Each person is expected to take care of the environment because we are extracting a lot more resources for our own benefits. So, it should be protected upto some extent.
What one is expected to do when any institution discharges the effluent in a sanctuary?
Recently, the Forest Department imposed damages under section 33 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. But the High Court held that the Forest Department can’t impose such damages. Now, they challenged the decision of the High Court in the Supreme Court.
The bench comprising Justice M. R Shah and B V Nagarathna in the case – State of U. P v. Anand Engineering College held that the Forest Department can’t itself impose damages under section 33 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and for that they need to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court to determine the damages.
It was also observed that no notice was issued to the Institution for discharging the effluent in the sanctuary. The Forest Department directly imposed damage under section 33 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
The wide power was also given to chief wildlife warden or appropriate authority that they may pass an order for closure of institutions if they breach or continue to discharge the effluent in sanctuary even after getting notice from the appropriate authority.
Comments are closed.