HC disposes of suo motu proceedings to declare Samanatham tank as bird sanctuary

The Hindu

2 days ago

Disposing of the suo motu proceedings initiated to declare Samanatham tank in Madurai as a bird sanctuary, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Wednesday observed that such decisions have to be taken by the government on the recommendation of the competent authorities and after obtaining expert reports from the authorities concerned.
A Division Bench of Justices S. M. Subramaniam and A. D. Maria Clete observed that no doubt bird migration activities were going on in Samanatham tank in Tirupparankundram. However such decisions have to be taken by the government.
For declaration of the tank as a sanctuary it requires certain procedures to be followed. The High Court may not be in a position to issue a positive direction in the nature of a declaration to declare Samantnam tank as a sanctuary in terms of Section 18 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the court observed.
The court observed that it was of the considered view that authorities may take note of the facts reiterated by the Division Bench of the court while initiating the suo motu proceedings.
The Act contemplates various conditions and circumstances warranting such declaration in public interest. The court, not being an expert body, cannot substitute the expert views and directives of the executives, the court observed and disposed of the petition.
The court in February initiated suo motu proceedings to declare Samanatham tank as a bird sanctuary. The Registrar (Judicial) said that Samanatham tank was a habitat to more than 150 species of birds. These birds species were declared as nearly threatened as per the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN-Red List).
The tank was under the control and maintenance of the Public Works Department. Owing to the biodiversity and unique natural birds habitat, there has been an appeal to protect the waterbody by declaring it as a bird sanctuary under Section 18 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the Registrar said.
The action was necessitated in light of the fact that the birds coming to the waterbody were vulnerable to poaching and easily accessible to the public which gravely threatened the natural habitat of the birds. If the waterbody was declared as a sanctuary, it would be subjected to restriction as to entry in terms of Section 27 of the Act and various other protective measures as envisaged under Chapter IV of the Act, as a protected area, the Registrar said.
Article 48 A of the Constitution ordains that the State should endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wildlife of the country. There was also a fundamental duty cast on every Citizen under Article 51 A (g) to protect and improve the natural environment and wildlife, the Registrar said.