Wildlife protection and pipeline routing: habitat impacts require case-specific scrutiny, not an automatic bar under the Act.

Section 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was read as separating prohibitions on destruction or removal of wildlife from prohibitions on damage to habitat, with the State Government's satisfaction requirement applying to the first category and not automatically to every habitat-affecting activity. Laying pipelines was treated as an activity that does not invariably destroy wildlife, so each proposal must be assessed on its facts using expert environmental reports, management plans and safeguards to keep any impact reversible and minimal. On the stated facts, the permission process had been substantially completed, conditions had been imposed, and expert opinion indicated only temporary, localized impact, so authorization for the pipeline through the sanctuary was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether pipelines carrying crude oil may be permitted through a sanctuary or national park under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and whether the permission granted to the appellant for laying the pipeline was valid.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was read in the light of constitutional directives to protect the environment and the need to balance ecological protection with development. Section 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was construed as containing distinct prohibitions: destruction, exploitation or removal of wild life from a sanctuary on the one hand, and destruction or damage to habitat, or deprivation of habitat, on the other. The requirement that the State Government be satisfied that the activity is necessary for the improvement and better management of wild life was held to apply to the first category and not automatically to every activity affecting habitat. The Court further held that laying of pipelines does not, by itself, invariably amount to destruction of wild life, and that each proposal must be examined on its own facts with the aid of expert environmental reports, environmental management plans, and safeguards to ensure that any damage is reversible and minimal. On the facts, the permission process had been completed in substance, the State Government had applied its mind, imposed conditions, and expert bodies had advised that the impact would be temporary and localized; there was no expert finding of irreversible ecological damage or destruction of wild life.

Conclusion: Permission for laying the pipeline through the sanctuary could be granted on the facts of the case, and the appellant was entitled to formal authorization under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

---