Twitter
Advertisement

Plea to direct TN govt to take efforts to end wild boar menace

A division bench of Justices M Sathyanarayanan and M Sundar adjourned to July 31, the PIL petition filed by one A R Gokulakrishnan, a social activist of Dindigul district after he sought time to implead the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Animal Welfare Board.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court seeking a direction to Tamil Nadu government to pass orders to take steps to end the menace of wild boars that were destroying crops in hilly regions of the state.

A division bench of Justices M Sathyanarayanan and M Sundar adjourned to July 31, the PIL petition filed by one A R Gokulakrishnan, a social activist of Dindigul district after he sought time to implead the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Animal Welfare Board.

The petitioner noted that wild boar (Sus scrofa) population had increased manifold in the hilly terrains of the state.

Around 10 million were breeding in hilly areas and the average life span of the boars were 8 to 10 years and one could see them roaming about with piglets destroying cash crops and plantation crops, causing irreparable loss to the already suffering peasant community in almost all the 12,527 panchayats covering all the districts of Tamil Nadu, he claimed.

Therefore, after sending several representations to the authorities to take steps to end the menace, he had moved the High Court last year.

He said the court had in its March 2016 order recorded the recommendation made by the Principal Chief Conservator to the Home Secretary with respect to the measures to be taken and implement the same upon the latter's order.

However, the Home Secretary has not passed any orders on the recommendation of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, he submitted.

The petitioner said though the recommendation was sent and appropriate approval was sought more than a year ago, no action was taken.

If the Home Secretary was not directed to decide the issue as recorded in the March 15, 2016 order, the petitioner claimed he and the farmers would be greatly prejudiced and subject to irreparable loss, he added.

 

(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement