Karnataka High Court halts activities in Sharavati Lion-Tailed Macaque Sanctuary over pumped storage project

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday passed an interim order directing that no activities shall be carried out within the boundaries of the Sharavati Lion Tailed Macaque (LTM) sanctuary and eco-sensitive zone in furtherance of the proposed Sharavati Pumped Storage Project.

“We direct that no steps or activities in furtherance of the project shall be carried out on the ground, i.e., within the boundaries of the Sharavati Lion Tailed Macaque (LTM) sanctuary and eco- sensitive zone in the forest, without orders from this court,” a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha said.

The bench was hearing the PIL filed by Akhilesh Chipli, Ravindranath Shanbhogue, and Manohar Kumar CB, challenging the approval granted by the standing committee of the National Board of Wildlife in its 84th meeting for the 2,000 M W Pumped Storage Project.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamat, appearing for the Union Government, and Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, appearing for the State Government, submitted that the PIL is premature as no in-principle approval has been granted by the National Wildlife Board.

It was further informed to the court that there are serious concerns about the project, and the same are yet to be examined.

The petitioners stated that the proposal requires a total extent of 142.763 hectares of land, of which 103 hectares is geographically located inside the Sharavathi Valley Lion Tailed Macaque Wildlife Sanctuary, and 39.715 hectares is within the Eco-Sensitive Zone. The petitioners submitted that under section 2 (26) and section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, any activity within such a sanctuary is strictly prohibited unless it is established to be for the ‘improvement and better management of wildlife.’

The petitioner contended that section 29 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act permits only such activities in a sanctuary as are necessary for the improvement and better management of wildlife. A massive hydro-electric project involving blasting, tunneling, quarrying, transmission corridors, waste dumping, and permanent habitat fragmentation can, by no stretch of interpretation, satisfy this statutory condition, the petitioners claimed.