Heavy Vehicles Allegedly Plying In Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve: Madras HC Seeks State's Response, Suggests To Install CCTVs

Regarding the night traffic ban in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve, Madras High Court has asked the Additional Advocate General to file an affidavit detailing the possibility of CCTV installation at the entry and exit points as well as at every 5 kms in the 27 km Bannari-Karapallam stretch.For the time being, the first bench of Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy has directed the immediate installation of temporary CCTV Cameras at entry and exit points to ascertain the type of vehicles plying in the stretch.Previously, in a public interest litigation filed for effective implementation of a 2019 notification issued by the Erode District Collector banning traffic movement in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve, the Madras High Court had directed that the restriction should come into force from 10 February 2022.According to the Erode District Collector's order, plying commercial vehicles on the stretch of National Highway between Bannari and Karapallam within the tiger reserve from 6 p.m.- 6 a.m. was banned. Similarly, the Collector's order also restrained private vehicles, light commercial vehicles and other four-wheelers from plying on this stretch between 9 p.m. - 6 a.m. with effect from 10 February.While passing the order today, the Court slammed officials responsible for the unfiltered plying of heavy vehicles in the region, disregarding the rules."The difficulty is in the system. This, in turn, creates difficulties for people who are residing in the region.The type of chaos created by your officers, we cannot trust them", Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari orally observed.The Court has also asked AAG J. Ravindran to ascertain if any area in the region is used for commercial purposes, not just agriculture. The AAG will also submit details on the alternative routes that can be utilised for traffic movement. After giving directions about the details that must be included in the affidavit, the Court also warned: "If a false affidavit is filed, we know how to handle the officers."Today, the Court also wanted the affidavit filed by Additional Advocate General J. Ravindran to contain details about whether the electricity supply in the area would allow the installation of CCTV cameras every 5 km. The Court also wanted to know the circumstances under which trolleys weighing over 60 tons were allowed to ply in the region despite the clear signboard at the entry point prohibiting the same.In today's order, the Court has modified its erstwhile order that imposed a complete night-time ban by permitting the movement of vehicles intended for emergency medical requirements at all times through the stretch.The Court took note of the blatant violations when the counsel for P.L Sundaram, N.G.R Prasad, produced photographs of the stretch while contending that the night travel ban must be lifted.The Court also wants details about the functionality of the weighbridge installed in the area to prevent vehicles carrying heavy loads from plying in the region.The Court has also made it clear that if any trolleys exceeding 60 tons is found to be traversing the ghat road that has only 24 feet width in the hills and 30 feet in the plain areas, the defaulting officer would be made responsible."In a road with just the width of 24 feet, if two trolleys are passing through, imagine how difficult it would be, especially at a high altitude. What will the villagers do in an emergency if there is a traffic block on the road?", the Court asked the counsels.The Court also made it clear that this is just an interim order and the final order will be passed after the receipt of the respondent state's affidavit and once the legal arguments of all the counsels are heard. The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on 28 February 2022.Arguments RaisedWhen the Court took up the matter, Senior Counsel A R L Sundaresan, appearing for S. Kannaiyan, argued that the District Collector unlawfully issued the 2019 notification; only the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) could decide on restrictions that could be imposed in National Highways. The District Collector passed the order in 2019 without consulting with NHAI, he submitted.Mr. Sundaresan also argued that there is no alternative route for traffic movement at night time if the traffic ban is strictly imposed in the region. By virtue of this ban, over 80,000 people living in the area has been adversely affected, he added.At this juncture, the Court posed two questions to the counsels concerned: i) What is the law regarding the authority competent to impose restrictions in National Tiger Reserves, and ii) If 80,000 people have been residing in the said area, why was it declared as a tiger reserve.The Court clubbed the two petitions challenging the District Collector's notification and S.P Chockalingam's petition for effective implementation of the Collector's order and heard the parties in the afternoon session.Sundaresan once again iterated that the ban...

Heavy Vehicles Allegedly Plying In Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve: Madras HC Seeks State's Response, Suggests To Install CCTVs

Sebin James

Tags