Consider If Further Conditions Warranted For Permitting Use Of Forest Land For Non-Forest Purposes Like Film Shoot: Kerala HC To Govt

Justice Viju Abraham, held thus,

“The respondents are also directed to consider whether any further additional conditions need be imposed in the matter while granting permission to use the forest for non-forest activities like the one done in the present case, so that no damage is caused to the forest and wild life. With the above said direction WP(C) No.7107 of 2020 is disposed of.”

The Petitioner is the General Secretary of an NGO called Animal Legal Force Integration. The allegation raised by the petitioner was that permission was granted for shooting ‘Unda’, a Mamooty starrer Malayalam movie in Parthakochi and Karudukka Reserve Forest under the Kasargode Range Forest. The Petitioner contended that damage was caused due to the film shooting and diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes, which is violative of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court raising his grievance in Angels Nair V The Principal Secretary To Department Of Forest & Wild Life (WPC No. 1645/ 2019. In the earlier writ petition, the Court had directed the Central Government to conduct a “deep seated enquiry" in the matter and to take appropriate action in accordance with law and also to rectify the damages without affecting the ecosystem and the natural attire of the forest. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change then submitted a report detailing remedial action. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the report by the respondents.

Arguments

The petitioner submitted that the recommendations given in the report submitted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate were not complied with. One of the recommendations was that the forest officials have to act in due diligence to ensure proper monitoring shooting in the forest land once the permission was granted. The petitioner submitted that no action was taken against the forest officials who did not act in good faith. The report also stated that soil dumped on the road inside the forest by the movie company has to be removed by the forest department and costs incurred can be recovered from the movie company. The petitioner argued that no positive steps were taken to remove the soil from the roads inside the forest.

The respondents submitted that based on the earlier writ petition, a Committee was constituted that conducted enquiry, submitted report and directions were also issued on that behalf. It was submitted that there was no permanent diversion of forest land and there were no major damages to the forest area due to the shooting of the movie. It was also submitted that the Committee had informed the State Government that it can take action against forest officials for dereliction of their duties and based on this direction, show cause notices were issued against the then Divisional Forest Officer, Range Forest Officer and Section Forest Officer.

It was also submitted to the Court that steps have been taken to modify the Government Order G.O(MS) No.37/2013/F&WLD dated March 30, 2013 that permits film shooting by incorporating changes based on the report submitted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change.

The Central Government also submitted before the Court that there were no prima facie violations under the Forest (Conservation) Act or other laws.

The state government also submitted that film shooting was undertaken in the forest land after obtaining permissions and there was no violation of any laws, no trees were fallen, no roads were newly constructed, nor any land was cleared for the shooting of the movie.

Findings of the Court

The Court based on the afore submissions found that the necessary action has been taken based on the directions issued by the report submitted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate change. It further directed the government to consider whether any further additional conditions have to be issued while granting permit to use forest land for non-forest purposes to ensure that no damage was caused to forest land and wildlife from such non-forest activities.

Along with the present writ, the Court also considered another writ petition filed by the Range Forest Officer against whom disciplinary action was initiated by the Government based on the recommendation in the report submitted by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

The Forest Range Officer submitted that permission and sanction for film shooting was given by the Government on the basis of the recommendation of the higher officials and that he has no involvement in it. It was also submitted that he had opposed to the film shooting from the beginning itself. The Court found that the Forest Range Officer performed his duties with utmost sincerity and truthfulness. The Court on finding that there was no dereliction of duty on the part of the Forest Range Officer and that now he has retired from service also, quashed disciplinary proceedings against him.

Case title: Angels Nair V The Principal Secretary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 432

Case number: WP(C) No. : 7107 Of 2020

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocate Angels Nair

Counsel for the respondents: Advocates P Vijayakumar, Manu S, Special Government Pleader T.P. Sajan

Case title: N Anil Kumar V Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 432

Case number: WP (C) No. 7059 Of 2020

Counsel for the petitioner: Advocates K P Pradeep, T Thasmi

Counsel for the respondents: Advocate P Vijayakumar, Special Government Pleader T P Sajan