Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Goa, comprising M. S. Sonak and Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ., heard a public interest litigation filed by The Goa Foundation through its Secretary Dr. Claude Alvares against the State of Goa, Goa State Board for Wildlife, Chief Wildlife Warden, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, National Tiger Conservation Authority and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The petition sought directions to notify Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary and other contiguous forest areas as a tiger reserve under Chapter IV-B of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and to set up anti-poaching camps at strategic locations in the wildlife sanctuaries and national park of Goa. The litigation arose from longstanding efforts begun in 2011 by the Central Government and NTCA to persuade the State to notify the area as a tiger reserve, particularly after a tigress and three cubs died from poisoning in January 2020 and four tigers died in total, leading to concerns that delays made Goa a 'death trap' for tigers. The judgment notes that India's tiger population declined from about 40,000 in 1947 to an estimated 3,167 in 2023, with about 35% of tigers outside declared reserves, underscoring the need to protect corridors and source sites. The petitioner relied on Section 38-V(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, arguing that the word 'shall' made it mandatory for the State to notify a tiger reserve on NTCA recommendation, and cited NTCA communications including those dated 31.03.2016, 04.02.2020 and 29.09.2022 as binding. The petitioner pointed out that the State forest authorities had already prepared proposals, but the State Board for Wildlife stalled them at least twice. NTCA supported the petitioner, stating its communications were both recommendations under Section 38-V and directions under Section 38-O(2) of the Act and thus binding on the State. The State, through the Advocate General, clarified it was not opposed to notifying the area as a tiger reserve but argued the time was not right because further studies were needed and forest dwellers' rights had to be settled entirely. The State also pointed out that final notifications under Section 26-A of the Act had not been issued for five out of six sanctuaries or national parks, except Cotigao Wildlife Sanctuary, making further steps premature. The State contended that NTCA communications were mere suggestions or advice, not backed by NTCA resolutions, and that Section 38-V(1) was directory because no consequence was prescribed for non-compliance, relying on State of UP v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastav, Kailash v. Nanhku and B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick. The State further argued that the notification procedure involved three stages under NTCA Guidelines 2012, namely advice, in-principle approval and final approval, none of which had been completed. The court recorded these submissions and factual assertions, including expert reports on mismanagement and the recommendation that further delay may turn Goa into a 'death trap' for tigers. The judgment was reserved on 10 July 2023 and pronounced on 24 July 2023. The available portion of the judgment ends with the State's arguments and does not include the court's final analysis, holding, or operative directions.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Tiger Reserve Notification - Statutory Duty to Notify on NTCA Recommendation - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 38-V(1) - The petitioner contended that Section 38-V(1) uses 'shall' and imposes a mandatory duty on the State Government to notify an area as a tiger reserve upon NTCA recommendation; the State argued the provision is directory because no consequence is prescribed for non-compliance and relied on State of UP v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastav, Kailash v. Nanhku and B.P. Khemka Pvt. Ltd. v. Birendra Kumar Bhowmick. Held - Not mentioned (Paras 6, 9-13). B) Wild Life Protection - NTCA Directions and Recommendations - Binding Nature of Communications - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Sections 38-O and 38-O(2) - NTCA contended its communications dated 31.03.2016, 04.02.2020 and 29.09.2022 constituted directions under Section 38-O(2) and recommendations under Section 38-V, both binding on the State; the State contended these were only suggestions or advice and not backed by NTCA resolutions, requiring three-stage procedure under NTCA Guidelines, 2012. Held - Not mentioned (Paras 9-10, 13-14). C) Wild Life Protection - Declaration of Sanctuary - Precondition of Final Notification - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 26-A - The State argued that final declaration under Section 26-A had not been issued for five out of six sanctuaries/national parks, except Cotigao Wildlife Sanctuary, and therefore further steps to notify the area as a tiger reserve were premature; the petitioner and NTCA pressed for immediate action despite this. Held - Not mentioned (Para 12). D) Environmental Law - Conservation Measures - Tiger Corridors and Anti-Poaching Camps - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Chapter IV-B - The petitioner sought directions for anti-poaching camps staffed round the clock in wildlife sanctuaries and national park of Goa, citing poisoning deaths of four tigers and expert reports on mismanagement; the court noted tiger population decline and importance of protecting corridors. Held - Not mentioned (Paras 1-5, 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State of Goa is legally obligated to notify Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary and other contiguous areas as a tiger reserve under Chapter IV-B of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 following recommendations or directions of the National Tiger Conservation Authority; whether NTCA communications constitute binding directions under Section 38-O(2) or mere suggestions; whether Section 38-V(1) is mandatory or directory; whether absence of final notification under Section 26-A makes the petition premature
Law Points
- Statutory duty to notify tiger reserve on NTCA recommendation under Section 38-V(1) Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972
- binding nature of NTCA directions under Section 38-O(2)
- mandatory vs directory interpretation of 'shall'
- necessity of final notification under Section 26-A as precondition
- protection of tiger corridors and anti-poaching measures
