42 illegal resorts in Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve sealed, TN govt tells Madras HC

A case had been filed in the Madras High Court by R Karpagam, an environmental activist from Coimbatore, stating that several illegal resorts were functioning in the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve without the approval of the National Board for Wildlife and the Hill Area Conservation Authority, and that these resorts were causing severe environmental damage in the hill region.
Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (Maalaimalar)
Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (Maalaimalar)
Updated on: 

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court was informed by the Forest Department that 42 illegal resorts operating within the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (STR) have been closed and sealed.

A case had been filed in the Madras High Court by R Karpagam, an environmental activist from Coimbatore, stating that several illegal resorts were functioning in the Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve without the approval of the National Board for Wildlife and the Hill Area Conservation Authority, and that these resorts were causing severe environmental damage in the hill region.


Hearing the case earlier, the High Court had directed the state government to remove the illegal resorts functioning inside the STR and submit a report within four weeks on the implementation of the court's order.


When the case again came up for hearing before Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, the government submitted that an inspection was carried out and among the 53 resorts/farm houses located within the eco-sensitive zone, 11 resorts were found to be running with valid permission and enforcement action was taken against the remaining 42 resorts running without any licence or permission. Petitioner's counsel alleged that the government has yet to take action against several resorts operating illegally.

After the hearing, the Chief Justice directed the government to take further action in respect of other resorts and to file a status report in three weeks.


The resort owners filed petitions challenging the lock and seal notices, stating that the authorities are not taking up the appeals in view of the pendency of this case. The court clarified that the authority is to consider the appeals on their own merits, without reference to the pendency of this writ petition, and posted the matter to April 7.

Related Stories

No stories found.
X

DT Next
www.dtnext.in