In WP. No. 15200 of 2023- Madras HC- Madras High Court prohibits Tamil Nadu Government from conducting helicopter tourism in the Nilgiris during Summer Festival due to fragile ecology
Justices Anita Sumanth & M. Nirmal Kumar [17-05-2023]

Read More: Dr. T. Murugavel v Additional Chief Secretary

Simran Singh

New Delhi, May 18, 2021: In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Madras High Court has embargoed the Tamil Nadu government from conducting helicopter tourism in the state’s ecologically sensitive Nilgiris region during the ongoing summer festival in Ooty.

 “The fragile eco-system and vulnerability of this bio-diverse region cannot be the victim of crass commercialism, that too in such an unplanned and careless fashion,” said a Division Bench of Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice M. Nirmal Kumar.

In the case at hand, by way of a PIL, the petitioner had sought a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from conducting ‘heli tourism’ as part of the May, 2023 summer festival in the Nilgiris as advertised by the District administration.

Preliminary Objection

The Court did not agree with the contentions of the respondent that the petitioner being based in the City of Chennai had no locus to move the present Writ Petition and had not established any public interest, thus, was liable to be dismissed. The Bench was of the view that the petitioner had established his connection to Nilgiris by way of owning properties as well as engaging in local activities. It was further stated that “there is no dispute on the position that he espouses public causes frequently and has approached this Court on several occasions raising issues in public interest. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner has a vested right in the matter.” It was noted that the issue raised by the petitioner concerns the use of helicopters commercially for the purpose of tourism in the ecologically sensitive region of the Nilgiris. The protection of the environment, specifically forest lands and various animal and bird species, including endangered ones were undisputedly in public interest. The mere fact that the petitioner normally resides in Chennai would not, stand in the way of the petitioner agitating the matter in public interest. Thus, preliminary objection on maintainability was dismissed.

The issue for consideration was of the fact that whether the respondents had carried out necessary due diligence, prior to embarking on the aforesaid activity

Court Analysis

The Bench noted that the deep impact that a project of this nature would have on the fragile ecology of the District, the dangers of the variable temperature in Ooty on helicopter activity and the dangers in permitting such activity in this topography were matters that were not touched upon by the State

The Court stated that “World over, it is the visual impact of verdant forests, possible sighting of wildlife and the rolling topography that would serve as attractions for heli tourism. Be that as it may, the question of such detail including the proposed route would be relevant only if the project had itself been conceived having regard to all essential and mandatory parameters.”

The Court warned the feasibility of commercial helicopter operations over such an ecologically sensitive region must be very cautiously approached and carefully assessed. The policy in regard to tourism must balance with public concerns, specifically, environmental and wildlife. “Though public interest must prevail to some measure, it must be seen to be in harmony with projects that might have an adverse impact on the environment.” But then the Court also went on to state that heli tourism would have no public use except as a revenue earner to the State.

The Bench observed that there was not a single document that was placed on record that would indicate that clearance or grant of heli tourism project was sought by the Forest officials after consultation with Wildlife wardens of the National Parks/Sanctuaries. “This is not just curious but indicates abject non-application to the relevant considerations on hand. The authorities/administration cannot, but be aware of and sensitive to the special features and demands of the area in which they are posted and serve and the apparent and blatant disregard in this case, leaves us baffled.”

The Bench stated that the scientific literature that had been placed on record by the petitioner reiterated the importance of preservation of this vulnerable area and of the biodiversity to which it was home. Some species of birds fly here for the nesting season and of concern was the disturbance that the helicopter noise will cause. The Bench also agreed with the submission that the breeding season of some of the birds living in that area was around the same time and the disturbance caused by the helicopters would adversely impact the cycle. The behaviour of wildlife including the Elephants for whom this region constituted a critical corridor connecting the two ranges, would also be greatly impacted by this unplanned proposal.

The Court took note of the media reports to the effect that the State administration, in 2018, had banned the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle or Drones, being sensitive to requirements of such bio-diverse and vulnerable areas. All the aforesaid material had not really been considered by the respondents.

The Bench did recognise the fact that they did not posses the technical expertise to pass judgment

upon the finer and detailed aspects of the biodiversity in the Nilgiris or of the deleterious effects of helicopters in that region but stated that there was no requirement of such expertise in the present case. But categorically stated that the respondents had been remiss in rushing to endorse and advertise the heli tourism project even prior to assessing all relevant material, and holding consultations with the Sanctuary wardens and officials of the Forest Department.

In view thereof, the injunction granted on 11-05-2023 with regard to the conduct of heli tourism for the period 13-05-2023 to 30-05-2023 was made absolute and effective for the entirety of the period. This writ petition was thus allowed “with the fond and fervent hope that such projects be implemented cautiously and with sensitivity to all stake holders, particularly the environment and wildlife, such that the ethereal and timeless beauty of the Nilgiris, does continue endlessly.”