M.M. Kumar, ACJ.
1. This order shall dispose of CWP No. 18067 of 2006 and COCP No. 1106 of 2006 because common issues are involved therein. The petitioners have brought forward a common cause in the writ petition by filing this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution which seek directions to the respondents to take appropriate steps to ensure that the life, property and crops of the villagers is protected. They are residents of about 40 villages of Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala, who are harassed by wild animals of reserve forests of the area. The prayer made in the contempt petition filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, is to initiate the contempt proceedings against the respondents impleaded therein for intentionally making false averment in the written statement filed in CWP No. 565 of 2006 and for not complying with the directions issued by this Court.
CWP No. 18067 of 2006
2. The petitioners in CWP No. 18067 of 2006 are the residents of different villages of Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. A stretch of forest area goes parallel to about 40 villages comprising in different ‘Birs’ (forest land). It has dense forest and various types of wild and ferocious animals live in the forest area. As per the provisions of various environmental laws, Forest Act, 1927, Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the forest area and the Wild life has to be protected. For that purpose officers at different levels are deployed. The common grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that the wild and ferocious animals are causing damage to the life, property and crops of nearby villages. Therefore, it becomes imperative on the part of administration to protect the lives, property and crops of the affected persons. In that regard various representations have been made and even resolutions passed by respective Gram Panchayats. A copy of one such representation, dated 19.12.2005, has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Copies of the resolutions passed by 40 villages are also placed on record (P-2 to P-41). In para 6 of the petition, the petitioners have suggested the following methods for protecting the life and property of the villages:-
(i) Fixing of barbed wire (according to the standards of PUDA or PWD, BandR) along the forest;
(ii) Opening of Gaushalas with arrangement of water in the forest itself so that the wild animals remain there only and as a natural course would not come out of the forest.
(iii) Adequate sowing of fodder etc. in the forest itself to meet the needs of the wild animals. This natural course would stop the animals to enter the populated area which becomes evident from the fact that normally the animals do not venture out during rainy seasons when fodder is available in forest.
3. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, though it has been admitted that various ‘Birs’ are situated in Nabha Tehsil where wild animals are found, which are protected under various legislations but it has been denied that the forest area goes parallel to about 40 villages. It has been pointed out that there are three ‘Birs’, namely, Bir Bhadson, ‘Bir Dosanjh and Bir Mehas, which covers the area of 1022.63, 517.59 and 123.45 hectares respectively. These ‘Birs’, in fact, are declared as Wildlife Sanctuaries. Reference has been made to Section 11(1)(b) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, to state that vide notification dated 6.3.2006 (R-1) THE State Government has authorised the SDOs (Civil), including SDO (Civil), Nabha, to issue permit for hunting ‘Rojh’ and ‘Wild Boar’, which are found in abundance in these areas and cause damage to the crops and property. Thus, it has been denied that no care has been taken to protect the life and property of the inhabitants of the adjacent areas of the said ‘Birs’.
4. It has also been denied that the wild animals in the ‘Birs’ have increased tremendously and that they have been causing devastation in 40 villages. It is stated that damage to the crops is caused by stray cattle wandering in the area. In fact, the problem of stray cattle has been created by the local people themselves as the cattle which are not in their use are left free by the villagers, which are also interfering in the habitat of wild animals in the sanctuaries. In para 6 of the reply on merits, it has been pointed out that after the approval of the 11th State Plan and release of the funds by the State Government, the work of fencing of the ‘Birs’ would be started. Moreover, for providing feed and fodder to the wild animals, steps have already been taken by the respondents by plantation of such varieties which are suitable for consumption of the wild animals in the ‘Birs’.
5. On 4.12.2007, when the writ petition was listed for hearing, this Court sought the information that as to how much time the Government would take to fence the area in question and what steps have been taken to supply the water and fodder to the beasts and what varieties of plants have been planted and upto what quantity. The desired information was filed only on 8.8.2008 by way of additional affidavit of Shri R.C. Nayyar, IAS, Financial Commissioner Forests and Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab. It has been stated that there are only six ‘Birs’, which have been declared as Wildlife Sanctuaries in Patiala district, namely, Bir Motibagh, Bir Bhunerheri, Bir Gurdialpura, Bir Dosanjh, Bir Mehas and Bir Bhadson. Out of these ‘Birs’, only three ‘Birs’ i.e. Bir Bhadson, Bir Dosanjh and Bir Mehas relate to the present case, which are under the jurisdiction of Chief Wildlife Warden, Punjab. It has been further submitted that under the 11th Five Year Plan provision has been made for grant of Rs.500 lacs under the scheme known as “Ft 5.10 – Providing fencing to Wildlife Sanctuaries Bir Gurdialpura, Bir Bhunerheri, Bir Bhadson, Bir Aishwan, Bir Mehas and Bir Dosanjh”. Out of the said grant, Rs.100 lacs were released in the year 2007-08 for carrying out the fencing work in Bir Bhunerheri and the process of inviting tender was started. According to the respondents as per the estimation up to March 2008, there would be requirement of funds to the tune of Rs.895 lacs for fencing of Bir Bhunerheri, Bir Bhadson, Bir Mehas, Bir Dosanjh and Bir Bhore Agol. The fencing work would be completed within one year of allocation and release of funds.
6. In para 5 of the said affidavit it has been further asserted that during the last five years, 2,59,000 plants of various trees such as Arjun, Kikkar, Neem, Shisham, Jamoa, Mulberry, Jamun, Mesquite, Dhak, Pipal and Bohr etc. have been planted in Bir Bhadson, Bir Dosanjh and Bir Mehas Wildlife Sanctuaries. This is apart from the natural vegetation which is available in the said sanctuaries to feed the wild animals. There is also adequate provision of drinking water for wild animals.
7. Thereafter another affidavit dated 27.11.2008 was filed in compliance with the order dated 23.9.2008, disclosing that apart from the funds of Rs.100 lacs, which were released during the year 2007-08, another sum of Rs.100 lacs were released during the year 2008-09. Accordingly, the process of fencing of Bir Bhunerheri and Bir Mehas Wildlife Sanctuaries was initiated, which was to be completed by 31.3.2009. The State also received grant of Rs.4.90 lacs under Plan Scheme “Cs-3 Assistance for the Development of Sanctuaries for the year 2007-08” for the fencing of Bir Gurdialpura Wildlife Sanctuary. In para 5 of the affidavit the detail of the area covered for plantation in different ‘Birs’ has also been furnished.
8. In the latest status report, dated 1.5.2012, it is stated that out of the provision of Rs.500 lacs, which was made in the 11th Five Year Plan, only Rs.1.00 crore were released. In addition thereto another sum of Rs.1.00 crore were made available under the Rural Development Fund. The work of fencing was undertaken by the Forest Department and out of total periphery area of 84.4 Kms of the Wildlife Sanctuaries in Patiala District, 31.65 Kms periphery has been fenced and 52.75 Kms is yet to be fenced. It has also been disclosed that the fencing work has received jolt due to inadequate budget and procurement of Chain Link, which is required for fencing. It is stated that on 20.3.2008 tenders were invited and the order for supply of chain link was placed on M/s Apple Weld Mesh, Solan. But the material was found substandard and, thus, rejected by the department on the recommendation of the Departmental Purchase Committee. The matter is subjudice in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patiala and the same is fixed for 8.6.2012. In February 2011, another tender was awarded in favour of M/s Partap Wires (India) Pvt. Ltd. Damtal (HP). But the contract could not materialise because the said party was not agreeable to the condition of testing of material stipulated by the Department. In June 2011, the Chain link has re-tendered but the rates quoted by the firms were far in excess of DGSandD Rates. Accordingly, it has been decided to place orders for supply of chain link with the firm which is approved under the DGSandD Rate contract. But the concerned firm is also not agreeable to the condition of testing of material stipulated by the department. In this way, only 37.5% of the total periphery could be covered by fencing. In this scenario the State Government has now decided to procure the material and got the Chain link fencing work done on “Through Rate” basis. It is estimated that in case the requisite funds are made available to the Department in time then the work would be completed by 30.4.2013 over the remaining 52.75 Kms of the Wildlife Sanctuaries of Patiala District. This is, however, subject to availability of additional budget of approximately Rs.14 crores during the 12th Five Year Plan.
9. Along with the affidavit, the respondents have also placed on record the status of the case titled as Apple Weld Mesh, Solan v. State of Punjab, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patiala, since 14.11.2008. Even a Civil Revision Petition No. 2744 of 2011 was filed in this Court by the Forest and Wildlife Preservation Department against the order of the CivilJudge, dated 18.11.2010, which was disposed of on 8.2.2012 and as noticed above the case is now fixed for 8.6.2012.
COCP No. 1106 of 2006
10. At this stage, it would be pertinent to notice some of the facts of the said contempt petition. The grievance of the petitioner- Sukhdeep Singh Bajwa is that various schemes were launched in the State of Punjab for plantation of trees so that the forest cover in the State could be increased. It is alleged that under various schemes thousands of crores of rupees are received by the State Government. But the money is pocketed by the respondents. After obtaining information under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner has stated that a soft loan of Rs.650/- crores was granted by Japan for plantation of trees in the State of Punjab and only a sum of about Rs.43 crores was spent in 64 villages by the Forest Department in Hoshiarpur Division alone. The petitioner has also agitated the issue of felling of trees in contravention of the undertaking which was given by the respondents in the Public Interest Litigation bearing CWP No. 565 of 2006, filed by him. In the said petition, prayer was made for investigation of illegal felling of trees from the Central Bureau of Investigation. The respondents in the written statement took the stand that pending the final outcome of the petition and conclusion of vigilance inquiry, the Forest Department would not issue any permit for felling of trees unless the same is explicitly permitted by this Court. However, despite the said undertaking, the respondents issued permits for felling of trees and transportation of wood of the trees.
11. On the other hand, in their reply to the contempt petition, the respondents denied the allegations and brought on record various orders passed by this Court. In fact on 23.2.2006, some observations were made by this Court with regard to four permits granted by the Forest Department for felling 605 dead/dry trees. There was no direction issued on that date as is evident from subsequent order dated 7.9.2006, passed by the Division Bench clarifying that “as there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner, the State Government is at liberty to proceed in the matter as per law”.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper books, especially the affidavit dated 1.5.2012, filed by Shri D.S. Bains, IAS, Financial Commissioner Forests and Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Forests and Wildlife Preservation, we are satisfied that adequate measures have already been undertaken by the respondents for the fencing of the periphery areas of various ‘Birs’ in District Patiala. About 31.65 Kms periphery has already been fenced and the remaining area measuring 52.75 Kms. is likely to be fenced. The respondents have been able to illustrate adequate reasons both financial and other for non-completion of the fencing work. One of the reason given is pendency of a civil suit in the Civil Court at Patiala, as has been noticed in the preceeding para 9. Therefore, we are of the considered view that Civil Suit No. 307T/15.11.2008, titled as M/s Apple Weld Mesh Industries v. State of Punjab and others, which is stated to be pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patiala, needs to be decided expeditiously. Accordingly, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, is directed to dispose of the aforementioned suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from today. Thereafter, in respect of Bir Bhunerheri Wildlife Sanctuary the work of fencing shall be taken up depending on the result of the suit either by the contractor, namely, M/s Apple Weld Mesh Industries or by floating new tender as per the decree of the Civil Court. In respect of sanctuary for which there is no litigation pending or no stay order passed by any Court is operating, the respondent department shall undertake the work of fencing expeditiously and finish the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The State Government shall allocate necessary funds for the purpose expeditiously for completion of work within the period of one year.
13. These petitions stand disposed of.
14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.