No JCBs, tipper lorries on Ooty lands
Tags:
The Madras high court has held that use of JCBs, tipper lorries and poclain in Nilgiris district would only trigger landslides in the area endangering the flora and fauna of the area and dismissed a batch of petitions which sought to permit use of such machinery for agricultural purposes.
A division bench of Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and M. Venugopal dismissed the petitions from K. Manthesh Kuttan and eight others and Nilgiri Mavatta JCB & Poclain Owners Association, which also sought clarification of the 2009 order of the high court.
The bench said, “It is well within every prudent man’s knowledge that Nilgiris houses one of the most unique ecosystems in our country and due to various reasons, particularly due to the illegal activities and commercial man’s intrusion into the lives of flora and fauna of the area, the ecosystem of the area is in danger.
This is one of the reasons whey the apex court in a recent judgment banned tourism in core areas of tiger reserve, including Mudumalai tiger reserve.
This shows the need and necessity to protect the ecosystem of the region standing as a beacon light.”
When digging and ploughing for agricultural purposes can very well be done manually, without, in any manner, causing danger to the ecosystem, “we are unable to appreciate the reasons offered by the petitioners that since they are unable to get manpower for agricultural purposes, they want to use JCBs, tipper lorries and poclain for agricultural purposes.
It is the settled law that the larger interest of society should outweigh the interest/benefit of a smaller section of society for the common good of one and all”, the bench added.
“We find no ground either to clarify the order passed in 2009 or to pass any other order or direction, as prayed for by the petitioners, since the district administration of Nilgiris has correctly understood the order of this court and is carrying on the directions issued by this court towards protecting the flora and fauna of the region and any intervention into the same would only amount to watering down the directions issued in 2009, said the bench.
Post new comment