUNELVELI.
22.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

TIRUNELVELI ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CIRCLE,
COPY TO:
THE REGISTRAR JUDICIAL(I/C)
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER IN
WP(MD) No.19771 of 2018
and
WMP(MD)No.22415 of 2018
and
SUO MOTU 23901 of 2018
and
WP(MD)No.19652 of 2020
Date :10/02/2021
SMN2
TK/VR/SAR.1/17.02.2021/18P/24C
18/18

S Manoj Immanuel V Union of India and Ors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S Manoj Immanuel V Union of India and Ors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WP(MD)No.

19771 of 2018 and 2 cases

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH

WP(MD) No.19771 of 2018

S.MANOJ IMMANUEL ... PETITIONER

1.UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

2.UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

3.THE DIRECTOR OF PROJECT ELEPHANT,

4.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

5.THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,

6.THE WILDLIFE WARDEN,

7.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

R11.THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR(SR),

R12. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated

PRAYER IN WMP(MD)No.22415 of 2018 :

SUO MOTU WP(MD)No.23901 of 2018:

THE REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL),

1 THE PRINICIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

2 THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,

3 THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER,

4 THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE,

PRAYER IN WP(MD) No.23901 of 2018:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

BALU RAJASEKARAN ...PETITIONER

2.THE DIRECTOR OF PROJECT ELEPHANT,

3.THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU,

4.THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST/WILDLIFE WARDEN,

5.THE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGION,

6.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

7.CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR,

8.THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER,

9.THE WILDLIFE WARDEN,

10.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

ORDER : These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the

[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]

''Man is the most insane species. He worships an

2.About 2000 years ago, the Great Thinker, Saint Thiruvalluvar

''gFj;Jz;L gy;YapH Xk;Gjy; E}NyhH

3.The Universe is sustained by the role being played by living

4.Man in his wisdom brought forth by his folly, continues to

5.An Elephant being a gentle Giant is rightly called as

6.Continuous poaching of male Elephants affects its population

7.With the above understanding of the need to protect the

8.Though in all these Writ Petitions, different prayers have

9.The following is the order passed by us, on 01.11.2018:

''The petitioner seeks a detailed enquiry on the

2.Though it is claimed that the elephants died of

by the petitioner is very serious. Therefore, we

4.The Registry is directed to post this matter

11.The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, Chennai, filed two

12.The Wildlife Crime Control Bureau made an extensive study,

From Kerala From Tamil Nadu

Vasu (Expired) Kubendran

Babu Jose Benny Joseph

Main King Pin of Tamil Nadu

Main King Pins of Kerala

Aji Bright Eagle Rajan Preston Silva

Main King Pins of India

Mumbai Delhi Calcutta

''1.In the year 1995-96 – Eagle Rajan received Rs.8