Second non-listing in a month raises uncertainty over timeline
PANAJI
The long-pending matter pertaining to the proposed Tiger Reserve in Goa has once again failed to be listed before the Supreme Court for hearing, marking the second such instance within a month. After it did not come up on March 19, the case was also missing from the Board on April 17, the next date scheduled by the court.
The last hearing in the matter was held on February 16, during which the Supreme Court had granted respondent Goa Foundation (GF) two weeks’ time to file its response to the findings of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The GF has already submitted its reply. However, with the case not being taken up since then, uncertainty continues to loom over the timeline of the proceedings.
During the last hearing, the double bench had noted common practice among Registry Officials whereby relevant Record of Proceedings were found missing from the paper book(s). The Court had apprehended that such actions are being done deliberately and had directed the Secretary General to hold a fact-finding inquiry and submit a report to the Chief Justice of India.
The Supreme Court is hearing the State’s plea challenging the Bombay High Court at Goa order directing the State to notify Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary and surrounding areas as Tiger Reserve. The Court had accordingly directed CEC to conduct study and submit its report.
The Goa government in its affidavit challenged the CEC recommending notifying Tiger Reserve covering 468.60 sq km of protected forest areas in the State during the first phase.
The proposed reserve includes Netravali Wildlife Sanctuary, Cotigao Wildlife Sanctuary, and parts of Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park.
The State in its affidavit argued that the proposal is based on an erroneous understanding of law, lacks empirical backing, and ignores the State’s right to decide conservation measures best suited to its unique geography and social conditions.
It cautioned that direct notification of a tiger reserve in Goa would be “superfluous” and could trigger serious unintended consequences and that the report’s observations are riddled with contradictions and “non-application of mind”.
