HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 31633 of 2014 Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mritunjay Singh Solanki Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. 2014/9816,Satish Kumar Rai Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.
This petition which has been filed in the public interest has been continuously monitored by the Court since 1 July 2014. The petition sought the intervention of the Court in regard to the protection of a population of black bucks in the precincts of the garden surrounding the tomb of Akbar at Sikandara in the district of Agra. Black bucks constitute a species listed in Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and are endangered. The petition highlighted several articles in the news media commenting on the death of black bucks over a period of time. On 29 August 2014, this Court expressed concern over news reports that the death of black bucks in the garden of the tomb had considerably increased in 2013. This was borne out by an affidavit which was filed in these proceedings by the Chief Horticulturist of the Archaeological Survey of India.
A counter affidavit was initially filed by the Sub Divisional Officer which indicated that no record was available either with the Archaeological Survey of India or the Forest Department indicating the length of time over which the black bucks were found in the area. Incidents were reported where black bucks were attacked by jackals within the precincts of the garden of the tomb of Akbar. The Court was informed upon its intervention on the issue that a follow up plan was envisaged involving the Archaeological Survey of India, the Forest Department and the District Administration, in which (i) a Committee of three agencies would be constituted to regularly monitor a plan for safety of the black bucks; (ii) a census would be carried out; (iii) visits by Veterinary Doctors would be provided; (iv) the staff of the Forest Department would be assigned with the specific task of managing the animals; (v) watering areas would be cleaned regularly; and (vi) there would be a segregation of the male and female population of black bucks to prevent a further increase in the population. The last of those suggestions appeared to be a rather crude attempt to deal with the issue. The Sub Divisional Officer stated that eventually the black buck population would be shifted in batches to selected natural habitats.
Expressing its concern over the consistent pattern of the destruction of the black buck population in the area, this Court observed as follows:
"We are not satisfied that this proposal is backed by any expert opinion. In fact, the proposal to segregate the males and the females is itself reflective of a haphazard and uninitiated approach to the matter. In the affidavit, which has been filed by the Chief Horticulturist of the Archaeological Survey of India, it has been stated that the Horticulture Division of the Archaeological Survey of India has taken certain steps. From the chart, which is annexed to the affidavit, it is clear and apparent that even in the official figures, there has been a consistent pattern of deaths. ...Here again, we are not satisfied that any serious attempt has been made to deal with the issue or to initiate steps for conservation and protection."
...
We must express our dismay at the manner in which the entire issue has been approached at various levels of the Government. It needs no elaborate reasoning to emphasize the urgent need of taking all suitable measures for protecting the population of black bucks in the area and of ensuring that a proper plan is put into place for protection and conservation."
Accordingly, this Court directed the Chief Wild Life Warden of the State to take immediate steps in coordination with the Forest Department and the National Board for Wild Life. Among other directions that were issued were the following:
"...a general inspection shall be carried out by a sufficiently responsible officer of the National Board for Wild Life, Chief Wild Life Warden of the State, Representative of the Forest Department and Archaeological Survey of India. Thereafter, a perspective plan shall be prepared by the Chief Wild Life Warden in consultation with the National Board for Wild Life and the report shall be filed before this Court within a period of six weeks from today. In the meantime, we specifically assign to the Chief Wild Life Warden of the State the responsibility of ensuring the welfare and safety of the population of the black bucks in the area in question. All the authorities including of Archaeological Survey of India and the State shall act in coordination. The Chief Wild Life Warden of the State shall keep the District Magistrate duly apprised of such steps that are required to be taken so as to enable the District Magistrate to issue necessary directions in that regard."
In the meantime, the Chief Wild Life Warden was directed to take necessary and proper steps for ensuring periodical visits of Veterinary Doctors to ensure the safety and health of the black buck population in the garden of the tomb of Akbar at Sikandara.
On 12 December 2014, a report was filed by the Chief Wild Life Warden, Agra Zone stating as follows:
"... A meeting was convened on 25 November 2014, at which, besides the Chief Wild Life Warden, several other Senior Officials both of the Union and the State Governments were present, apart from a representative of SOAS Agra. The report indicates that the outer wall surrounding the area of the tomb has been damaged at several places, as a result of which, it has been reported, jackals from the surrounding areas enter the boundaries of the tomb thereby posing a danger to the population of black buck which inherits the surrounding area of the tomb.
The Court has been informed that steps are being taken now to close the gaps in the walls to prevent such access to jackals and predators to the area within the boundaries of the tomb. This shall be completed by the next date of listing & a progress report shall be submitted. A Veterinary Doctor has also been deputed to ensure the welfare of the black bucks. In the meantime, it has been stated that a perspective plan is under preparation, under which, it is envisaged that in due course, the black bucks would have to be relocated to a natural habitat after due conditioning to the natural environment. There are also encroachments in the area which have taken place which, it has been stated, are also to be removed. These steps shall, as stated before the Court, be pursued effectively.
We direct that the perspective plan be placed before this Court by 30 January 2015, which shall be the next date of hearing. Once the perspective plan has been received, the Court can consider what directions, would be appropriate to protect the welfare of the black bucks. In the meantime, we direct that the directions which were already issued for the maintenance of the welfare and safety of the black buck, will continue to be observed.
In the meantime, we also direct the Chief Wild Life Warden to carry out a census of the total population of black bucks within the tomb at Sikandara and to place the census report before the Court by the next date of listing."
Subsequently, a further direction was issued on 3 February 2015. The order of the Court noted that a census had been carried out of the population of black bucks and it was found that there were ninety black bucks of which thirty five are males and fifty five are females. In the meantime, in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the outer wall of the tomb was repaired. A perspective plan for the management of black bucks was prepared which was duly approved by the Chief Wild Life Warden and by the Joint Director, Wild Life Protection, Government of India on 11 December 2014. The perspective plan which has been placed on the record indicates that black bucks within the precincts of the Tomb of Akbar at Sikandara were introduced prior to independence by a British Conservationist. Originally one male and one female were introduced and the population today as exists is from that single pair. As a consequence, it has been stated that there has been a considerable amount of in-breeding which has weakened the gene pool and the sex ratio is also found skewed. The presence of the black bucks is without the permission of the Central Zoo Authority. The perspective plan also indicated that the major threat to the black bucks is due to (i) in-breeding; (ii) high density of black bucks; (iii) the menace of jackals; and (iv) toxicity of fodder during the summer months.
The long term solution which has been indicated in the perspective plan envisages the translocation of the black bucks either to a wild or semi wild environment. Phase-I envisages the rescue and relocation of the jackals from within the premises while phase-II envisages the translocation of the black bucks into a suitable wild habitat. In phase-II, it has been envisaged that the process of translocation would have to be carried out gradually after making a health assessment of the population of black bucks and after carrying out an assessment for their being released in the wild. If it is found that the animals are not capable of surviving in the wild, it has been stated that they would have to be introduced into a 'semi-wild' environment. The time period for the implementation of the entire project would be between twelve to eighteen months. The perspective plan also indicates the budgetary outlay involved.
The Court was informed that most of the burrows made by jackals have been closed but were found to have been made again for taking shelter. This indicated to the Court that the jackals within the premises still continue to remain there and their presence would pose a grave danger to the population of black buck, as noted in the perspective plan itself. By the order dated 3 February 2015, permission was granted to the authorities to implement the perspective plan and the Archaeological Survey of India was directed to make budgetary provisions and to provide all assistance that would be required for the implementation of the plan. We directed the Chief Warden Wild Life to oversee the implementation of the plan and to periodically monitor the steps taken to ensure that the perspective plan is implemented with due care and caution. The Court was also informed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Archaeological Survey of India that the authorities of the State, including the District Magistrate have removed all the unauthorised encroachments outside the wall of the tomb. This Court observed that if any other encroachments remain either within or surrounding the wall, the District Magistrate at Agra shall take necessary steps.
On 7 April 2015 this Court noted that in pursuance of the perspective plan, steps were initiated for implementing Phase-I which envisages the rescue and relocation of the jackals from within the premises. The budget was allocated for Phase-I of the project while in respect of Phase-II, the budgetary allocation was awaiting the sanction of the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India. The Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India was directed to take a decision so that the perspective plan could be implemented with a sense of priority. On 19 May 2015, this Court issued directions for the implementation of the perspective plan which had been duly approved by all the competent agencies of the Union and the State Governments.
The Court has now been apprised in an affidavit which has been filed by the Range Forest Officer, Agra that in pursuance of the directions of this Court, an NGO by the name of Wild Life SOS which has to carry out the work of translocation of the black buck population has submitted its plan of action and that the plan would be implemented under the supervision of the Forest Department of the State. Implementation of the plan has commenced and as many as fourteen jackals have been rescued and released into the Baipur Reserve Forest which is a natural habitat, until 21 July 2015. Monitoring is being carried out in the presence of the Divisional Director, Social Forestry, Agra, the Divisional Forest Officer and the Range Forest Officer.
We find from the letter written on 21 July 2015 by Wild Life SOS to the Chief Wild Life Warden that due to the extensive rescue operation and trapping of jackals, some jackals have possibly escaped from the premises. Wild Life SOS has indicated that though the premises are free of jackals, there is a possibility of some of them re-entering. In order to obviate this, it has been stated that a team would be patrolling the area. We direct that in the event it is found that there are any areas from which the jackals have escaped as a result of breaches in the wall, this shall be rectified at the earliest, within one month from today.
The purpose of the intervention of the Court, in these proceedings, has now been substantially fulfilled. A perspective plan has been formulated for the shifting of the population of jackals from within the premises in Phase-I and for the translocation of the black buck population in Phase-II to a natural habitat. An agency has been earmarked for carrying out the work. We now direct that the perspective plan shall be duly and properly implemented. All the authorities of the Union of India and the State Government concerned, including the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India, the Chief Wild Life Warden, the Divisional Director of Social Forestry Agra, the Divisional Forest Officer and the Range Forest Officer, Baipur Range, shall take all necessary steps so that both Phase-I and Phase-II of the perspective plan are duly implemented. Where required, necessary budgetary provisions shall be provided since the perspective plan has already been agreed upon both by the Union and the State Governments.
In the event that any difficulty is faced by any of the implementing agencies in complying with the terms of this order, we grant them liberty to move the Court once again for appropriate directions.
We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.8.2015 VMA (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.) (Yashwant Varma, J.)