Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAKERI VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI versus UNION OF INDIA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NAKERI VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI v. UNION OF INDIA - WP(C) No. 30959 of 2003(I) [2007] RD-KL 16014 (18 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 30959 of 2003(I)

1. NAKERI VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI,
... Petitioner

2. K.B.SUNILKUMAR,

3. SYAMKUMAR,

4. C.L.DANY,

5. K.R.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD,

6. P.MADHU,

7. K.VISWANATHAN,

8. DR.R.K.KAIMAL,

9. K.N.VENKITESH,

10. K.R.ANTONY,

11. A.KUMARAN,

12. K.GOVINDANKUTTY,

13. DR.RAMDAS C.R.,

14. K.M.NAIR,

15. K.UNNI,

16. BABU JOHN,

17. E.T.PARAMESWARAN MOOS,

18. SANKARAN C.P.,

19. K.S.ANANDA MANI,

20. C.S.SASIDHARAN,

21. M.P.VARIJAKSHAN,

22. PATTATH ASHOK KUMAR,

23. C.U.BINOY CHNGATH HOUSE,

24. P.K.RAVINDRAN,

25. DR.T.C.RAVUNNI NAMBIAR,

26. A.P.MOHANDAS,

27. KANIPPAYYOOR VIJAYAN NAMBOODIRIPPAD,

28. P.NARAYANAN RAJA,

29. MOHANAN,

30. A.K.PRAMOD,

31. K.LAKSHMANAN,

32. P.M.NARAYANAN,

33. M.A.PARAMESWARAN,

34. B.S.JANATH,

35. N.KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI,

Vs

1. UNION OF INDIA,
... Respondent

2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN(SR)

For Respondent :SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR, ADDL.CGSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :18/08/2007

O R D E R

C.R.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

WP(C) Nos. 30959, 31503, 33554 of 2003, 15986 of 2004 24966, 29760, 32021 of 2006 & 2751 of 2007

Dated, this the 18th day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioners in these writ petitions are either owners of elephants or association of elephant owners. The challenge in these writ petitions filed from 2003 onwards is against Section 43 of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972, whereunder, prohibition is introduced against sale of captive animal including elephants with effect from 01/04/2003. During pendency of these writ petitions, this Court issued interim orders staying the operation of the impugned provision. The Central Government has now filed statement acknowledging the hardship caused to owners of captive elephants on account of the impugned amendment Act 16 of 2003. It is stated by the Government that amendment will be introduced exempting elephants from the operation of the prohibitory clause. In other words, Government has recognized the genuine hardship against the prohibition and the need to permit transfer or sale of elephants by owners of the captive elephants who for many reasons will have to sell or transfer elephants, sometimes even to protect WP(C) Nos. 30959, 31503, 33554/03, 15986/04, 24966, 29760, 32021/06 & 2751/07 the animal itself. In view of the statement filed by the Central Government, I do not think this Court should consider the validity of prohibitory clause which in the present form will not be in the statute after the amendment. However, learned special Government Pleader appearing for the Forest Department in Kerala submitted that the Chief Wild Life Warden of the State is of opinion that there is saturation of captive elephant population in the State of Kerala and further import should not be permitted from other States. He also emphasised the requirement to enforce the provisions of the Kerala Captive Elephant (Management and Maintenance) Rules 2003. I do not think the petitioners can oppose the enforcement of regulatory provisions contained in the Captive Elephant Management Rules, which the Chief Wild Life Warden is bound to enforce. In fact, going by the increased number of incidents of violence by and to elephants, there is an urgent need to enforce the Rules and if required to introduce more regulatory provisions to ensure that elephants are not ill-treated and no provocation is caused making captive elephants a threat to human life and property. As an interim measure, i.e. until amendment is made to Section 43 of the Wild Life Protection Act, I feel there should be some regulation with regard to transfer of elephants at least within the State. It is therefore declared that hereafter the WP(C) Nos. 30959, 31503, 33554/03, 15986/04, 24966, 29760, 32021/06 & 2751/07 sale, transfer and other dealings involving changing of hands of captive elephants should be only with the approval and in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Chief Wild Life Warden, who will ensure that purchasers have the required facilities to maintain the captive elephants purchased by them. Transfer should be permitted only on condition of purchasers satisfying of the requirement under the Captive Elephant and Management Rules and guidelines issued by the Government or the Chief Wild Life Warden. This arrangement will continue until proposed amendment is made and thereafter the amended provisions will apply. Every applications filed should be disposed of after conducting enquiry within a period of 30 days from receipt of application. State Government should issue instructions to the revenue and police authorities to co-ordinate with the Chief Wild Life Warden and the authorized officials to ensure that the Captive Elephant Management Rules are enforced. These writ petitions are disposed of as above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.)

jg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.