Representation seeking immediate action for violations regarding serious and continuing violations of the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, occurring within the legally protected landscape of the Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary.

Send Complaint Email

Reference:

1. Eco Sensitive Zone Notification of Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary dated 13.04.2017.

2. RTI reply by Kudremukh Wildlife Division dated: 10.03.2026.

3. RTI reply by PDO - Kolluru Gram Panchayath dated: 15.02.2026.

4. Letter from RFO, Kolluru Wildlife Range dated: 29.03.2025.

5. Letter from Taluk Health Officer dated: 01.04.2025.

6. Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary Notification dated: 27.12.2011.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court Order dated 26-04-2023 in WP(C) 202 of 1995, IA No. 131377 of 2022.

Respected Sir/Madam,

This representation is submitted to bring to your kind attention regarding serious and continuing violations of the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) Notification and the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, occurring within the legally protected landscape of the Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary.

The facts reveal systematic illegal commercial activities, habitat disturbance, and pollution, coupled with the complete failure of statutory authorities and the ESZ Monitoring Committee, resulting in ongoing ecological degradation.

1. Clear Violation of ESZ Notification.

As per the ESZ Notification dated 13.04.2017 (Ref. 1), including Page No. 33 (Sl. No. 32) and Page No. 35 (ESZ Map), the entire Kolluru village falls within the notified Eco-Sensitive Zone.

The ESZ Notification mandates:

Strict regulation of commercial and developmental activities
Prior scrutiny and approval through the ESZ Monitoring Committee
Continuous monitoring and enforcement of environmental safeguards

However, in blatant violation:

Large-scale commercial activities have been permitted and established within the ESZ
No regulatory scrutiny or environmental safeguards have been enforced
Activities have proceeded without approval of the ESZ Monitoring Committee

This renders all such activities illegal, unauthorized, and void ab initio, being in direct contravention of the ESZ Notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

2. Failure of ESZ Monitoring Committee – Statutory Breakdown.

The ESZ Monitoring Committee, constituted under the Notification, is legally responsible for:

Monitoring land-use changes
Regulating prohibited and regulated activities
Preventing ecological damage

In the present case:

The Committee has failed to exercise any oversight
Illegal constructions and commercial establishments have been allowed to proliferate
No action has been taken to prevent sewage discharge or environmental degradation

This amounts to:

Failure to discharge statutory obligations
Administrative negligence and dereliction of duty
Complete breakdown of ESZ governance mechanism

3. Illegal Commercial Permissions – Established Illegality.

The RTI reply (Ref. 2) from Kudremukh Wildlife Division confirms:

No approvals were granted for commercial establishments (2016–2026)

Contradictorily:

RTI reply (Ref. 3) from PDO, Kolluru Gram Panchayat confirms:
- ~50 commercial permissions granted within ESZ

This clearly establishes:

Illegal exercise of authority by the Gram Panchayat
Bypassing of statutory ESZ framework
Suppression and misrepresentation of material facts

All such permissions are non est in law and liable for immediate cancellation.

4. Direct Violations of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

The ongoing activities within and around the sanctuary constitute serious offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972:

Section 29:
Prohibits destruction, exploitation, or diversion of wildlife habitat without prior approval of the State Government and the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL).
→ The construction of commercial establishments, discharge of sewage, and resulting ecological disturbance clearly amount to habitat degradation without mandatory approvals, making such activities illegal per se.
Section 33:
Mandates strict regulation of activities by the Chief Wildlife Warden—failure of enforcement is evident.
Section 51: Provides for criminal liability, including imprisonment and fine, for violations.

Thus, concerned responsible officials are liable for prosecution.

5. Pollution of the Souparnika River within Sanctuary Limits.

The discharge of untreated sewage into the Souparnika River, which flows through the sanctuary, constitutes a serious ecological and legal violation.

Official findings confirm:

Direct sewage discharge (RFO, Ref. 4)
Water is highly contaminated, foul-smelling, and unfit for ecological use (Taluk Health Officer, Ref. 5)

This results in:

Degradation of aquatic ecosystems
Threat to wildlife dependent on the river
Violation of habitat integrity within the sanctuary

Such acts also violate:

Section 24 of the Water Act, 1974
Sections 25 & 26 (absence of mandatory consent)

6. Violation of Environmental Principles and Carrying Capacity Norms.

The ongoing violations also contravene:

Precautionary Principle
Polluter Pays Principle
Protections under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Further, as per Ref.(7), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 26.04.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995 (I.A. No. 131377 of 2022) has categorically held that “the purpose of declaring Eco-Sensitive Zones around National Parks and Sanctuaries is to act as a shock absorber for the protected areas.” This judicial mandate underscores that ESZs are intended to insulate and safeguard the core protected area from external anthropogenic pressures.

However, in the present case concerning the Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary, the complete failure and dereliction of duty by the ESZ Monitoring Committee and other concerned authorities has defeated the very object of the ESZ Notification. Instead of functioning as a protective buffer, the ESZ has been rendered ineffective, resulting in unchecked commercial activities, pollution, and ecological disturbance, which are now directly impacting the sanctuary itself. Consequently, the wildlife and habitat within the sanctuary are being adversely affected, defeating both the statutory intent of the ESZ framework and the binding directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Unregulated development within the ESZ has occurred without any assessment of carrying capacity, resulting in:
- Unsustainable ecological pressure
- Long-term environmental degradation

PRAYER

In view of the above clear violations of ESZ Notification and Wildlife (Protection) Act, it is most respectfully prayed that the competent authority may be pleased to:

a) Initiate prosecution under Section 29 read with Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

b) Declare all commercial permissions within the ESZ as illegal and void ab initio.

c) Fix accountability of the ESZ Monitoring Committee for failure to discharge statutory duties.

d) Immediately halt all ongoing commercial activities within the ESZ of the Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary.

e) Order demolition/removal of all illegal constructions.

f) Take strict action under the Water Act, 1974 for pollution of the Souparnika River.

g) Ensure immediate stoppage of sewage discharge to the river.

h) Impose environmental compensation under the Polluter Pays Principle.

i) Fix personal liability of erring officials, including recovery of damages.

j) Constitute an independent expert committee for ecological damage assessment.

k) Direct production of all records and approvals granted within the ESZ.

In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that appropriate action be taken in the interest of law, ecology, and public interest.

Temple tourism: pilgrimage waste pollutes Mookambika riverhabitat Karnatakawildlife sanctuary: Sewage from temple tourism in Kollur is flowing into Souparnika river, affecting Mookambika Wildlife Sanctuary in Udupi district and threatening forest habitat and species in Western Ghats. Officials seek action under wildlife law.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse