In a PIl filed in 2013, the High Court of Uttarakhand has ordered fresh appointment of the State chief wildlife warden after creation of the post as per procedure.
According to the petitioner, PFA Uttarakhand member secretary Gauri Maulekhi, the HC Bench comprising Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and Justice VK Bisht has also sought clarifications from the State Government on the selection of the Corbett Tiger Reserve honourary warden and from the Animal Husbandry Department about the two personnel claimed to have been deputed by the department to the Forest Department for wildlife necropsies. The HC has given the authorities four weeks to respond.
It will be recalled that information received under RTI Act in 2013 had revealed that the office of the principal chief conservator of forests (Wildlife) had no Government Order regarding the appointment of the CWW. After this was revealed, the department had issued a GO appointing SS Sharma as the chief wildlife warden on backdate. PFA Uttarakhand had then filed a PIl against this and alleged anomalies in the management of Corbett. According to Maulekhi, the HC on Wednesday directed the fresh appointment of the CWW after creation of the post according to due procedure. She informed, “In view of allegations against Corbett honourary warden Brijendra Singh, the HC has sought clarification from the State government on the grounds for appointing him to this post. Regarding the affidavit submitted by the director of Animal Husbandry department on deputation of two veterinarians to the Forest Department for wildlife necropsies, the HC has sought clarification as only one personnel was found deputed,” said Maulekhi.
It will be recalled that last year wildlife activists had alleged that Sharma had violated the law by ordering shooting of leopards declared man-eaters and other problem animals as there was no GO on his appointment. As the CWW is authorised to order killing of problem animals and as only the government can nominate an officer to this post, the activists had alleged that in absence of his appointment as required by procedure, he had violated the law.