Centre For Environmental Law, Wwf-I v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The order consolidates directions on numerous Interlocutory Applications (IAs) concerning wildlife-related matters pending before the court. Central to the proceedings is the role of the National Board for Wild Life (NBWL), whose reports and recommendations are prerequisite for projects or translocations affecting protected species and areas. Because NBWL’s latest reports were not on record, several applications remained undecided. The court therefore issued a series of procedural directions—primarily compelling NBWL, State Governments, and project proponents to file responses, furnish reports, or comply with financial conditions previously imposed. Specific matters addressed include:

• Obtaining NBWL’s updated report on pending applications (IAs 2 & 92) and requiring the Member-Secretary to attend the next hearing.
• Directing the State of Uttarakhand and other respondents to answer the Ministry of Environment and Forests’ (MoEF) affidavit dated 21-7-2008 (IAs 52 & 95).
• Rejecting certain project-related applications because NBWL had already declined the underlying proposals (IAs 78, 79 & 109).
• Seeking a fresh NBWL review of Gujarat’s objections to transferring two lion cubs to Madhya Pradesh (IA 100).
• Requiring National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. (NHPL) to deposit ₹236 crore, including a ₹100 crore corpus for protected-area conservation, as a condition of NBWL’s conditional approval of the Pakal Dul Hydroelectric Project (IAs 114-15).
• Issuing notices, calling for additional responses, or adjourning several other applications to 11-8-2009.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court’s analysis is largely administrative and supervisory:

• Because NBWL’s reports are indispensable for deciding wildlife clearances, the absence of updated reports prevented substantive adjudication; hence, the Member-Secretary was ordered to appear and file the requisite information.
• Where NBWL had already rejected certain projects, the court found no basis to entertain related applications and dismissed them summarily (IAs 78, 79 & 109).
• For the translocation of two lion cubs (IA 100), the court acknowledged that NBWL had earlier supported the proposal after weighing Gujarat’s objections. However, upon receipt of Gujarat’s further affidavit, the court deemed it appropriate for NBWL to “have a fresh look” and, if necessary, hear both States before filing an updated report.
• Regarding the Pakal Dul Hydroelectric Project (IAs 114-15), NBWL had already given conditional consent tied to a financial obligation of ₹236 crore for wildlife conservation. Observing non-compliance, the court directed NHPL to deposit the amount.
• In multiple other IAs, the court either issued notices, granted time for replies to MoEF’s 21-7-2008 affidavit, or simply adjourned the matters to 11-8-2009, underscoring the need for complete pleadings before further orders could be passed.

Holding and Implications

INTERIM DIRECTIONS ISSUED; SELECT APPLICATIONS REJECTED.

The court did not render a final adjudication but:

• Rejected IAs 78, 79 & 109 in view of NBWL’s rejection of the underlying projects.
• Mandated NBWL to update its reports and appear personally, thereby expediting pending wildlife matters.
• Compelled NHPL to deposit ₹236 crore as a pre-condition to proceed with the Pakal Dul Project.
• Set 11-8-2009 as the next date for further consideration of the remaining applications, contingent on parties filing the directed responses.

The order primarily advances case management and enforcement of earlier conditional approvals; it establishes no new legal precedent beyond reinforcing the court’s oversight of NBWL-related clearances.