RATNAKAR SATRUSALYA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State -Opp. party, Mr. C.A. Rao, learned counsel for opp. party no. 10 and Mrs. B. Dash, learned counsel for opp. party no. 11.

(2.) THE backdrop of the initiation of this proceeding is that the petitioner, who claims to be a public spirited civil citizen of the country, seeks intervention of this Court for an appropriate writ/direction to the Collectors of Puri, Ganjam and Khurda districts to demolish the illegal prawn gheries inside Chilika Lake and to prohibit zero nets, bamboo and mechanized diesel motor boats inside the said water area and to avoid noise and water pollution and, more particularly, to save the encompassing ecology, imputing that the Chilika Lake has been callously left unattended by the State Government. It has been alleged that the State -opposite party have failed to keep it free from prawn mafias and to maintain a free zone as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in S. Jagannath v. Union of India and others, : AIR 1997 SC 811, and that though it (State Govt.) is earning revenue of rupees eighty crores from tourism there at annually, it has done nothing meaningful except purportedly handing over the protection of Chilika Lake to opp. party no. 10. The petitioner has stated that neither the State Government nor opp. party no. 10 has any control over the prawn mafias, illegal mechanized motor boats, unauthorized construction of prawn gheries and deteriorating noise and water pollution menace. The State Govt. though in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is required to frame new rules on Chilika policy or to keep free zone therein and ensure against prawn culture or construction of prawn gheries/industries using zero nets, no meaningful vigil has been exercised, as a result whereof, crores of rupees are spent from the State Exchequer every year for eviction of unauthorized prawn gheries. The petitioner has also alleged that due to non -compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision in S. Jagannath's case (supra), everyday in the name of tourism thousands of motor boats are plying on Chilika leaving trail of polluting remnants of the diesel, carbon -dioxide, carbon -monoxide, etc. irreversibly polluting the water of the Lake. The petitioner has imputed as well that in violation of the relevant laws prawn hatcheries have been permitted to be set up by the concerned authorities impinging upon the wildlife forest sanctuary and forest lands to the great detriment of the environment in general. According to him, though representations (Annexure -2 series) have been laid before the concerned authorities ventilating public grievance founded on these violations, the same have remained un -disposed as on date and the illegalities are continuing unabated.

(3.) IN his interim application registered as Misc. Case No. 1698/2014, the petitioner has alleged further that, in the meanwhile, the Collectors of Puri, Ganjam and Khurda districts have illegally recommended for conversion of culture sources into capture sources and to operate the same, have suggested that this be leased out in favour of co -operative societies for the year 2013 -14, thus, exceeding the number of sources contrary to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Jagannath's case (supra) as well as the policy framed by the State Government. Stay of operation of the above recommendations said to be contained in 17.12.2008 (Annexure -A/4) and 23.5.2009 (Annexure -C/4) to the application has been prayed for.