ORDER : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate steps as mandated under Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 enforce the recommendation of National Tiger Conservation Authority to declare Bhoramdeo Sanctuary as tiger reserve and the Chilpi range as buffer zone as recommended by National Tiger Conservation Authority. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any further orders, as it may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner, who claims himself to be a social activist and who has been working for protection of environment and for the conservation of wildlife, has filed this petition against abrogation of recommendation of National Tiger Conservation Authority (for short, the NTCA) to declare Bhoramdeo Wildlife Sanctuary (for short, BWS) as a Tiger Reserve and Chilpi Range as buffer zone as is evident from the communication of Under Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Chhattisgarh to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Forest Department, Government of Chhattisgarh dated 09.04.2018. Similar communication has been sent by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Government of Chhattisgarh to Assistant Inspector General of Forests, NTCA, Government of India. The act of the State authorities in not complying with the recommendations of the NTCA is illegal as it is mandatory under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (for short, the Act of 1972) for the State to comply with the recommendations of the NTCA to declare any area as a Tiger Reserve. 3. The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the NTCA vide its order No. 1-12/2018 dated 28.07.2018 recommended Forest Department, Government of Chhattisgarh to declare BWS as a Tiger Reserve. Furthermore, upon the said recommendation of NTCA, the Government of Chhattisgarh also constituted an expert committee for the determination of core and buffer area. In the above mentioned meeting, in-principle, approval was given by the Government of Chhattisgarh to make Bhoramadeo Sanctuary into a Tiger Reserve. In the 10th meeting of the Chhattisgarh State Wildlife Board on 14.11.2017 the proposal for declaring BWS as a Tiger Reserve was discussed in which various parameters in regard to core and buffer zone of Tiger Reserve were finalized and the amended proposal was sent to NTCA. In the 10th meeting of the Chhattisgarh State Wildlife Board on 14.11.2017 the proposal for declaring BWS as a Tiger Reserve was discussed in which various parameters in regard to core and buffer zone of Tiger Reserve were finalized and the amended proposal was sent to NTCA. On 09.04.2018, the Under Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Chhattisgarh abrogated the proposal to declare Bohramdeo Sanctuary as Tiger Reserve because the amended proposal did not contain the document in regard to the consultation with the concerned Gram Sabha as prescribed under Section 38-V (4) (ii) of the Act of 1972 and the same was intimated to the NTCA. The task of consulting the Gram Sabha has to be undertaken by the State Government. The recommendation to declare BWS as Tiger Reserve has been annulled by State Government for non-performance of a statutory obligation which was to be undertaken by State Government itself. The State Government cannot abrogate the recommendation, as every authority, as per Section 38-O(2) of the Act of 1972 is bound to comply with the direction of the NTCA in regard to conservation of tigers and their habitat. 4. Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the BWS is situated in Kawardha District of the State and being adjacent to Kanha National Park, it holds out the promise of long-term landscape conservation by facilitating the movement of wildlife through the Kanha-Achanakmar corridor. The importance of the area can be gathered from the report of NTCA titled 'Assessment Report on the Proposed Diversion of 19.62 hectares of Forest Land from BWS for upgradation of Chilpi-Rengakhar-Salhewara Road' wherein the NTCA specifically stated that the road is passing through a wildlife sanctuary and important tiger corridors that connect Kanha Tiger Reserve Indravati Tiger Reserve- Navegao Nagzira Tiger Reserve and Tadoba Tiger Reserve. The long term survival of these important tiger populations and of those others threatened and endangered wildlife like the Leopard, Sloth Bear, Dhole and Gaur depend on the existence of their populations in the metapopulation framework. For a metapopulation existence habitat connectivity in form of minimal "tiger corridors" identified by NTCA are absolutely essential. The report, while describing the geographical location of the Sanctuary, further states that it shares the boundary with Kanha Tiger Reserve Madhya Pradesh, an important Tiger Reserve of Central Indian landscape. For a metapopulation existence habitat connectivity in form of minimal "tiger corridors" identified by NTCA are absolutely essential. The report, while describing the geographical location of the Sanctuary, further states that it shares the boundary with Kanha Tiger Reserve Madhya Pradesh, an important Tiger Reserve of Central Indian landscape. BWS is a part of connecting link between (1) Kanha Tiger Reserve to Indravati Tiger Reserve, and (2) Kanha Tiger Reserve to Nawagaon Nagzira Tiger Reserve and Tadoba Tiger Reserve. The importance of the area for conservation of tigers can be gathered from the fact that the NTCA in its appraisal report for Chilpi Salehwara road passing through BWS and while suggesting the mitigation measures has suggested pipe culverts at every 100 metres section of the road and other strict mitigation measures. 5. Ms. Dangi draws the attention of the Court to Section 18, 38-K, 38-L, 38-V of the Act of 1972 and states that a bare perusal of the above provisions would clearly entail that it is the State Government which shall notify any area as a Tiger Reserve, but the State Government shall do so on the recommendation of NTCA. It is further clear from the language of the provisions of Section 38-V of the Act that it is mandatory for the State to declare any area as a Tiger Reserve once it is recommended by the NTCA and there is no power vested in the State Government to reject the proposal of the NTCA. On 23.05.2017 the Chhattisgarh State Wildlife Board, in its ninth meeting, gave in principle approval to declare BWS as a Tiger Reserve and also constituted a 6- member expert committee for the purpose of determining core and buffer zone of the Tiger Reserve as per the provisions of the Act of 1972. Thereafter, on 14.11.2017 the Chhattisgarh State Wildlife Board, in its 10th meeting, accepted the recommendation of the expert committee regarding core and buffer zone with certain modification and which was forwarded to NTCA. As per the provisions of the Act of 1972, the State Government, has to constitute an expert committee under Explanation to Section 38-V(4) of the Act, to declare an area as core or critical tiger habitat and peripheral and buffer area for declaring any area as a Tiger Reserve. As per the provisions of the Act of 1972, the State Government, has to constitute an expert committee under Explanation to Section 38-V(4) of the Act, to declare an area as core or critical tiger habitat and peripheral and buffer area for declaring any area as a Tiger Reserve. Therefore, in compliance of the provisions of the Act, the State Government vide order dated 17.07.2017 constituted an Expert Committee under Section 38-V of the Act. 6. Ms. Dangi further submits that a bare perusal of the provisions of Explanation to Section 38-V(5) of the Act would show that the State Government has to constitute and Expert Committee and in consultation with such expert committee notify any area as Critical or core area for a Tiger Reserve. However, while notifying any area as buffer area of a Tiger Reserve the State Government has to consult Gram Sabha in addition to the Expert Committee for the reason that co-existence between wildlife and human activity with due recognition of the livelihood, developmental, social and cultural rights of the local people could be promoted. However, vide memo dated 04.04.2018 the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) has stated that since the consultation from Gram sabha has not been done by the Expert Committee and no records in this regard is available, therefore it is not possible to consider the declaration of the BWS as Tiger Reserve under the provisions of the Act of 1972. Thereafter, vide letter dated 09.04.2018, the Under Secretary to the Government of Chhattisgarh informed Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), Chhattisgarh that the recommendation to declare BWS as a Tiger Reserve has been abrogated because there was no document in relation to consultation that is required to be done as per Section 38-V (4) (ii) of the Act of 1972 with the concerned Gram Sabha. Pursuant to the above-mentioned communication, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife Management & Bio-Diversity Conservation Cum-Chief Wildlife Warden), Chhattisgarh, vide communication dated 09.07.2018, informed Assistant Inspector General of Forests, NTCA, Government of India, that recommendation to declare BWS as a Tiger Reserve has been abrogated for the reason of there being no consultation with the concerned Gram Sabha. 7. Ms. 7. Ms. Dangi next submits the petitioner filed a representation before the Member Secretary, NTCA on 01.06.2018 regarding the contention raised in instant petition and after the representation was made, the NTCA directed the State Government to follow due process and exercise diligence and submit a self contained proposal in accordance with relevant provisions of the Act of 1972 for notifying BWS, for further necessary action at this end. Further, representations have been made by the petitioner to the State Government on 29.12.2018 but the State Government has now shelved the proposal for declaring the BWS as Tiger Reserve which is clear from the newspaper reports. The decision taken by the Chhattisgarh Wild life Board not to declare BWS a Tiger Reserve in its meeting held on 24.11.2019 is bad in law because as per section 38-V(4)(ii) of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 the requirement of law for declaration for Tiger Reserve is only 'consultation with concerned Gram Sabha' and not consent of Gram Sabha. She further submits that consent is required only when there is re-location of the villagers under Section 38-V(5) which is not the case in the instant matter as neither the Chhattisgarh Wild life Board nor the expert body nor the NTCA has opined for relocation of the forest dwellers / villagers, which would require their consent. The respondent State authorities have wrongly interpreted the provisions of section 38-V and denied to declare BWS as Tiger Reserve despite their being two recommendations in this behalf by NTCA i.e. on 28.07.2014 as well as on 07.03.2018. 8. On the other hand, Mr. S.C.Verma, learned Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that after the State of Chhattisgarh being carved out from the State of Madhya Pradesh, vide notification dated 21.08.2001 which has been issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 26A(b) of Act of 1972 published in the Gazette notification dated 07.09.2001, an area of 16380.80 hectare i.e. 163.80 square KM Forest Area of Kawardha Forest Division has been declared as Sanctuary area. In exercise of power conferred under Section 18(1) of the Act of 1972, Department of Forest, State of Chhattisgarh, by notification No. F-8/7/07/10-2 dated 07.09.2007 published in Gazette on 26.10.2007, an amendment has been made wherein the above sanctuary area has been declared as BWS Area, the revenue area of Kawardha, Chilphi, Rengakhar of Kawardha Forest Division and the Revenue Area has been included in it, which is being described as Reserved Forest-22833.12 Hectare, Protected Forest -7469.07 Hectare, Revenue Area- 4822.00 Hectare, total 35124.19 Hectare i.e. 351.24 square KM. In this manner, vide the above notification BWS Area has been defined. 9. In the 9th meeting of Chhattisgarh State Wildlife Board which was convened on 23.05.2017 an in-principal consent has been given for making the BWS into a Tiger Reserve along with it instructions have been given for determining the core area and buffer zone and for constituting an expert committee for the aforementioned purpose. In compliance to the above directions and vide order no. F-08-21/2017/10-2 dated 17.07.2017 issued by the Forest Department of the State of Chhattisgarh, and as per the clarification given under Section 38-V of the Act of 1972 for determining the core area and buffer zone as proposed in the boundaries of Bhoramdeo Tiger Reserve, an expert committee was constituted. On 01.09.2017 a meeting was convened by the expert committee. On 14.11.2017, 10th meeting of the Chhattisgarh State Wildlife Board was convened wherein the expert committee has recommended for making BWS into a Tiger Reserve and a proposal was made wherein the village Salehwara and Loop were removed from the core area and have been directed to keep into buffer zone. The State Wildlife Board accepted the recommendation of expert committee. With this direction, an amended proposal was also recommended and the consent was given to send the amended proposal for the constitution of the Tiger Reserve to NTCA. As per Section 8 of the Act of 1972 "it was the duty of the Wild Life Board to give advise to the State Government" but the proposal till date has not been sent to NTCA. As per Section 8 of the Act of 1972 "it was the duty of the Wild Life Board to give advise to the State Government" but the proposal till date has not been sent to NTCA. A communication has been sent by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur to IG, Forest New Delhi on 09/07/2018 stating therein that though in-principle consent has been given by the Chhattisgarh State Wild Life Board in its 9th meeting convened on 25/03/2017 for establishment of Tiger Reserve and 6 members Expert Committee has also been constituted but it was found that when the Expert Committee interacted with the villagers of the proposed buffer area but no documentation with respect to this proceeding with the Gram Sabha could be received and on account of the lack of consultation with the Gram Sabha as envisaged in Section 38-V(4) (ii), the aforementioned proposal with respect to the declaration of BWS into Tiger Reserve has been cancelled. On 15/03/2019, a communication was sent by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life), Raipur to Secretary, Department of Forest contending that the proceedings in various Gram Panchayats of District Kabirdham has been initiated and the meeting was convened in the Gram Sabha which was as per the direction passed by the Government of India, National Tiger Conservation Tribunal, New Delhi wherein it was directed that, before the dispossession and resettlement of the villages, it is very necessary to get the consent of the local Gram Sabha. As per the proceedings of the Gram Panchayats, the above proposal has been rejected by the Gram Sabha. At present 39 villages are being affected in the proposed Tiger Reserve the population of which is approximately 17566 and if they would be reestablished away from the proposed Tiger Reserve then there would be requirement of suitable government land and approximately there would be a need of Rs.35,132/- Lacs for their re-establishment (At the rate of 5 members per family). As per the amendment made under Section 38-V of Wildlife Protection Amendment Act, 2006 the following provision have been determined. “Section 4:- Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, the State Government shall, while preparing a Tiger Conservation Plan, ensure the agricultural, livelihood, developmental and other interests of the people living in tiger bearing forests or a tiger reserve. Explanation. “Section 4:- Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, the State Government shall, while preparing a Tiger Conservation Plan, ensure the agricultural, livelihood, developmental and other interests of the people living in tiger bearing forests or a tiger reserve. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, the expression "tiger reserve" includes.- (i) core or critical tiger habitat areas of National Parks and sanctuaries, where it has been established, on the basis of scientific and objective criteria, that such areas are required to be kept as inviolate for the purposes of tiger conservation, without affecting the rights of the Scheduled Tribes or such other forest dwellers, and notified as such by the State Government in consultation with an Expert Committee constituted for the purpose; Section 4(ii) buffer or peripheral area consisting of the area peripheral to critical tiger habitat or core area, identified and established in accordance with the provisions contained in Explanation (i) above, where a lesser degree of habitat protection is required to ensure the integrity of the critical tiger habitat with adequate dispersal for tiger species, and which aim at promoting co-existence between wildlife and human activity with due recognition of the livelihood, developmental, social and cultural rights of the local people, wherein the limits of such areas are determined on the basis of scientific and objective criteria in consultation with the concerned Gram Sabha and an Expert Committee constituted for the purpose.” 10. In the light of the aforementioned fact and as per the provisions of the Act, it is very much evident that before declaring an area as Tiger Reserve, an expert committee has to be constituted and a recommendation has to be received from the committee and the area which has to be declared as a Tiger Reserve Area no effect and impact should be made on the tribals residing in the above area and the rights of the forest dwellers should remain unaffected and further a no objection should also be taken from the concerned Gram Sabha. The Member Secretary, Forest Division Office Kawardha, of the expert committee has sought a no objection from the concern Gram Panchayat of the area which is to be declared as Tiger Reserve area but none of the Panchayats has given no objection for the above purpose, and on the contrary they have expressed their anguish on the basis of which, the Forest Division Office Kawardha, vide letter No. 134 dated 16.01.2019 have requested the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to cancel the proposal of declaring the BWS into a Tiger Reserve and on this very basis Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife Chhattisgarh Raipur) has sent an endorsement to the Forest Department State of Chhattisgarh requesting to cancel the proposal. Thereafter, the Forest Department State of Chhattisgarh vide its letter no. F-8- 4/2012/10-2 dated 09.04.2018 have rejected the proposal of the declaring the area as Tiger Reserve on account of the non-compliance of the provisions under Section 38-V, 42 (i) (ii) of Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act 2006, on account of lack of consultation of the concerned Gram Sabha. In order to declare the BWS Area into a Tiger Reserve, all the formalities of the departmental level as per the provisions of the Wildlife Act and Rules has to be completed but the concerned Gram Sabha have not given the no objection and there would be a change in the original character/complexion of the Baiga Tribe as the above tribe is on the verge of extinction and their conservation is a necessity alongwith other Schedule Tribe people who are residing in the forest area would also be adversely affected and it would not be possible to start any development work for the 17,566 people residing in 39 villages and for them, no re-establishment would be possible. The area of BWS is a highly sensitive area abutting which is the border of Balaghat/Mandla region of Madhya Pradesh wherein naxalite activities are going on and it would not to be possible to curb those activities, if the development work would be continuously carried out in the area. Thus, it would also adversely affect the annihilation of the naxalite activities. Thus, it would also adversely affect the annihilation of the naxalite activities. The District Kabirdham is a Left Wing Extremist (LWE) District, which gets a security related expenditure which is utilized in the development work in this naxal affected area so that the naxal activities can be controlled and if the BWS would be converted into a Tiger Reserve, the very development of this particular area would be hampered and it would be having an adverse affect on curbing naxal activities. The Act of 1972 as well as the Schedule Tribe and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 itself requires the rights of people i.e. schedule tribe and other traditional forest dwellers is recognized in forest areas within core/critical tiger/wildlife habitats of Tiger Reserve/protected areas. As per that, the provisions may be modified and resettled for providing inviolate spaces to tiger/wild animal and for that there are various provisions requiring payment of compensation and settlement, but the very identification of tiger habitats as "inviolate areas" to be kept free of humans require a scientific and consultative exercise, but the tribal communities which are to be relocated should be done after giving them compensation needs to be done voluntarily as these forest dwelling communities are living in and are using forest for livelihood for generations and the relocation should be done as per the provisions of Act of 1972 as well as wildlife protection Amendment Act 2006 as also the Forest Right Act as the Forest Right Act, 2006 mandates that once the right to the land inside the Sanctuary or National Park is settled, the State must scientifically prove that the wildlife cannot coexists with humans, the provisions in the above mentioned Act have been legislated to ensure that the tribal are not just thrown off their lands without proper compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with law. The Baiga Community which is on the verge of extinction has also to be conserved and the proposals for declaring the sanctuary as Tiger Reserve should in no way infringe on tribal rights and they should not be denied their rights. Thus, on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 38-V (i)(ii) of Wildlife Conservation amendment Act 2006 the BWS Area cannot be declared as Tiger Reserve. 11. Mr. Thus, on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 38-V (i)(ii) of Wildlife Conservation amendment Act 2006 the BWS Area cannot be declared as Tiger Reserve. 11. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4/Union of India submits that the NTCA is a statutory body under the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, constituted under enabling provisions of the Act of 1972, as amended in 2006, for strengthening tiger conservation, as per power and functions assigned to it under the said Act. The NTCA has been fulfilling its mandate within the ambit of the Act of 1972 for strengthening tiger conservation in the country by retaining an oversight through advisories/ normative guidelines, based on appraisal of tiger status, ongoing conservation initiatives and recommendations of especially constituted committees As such, the NTCA has an overarching role in the matter of tiger conservation. The State Government is mandated with the day to day administration of the field formations within the State as per the Act of 1972. The NTCA assists the tiger range States by hand holding and providing necessary funding support, as proposed by them for protection, strengthening of anti- poaching activities including special strategy for monsoon patrolling, for deployment of anti-poaching squads involving ex-army personnel and home guards, apart from work force comprising of local people, in addition to strengthening of communication and wireless facilities. The importance of the BWS, in context of the Central Indian Tiger landscape, needs to be highlighted a prior. Population Habitat Viability Analysis (PHVA) studies done by the respondents in collaboration with the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun has shown that for a viable tiger population of 80 to 100 tigers, an inviolate space of 800 to 1200 sq km. is required. However, the average Protected Area size in India is only 212 sq. km., which necessitate adopting a landscape approach to tiger conservation, as such small areas shall not be able to hold viable tiger populations. The landscape approach to conservation utilizes the concept of Meta-populations, which is an interconnected population of source and sink areas connected to each other, through corridors. In ecological terms, sources are areas where birth rate of tigers is higher than their death rate and where immigration is higher than emigration. The landscape approach to conservation utilizes the concept of Meta-populations, which is an interconnected population of source and sink areas connected to each other, through corridors. In ecological terms, sources are areas where birth rate of tigers is higher than their death rate and where immigration is higher than emigration. On the contrary, sink areas are the exact opposite wherein death rate of tigers higher than the birth rate and emigration is higher than immigration. Based on availability of welfare factors that foster tiger presence, sources may be connected to sinks, sources may be connected to sources and sinks may be connected to sinks through corridor areas. Keeping in view this ecological requirement, the Act of 1972 was amended wherein Section 38-O(1) (g), in context of functions of the NTCA, was added. In letter and spirit of the aforesaid sections of the Act of 1972, the respondents, during the second cycle of the All India Tiger Estimation, 2010, had highlighted the importance of the BWS as a connecting link in the Central Indian Tiger Landscape. Similarly, in letter and spirit of Section 38-O (1) (g) of the Act of 1972, these respondents along with the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun had published a document titled "Connecting Tiger Populations for Long Term Conservation wherein too, the BWS was highlighted as a part of the Kanha to Nawegaon-Nagzira-Tadoba-Tiger Corridor. Further, in letter and spirit of section 38-V(3)(b) as highlighted earlier, the Tiger Conservation Plan of the Kanha Tiger Reserve has identified the BWS as a part of corridors of the Central Indian Tiger Landscape which include Kanha (Madhya Pradesh). Nawegaon-Nagzira (Maharashtra) and Indravati (Chattisgarh) Tiger Reserves. Keeping in view importance of the BWS in the Central Indian Tiger Landscape these respondents on July 28, 2014 has advised the Chief Wildlife Warden, Chhattisgarh to notify the BWS as a Tiger Reserve. However, the respondents received a representation from petitioner (Annexure 2) dated 01.06.2018, in the instant matter before the this Hon'ble Court enclosing therein a letter from the Government of Chattisgarh to their Chief Wildlife Warden, indicating that proposal for notifying BWS as a Tiger Reserve had been revoked on grounds of inadequate consultation with the Gram Sabhas concerned. However, the respondents received a representation from petitioner (Annexure 2) dated 01.06.2018, in the instant matter before the this Hon'ble Court enclosing therein a letter from the Government of Chattisgarh to their Chief Wildlife Warden, indicating that proposal for notifying BWS as a Tiger Reserve had been revoked on grounds of inadequate consultation with the Gram Sabhas concerned. The respondents, identifying the issue as a procedural inadequacy advised the Chief Wildlife Warden, Chhattisgarh to follow due process and exercise diligence and submit a self contained proposal in accordance with relevant provisions of the Act of 1972, to notify BWS as a Tiger Reserve (Annexure 3) However, no response has been received from the State of Chattisgarh. 12. After filing of the return by the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Union of India/ respondents No. 3 and 4, the petitioner has filed rejoinder stating that the respondents No. 3 and 4 supports the need and requirement for declaration of Bhomardeo Wildlife Sanctuary as a Tiger Reserve. The petitioner submits that it is the duty of the State to maintain a balance between the conservation and protection of critically endangered specie i.e. tiger and also protect the rights of Scheduled Tribes who are living in these habitats by relocating them in the adjacent forest area of the Bhoramdev and after paying proper compensation. The State is bound to comply with the recommendation of the NTCA and cannot shove away from its duties in a very casual manner as done in the instant case. 13. In response to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the respondents No. 1 and 2/State has filed additional return stating that the NTCA has only suggested the State Government for declaring and notifying BWS a Tiger Reserve vide their suggestion dated 28.07.2014 and 07.03.2018. Any recommendation and decision is taken by the Technical Team of the NTCA but in the present case, no such recommendation has been passed nor such decision has been taken by the Technical Committee of the NTCA under Section 38-V(1) of the Act of 1972. 14. In response, additional return has been filed by the State in which it has been stated that if the State Government declares BWS as a Tiger Reserve without before consent of tribals and other dwellers of the forest, that will adversely affect the aim of tiger conservation. 14. In response, additional return has been filed by the State in which it has been stated that if the State Government declares BWS as a Tiger Reserve without before consent of tribals and other dwellers of the forest, that will adversely affect the aim of tiger conservation. As conservation issues know that all decisions of the Panchayat are taken through the Gram Sabha and no decision is official and valid without the consent of Gram Sabha, it is responsible for strengthening people's collaboration, democratic participation. The Gram Sabha is the general assembly of all the people of a Village, its role in local governance and development and need based plans, which has legal values, so the State Government is still trying to educate locals, government believes systematic education in relation with mute wild animals would be understood by local inhabitants and for this purpose works of local social scientists are still going on. It is humbly submitted that, the Gram Sabha is defined in the constitution of India under Article 243 (b), so observing its legal base in motions phase of State Government accepted the advice of Chhattisgarh Wildlife Board. It is humbly submitted that, the State Government places great importance on complying with varies acts such as Wild Life (Protection) Act and Panchayat Raj Act, which respectively address the issues of wildlife conservation and the provision of amenities in rural areas where tigers are roaming. When these acts are executed in the same area, the State Government strives a balance between the two Acts and ensures progress is being made towards their objectives. The matter of executing action for tiger conservation is multi-faced one that demands careful consideration. The wildlife Board of the Chhattisgarh State has provided advice based on current ground reality, which indicates that, such actions are not prohibited and it is Board's duty provided in the Act, 1972. The petitioner has no case on merits and the entire petition framed and filed is not maintainable on any of the grounds urged by the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents No. 1 & 2 / State would pray for dismissal of this petition being devoid of any merit or substance. 15. The petitioner has no case on merits and the entire petition framed and filed is not maintainable on any of the grounds urged by the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents No. 1 & 2 / State would pray for dismissal of this petition being devoid of any merit or substance. 15. Again, in response to the additional return filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2/ State, the petitioner has filed additional rejoinder stating that heavy emphasis has been laid down by the respondents on the technical Committee meeting of NTCA dated 05.10.2021 stating that in this meeting Guru Ghasi Das National Park was recommended as Tiger Reserve and no such declaration or recommendation has been received for BWS. Such reliance is misplaced reliance because in the case of Guru Ghasi, Das National Park, it was the State of Chhattisgarh who has approached the NTCA for declaration of the same as Tiger Reserve; however, in the case of BWS, it is the NTCA who has made two recommendation for declaration of Tiger Reserve, which the respondent state is not abiding with. As far as the contention that the recommendation for declaration of BWS was not made by the technical committee of NTCA, it is submitted that reliance cannot be placed on the minutes of Technical Committee of NTCA dated 15.10.2021, firstly because, herein recommendation was granted on the proposal sent by the State of Chhattisgarh and secondly that the Act of 1972 does not provide any form or format of the recommendation. Section 38-V(1) of Act of 1972 provides that the State Government shall, "on the recommendation of the Tiger Conservation Authority" notify an area as a Tiger Reserve. The Act neither defines the expression "recommendation" nor prescribes any particular form or format in which the NTCA could make a recommendation under Section 38-V(1) of Act of 1972. It is submitted that the word 'shall' used in sub-section (1) reflects the mandatory nature of the provision. Considering the language of the Section, the purpose of the Section and the nature of the Section, it can be easily without any doubt, be construed that the word shall has mandatory nature and therefore the respondent State authorities are bound to comply with the said direction of the NTCA. The NTCA in its reply dated 29.04.2019 has emphatically stressed on the requirement of declaring BWS as a Tiger Reserve. The NTCA in its reply dated 29.04.2019 has emphatically stressed on the requirement of declaring BWS as a Tiger Reserve. The respondent -State Wildlife Board has no power under the Act of 1972 to not to agree with the recommendation of the NTCA. Further, the State Government has no discretion in the matter of notifying or denotifying an area as Tiger Reserve. The 2006 amendment by which the NTCA was constituted aimed to strengthen project tiger for conserving endangered tigers and tiger habitat. 16. Ms. Dangi relies on the decision of a Division Bench High Court of Bombay at Goa in The Goa Foundation v. State of Goa & Others, WPPIL 15/2022, wherein the issue was that the State of Goa was not declaring the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary despite recommendations of the NTCA. She further submits that wrong interpretation has been given to Section 38-V for declaration of Tiger Reserve as a bare perusal of section 38-V clearly provides that for declaration of core area of Tiger Reserve neither any consultation nor any consent from Gram Sabha is required. For, declaration of buffer area for relocation of the villagers only, consultation is to be taken from the Gram Sabha. Consultation would not mean that the Gram Sabha would give the permission for declaration of Tiger Reserve. It is only for voluntary relocation consent is to be taken, meaning thereby, for areas other than core and buffer areas of tiger areas if the state authorities are relocating the villagers, then consent has to be taken by the Gram Sabha. 17. The respondent No. 5-Chhattisgarh Wildlife Board has also filed its return praying for dismissal of the writ petition. It has been pleaded by Mr. Amrito das that the entire writ petition been preferred by the petitioner is based upon the alleged recommendation made by the NTCA vide its letter dated 28.07.2014 (Annexure P- 4). Perusal of the said letter would clearly demonstrate that the said letter was merely a suggestion to the State Government and the same cannot be classified to be a 'recommendation' in any manner. A 'recommendation' to be made under Section 38V(1) of the Act of 1972 would presuppose a detail compliance of the other procedural modality as has been prescribed under Section 38V. A 'recommendation' to be made under Section 38V(1) of the Act of 1972 would presuppose a detail compliance of the other procedural modality as has been prescribed under Section 38V. In fact, the letter dated 28.07.2014 did not make any recommendation, but then it was only a suggestive indication to the State Government to explore the possibility of declaring BWS as a Tiger Reserve. The said letter, therefore, cannot be alleged to be a recommendation in terms of Section 38V(1) of the Act of 1972. The entire basis on which the instant writ petition has been preferred is absolutely misconceived and wholly misplaced. The Chhattisgarh Wildlife Board, vide its meeting dated 23.05.2017, constituted a six-member Expert Committee to examine as to whether BWS can be declared as a Tiger Reserve. The answering respondent considering the material placed before it, while in it's meeting dated 14.11.2017 accepted the recommendations made by the Expert Committee, and advised the State Government for declaring BWS as a Tiger Reserve. The Chhattisgarh Wildlife Board is a statutory body which has been constituted under Section 6 of the Act of 1972. It has to discharge the duties as has been prescribed under Section 8 of the Act of 1972. Section 8 of the Act of 1972 reads as under: “8. Duties of State Board for Wild Life - It shall be the duty of State Board for Wild Life to advise the State Government,- (a) in the selection and management of areas to be declared as protected areas, (b) in formulation of the policy for protection and conservation of the wild life and specified plants; (c) in any matter relating to the amendment of any Schedule; (cc) in relation to the measures to be taken for harmonising the needs of the tribals and other dwellers of the forest with the protection and conservation of wild life, and (d) in any other matter connected with the protection of wild life, which may be referred to it by the State Government.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Mr. Das further submits that on consideration of the language of Section 8 that the State Board basically discharges the functions as an advisory body to the State Government with matters concerning policy for protection and conservation of the wildlife and specified plants. Mr. Das further submits that on consideration of the language of Section 8 that the State Board basically discharges the functions as an advisory body to the State Government with matters concerning policy for protection and conservation of the wildlife and specified plants. The State Board also advises the Government in relation to measures to be taken for harmonising the needs of the tribals and other traditional dwellers of the forest with protection and conservation of wildlife. The role of the State Board is therefore to advise the Government on issues related to wildlife and for its protection and conservation. The State Board does not have the jurisdiction to take any final decision as far as policy matters are concerned. It is in this perspective that the Board’s decision dated 14.11.2017 has to be considered and understood. The State Government, after considering the advice given by the State Board vide its letter dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure P-8), cancelled the proposal for declaration of BWS as a Tiger Reserve since the statutory compliance under Section 38V(5) of the Act of 1972, was not complied with as the tribals and forest dwellers in the said forest were neither consulted, nor were they taken into dialogue before submission of any report concerning formation of a Tiger Reserve. Section 38 of the Act of 1972 mandates that before any order is passed with regard to formation of a Tiger Reserve, it is mandatory for the State Government to consult the tribals and other forest dwellers living in the said area concerning relocation. Since the said mandatory procedure was not complied with, the State Government rejected the proposal for formation of a Tiger Reserve. The said decision taken by the State Government was duly communicated to the NTCA by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife Management) vide its letter dated 09.07.2018 (Annexure P-9). 19. It is further submitted by Mr. Das that the State Government, in order to comply with the statutory compliance under Section 38V of the Act of 1972, did call for a Gram Sabha which was held on 15.03.2019 and the Gram Sabha refused to accept the proposal for formation of a Tiger Reserve. Once the decision was taken by the Gram Sabha, refusing formation of a Tiger Reserve, any proceeding under Section 38V would have been contrary to the statutory mandate. Once the decision was taken by the Gram Sabha, refusing formation of a Tiger Reserve, any proceeding under Section 38V would have been contrary to the statutory mandate. The State Government cannot in exercise of its power forcefully evict the tribal population as well as the forest dwellers living in the said forest to any other place since the same would result in denial of the rights available to the tribals and other forest dwellers under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The State Board, considering the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha on 15.03.2019, held a meeting on 24.11.2019 and after a detailed consideration of the entire issue, cancelled the proposal for formation of a Tiger Reserve at Bhoramdeo Sanctuary. The State Board has therefore discharged a statutory duty as has been indicated under Section 8 of the Act of 1972. In fact, in absence of any recommendation made by the NTCA, the very foundation for the instant writ petition is based upon non-existing fact. A suggestion made by the NTCA cannot be treated as a statutory 'recommendation' and therefore the relief sought for by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. The instant writ petition is therefore bereft of any substance. 20. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 21. From perusal of the averments made in the petition, it appears that though it is not an adversarial litigation but an attempt for conservation and protection of the tigers, the other aspect of the matter is that before declaring BWS as a Tiger Reserve and the Chilpi range as buffer zone as recommended by the NTCA, the State, being a welfare State is required to look into other aspects of the matter. 22. Needless to state that the State of Chhattisgarh is a tribal dominated State where a large population of Scheduled Tribes still reside in and around the forest areas. Relocating a large population of people as has been stated in the return filed by the State, is a herculean task which would involve huge amount of time and money which would in turn affect the public exchequer. 23. Relocating a large population of people as has been stated in the return filed by the State, is a herculean task which would involve huge amount of time and money which would in turn affect the public exchequer. 23. A bare perusal of Annexure P/4, which states that considering the frequent reports of tiger movement area, the NTCA suggests for notifying the erstwhile Chilpi range (which forms part of the buffer of Kanha) as a buffer area once again and to notify the BWS as a Tiger Reserve. Even as per the say of the petitioner, it is a recommendation of the NTCA that the BWS be declared as Tiger Reserve, though the petitioner asserts that the State Government or the Wildlife Board have no power either disagree or not to act as per the recommendations of the NTCA. According to the petitioner, they are bound to notify the BWS as a Tiger Reserve. It has to be kept in mind that in the area under consideration, various tribal communities such as the Baiga community which is at the verge of extinction, have also to be protected. The poor tribals cannot be just thrown off their lands without proper compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with law. 24. As per the return filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2/State, in order to declare the BWS Area into a Tiger Reserve, all the formalities at the departmental level as per the provisions of the Wildlife Act and Rules has to be completed but the concerned Gram Sabhas have not given the no objection and there would be a change in the original character/complexion of the Baiga Tribe as the above tribe is on the verge of extinction and their conservation is a necessity and apart from that, the Schedule Tribes who are residing in the forest area would also be adversely affected and it would not be possible to start any development work for the 17,566 people residing in 39 villages and for them no re-establishment would be possible. Further, as per the return filed by the State, the area of BWS is a highly sensitive area adjacent to which is the border of Balaghat/Mandla region of Madhya Pradesh wherein naxalite activities are going on and it would not to be possible to curb those activities, if the development work would be continuously carried out in the area. Further, as per the return filed by the State, the area of BWS is a highly sensitive area adjacent to which is the border of Balaghat/Mandla region of Madhya Pradesh wherein naxalite activities are going on and it would not to be possible to curb those activities, if the development work would be continuously carried out in the area. Thus, it would also adversely affect the activities being carried on for curbing the naxal menace. Similar is the situation with Kabirdham District which is also a LWE affected. If the BWS would be converted into a Tiger Reserve, the very development of this particular area would be hampered and it would be having an adverse effect on curbing naxal activities. Further, on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 38-V(i)(ii) of the Wildlife Conservation Amendment Act, 2006, the BWS area cannot be declared as a Tiger Reserve. Above all, no recommendation has been made by the Technical Committee of the NTCA for declaring and notifying the BWS as a Tiger Reserve under Section 38-V(1) of the Act of 1972. 25. Further, even as per the averments made by the respondent No. 5-State Board, the Board merely ‘advises’ the Government in relation to measures to be taken for harmonising the needs of the tribals and other traditional dwellers of the forest with protection and conservation of wildlife and as such the role of the State Board is advisory in nature and it does not have any power or authority to take any final decision as far as policy matters are concerned. The State Government, after considering the advice given by the State Board vide its letter dated 09.04.2018 has cancelled the proposal for declaration of BWS as a Tiger Reserve since the statutory compliance under Section 38V(5) of the Act of 1972, was not complied with as the tribals and forest dwellers in the said forest were neither consulted, nor were they taken into dialogue before submission of any report concerning formation of a Tiger Reserve. When Section 38 of the Act of 1972 mandates that before any order is passed with regard to formation of a Tiger Reserve, it is mandatory for the State Government to consult the tribals and other forest dwellers living in the said area concerning relocation and as the said mandatory procedure was not complied with, the State Government has rightly rejected the proposal for formation of a Tiger Reserve which was duly communicated to the NTCA by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife Management). 26. The Member Secretary, NTCA, considering the frequent reports of tiger movement area, vide its letter dated 28.07.2014 has suggested that the BWS may be notified as Tiger Reserve. From bare perusal of the same, it is apparent that the NTCA has merely suggested the measures to be taken by the State. It is not even a recommendation which needs to be followed in its letter and spirit, especially when the other procedural formalities could not be completed for the reasons as stated above. Hence, no such relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted in this petition. 27. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Public Interest Litigation petition is dismissed.