https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183932 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. en-us Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183932 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183932