<p>Hearing a special leave petition (SLP) by B R Deepak, a Bangalore-based advocate and party in person, a Division Bench of Justices R V Ravindran and A K Patnaik ordered the issue of notices to all the respondents, the chief secretary of Karnataka, Union Ministry for Environment and Forests (MoEF), State Forest Department, Central Zoo Authority of India (CZAI), Zoo Authority of Karnataka and principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), Wildlife.<br /><br />When the SLP came up for hearing on Monday, the petitioner submitted that the decision to start night safari in the Bannerghatta National Park was a violation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, where non-forest activities could not be permitted inside forest area. <br /><br />“They have obtained permission from CZAI, which is not a permitting authority at all,” he submitted.<br /><br />The Bench expressed its surprise orally and asked, “Why has the High Court not considered the case even when you have the documents?” However it said it was not necessary to issue a stay as the proposed work had not commenced.<br /><br />On December 30, 2010, the High Court Division Bench of Justices Manjula Chellur and B S Patil cleared the hurdles for night safari stating that it could not interfere in the State’s decision for such a safari. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the proposed night safari was also a violation of Section 35 (6) of the Wildlife Act, which said wildlife habitat could not be diverted for other purposes. <br /><br />The site chosen was an elephant corridor as it included Ragihalli reserve forest, which had been declared an elephant corridor even in the recent Elephant Task Force report ‘Gajah’ which had recommended that the elephant should be named a heritage animal.<br /><br />According to Article 48 A of the Constitution of India, the state had to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.</p>
<p>Hearing a special leave petition (SLP) by B R Deepak, a Bangalore-based advocate and party in person, a Division Bench of Justices R V Ravindran and A K Patnaik ordered the issue of notices to all the respondents, the chief secretary of Karnataka, Union Ministry for Environment and Forests (MoEF), State Forest Department, Central Zoo Authority of India (CZAI), Zoo Authority of Karnataka and principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), Wildlife.<br /><br />When the SLP came up for hearing on Monday, the petitioner submitted that the decision to start night safari in the Bannerghatta National Park was a violation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, where non-forest activities could not be permitted inside forest area. <br /><br />“They have obtained permission from CZAI, which is not a permitting authority at all,” he submitted.<br /><br />The Bench expressed its surprise orally and asked, “Why has the High Court not considered the case even when you have the documents?” However it said it was not necessary to issue a stay as the proposed work had not commenced.<br /><br />On December 30, 2010, the High Court Division Bench of Justices Manjula Chellur and B S Patil cleared the hurdles for night safari stating that it could not interfere in the State’s decision for such a safari. In the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the proposed night safari was also a violation of Section 35 (6) of the Wildlife Act, which said wildlife habitat could not be diverted for other purposes. <br /><br />The site chosen was an elephant corridor as it included Ragihalli reserve forest, which had been declared an elephant corridor even in the recent Elephant Task Force report ‘Gajah’ which had recommended that the elephant should be named a heritage animal.<br /><br />According to Article 48 A of the Constitution of India, the state had to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.</p>
