Madras High Court rules against conduct of heli tourism during Nilgiris summer festival

Justices Anita Sumanth and M. Nirmal Kumar say, the fragile eco-system and vulnerability of this bio diverse region cannot be a victim of crass commercialism that too in an unplanned and careless fashion

Representational image. File | Photo Credit: Akhilesh Kumar

“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,” the Madras High Court remarked on Wednesday, May 17, 2023, while restraining the Tamil Nadu government from permitting heli tourism as part of the ongoing summer festival in the Nilgiris this month.

Justices Anita Sumanth and M. Nirmal Kumar disapproved of the steps taken by Tamil Nadu Tourism Development Corporation (TTDC) and the Nilgiris district administration to grant permission to a private firm for conduct of heli tourism from the Theetukal helipad situated at a distance of about three kilometre from Udhagamandalam.

The judges said the records placed before the court established “the abject sidelining of the forest department, the wildlife wardens (of the tiger reserves and national parks in the Nilgiris Biosphere) and other relevant persons who should have been involved in the decision-making process for a project of this nature.”

The verdict was passed while allowing a writ petition filed by T. Murugavel of Chennai who claimed to be owning properties in the Nilgiris.

The Bench led by Justice Sumanth pronounced the judgment by taking into account the apprehensions raised by Senior Counsel R. Srinivas with respect to the harm that the frequent operation of helicopters, as part of the summer tourism festival, could have on the wild animals and the birds in the fragile eco-system.

“There is not a single document produced before us to indicate seeking of or grant of clearance of the heli tourism project 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 Bench wrote.

The judges went on to state: “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.”