Delhi High Court
Shaukat Ali vs The Chief Wild Life Warden And Anr. on 8 April, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4500/2014 and CM No.8965/2014
SHAUKAT ALI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Javed Khan, Advocate
versus
THE CHIEF WILD LIFE WARDEN AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi, Advocate for R-1
Mr. Satya Narayan Vashistha and Ms. Isha
Agarwal, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 08.04.2015
CM No.8965/2014 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4500/2014
2. This is a writ petition which seeks to assail the order dated
10.10.2013 passed by the Chief Wild Life Warden and the order dated
29.01.2014 passed by the Lt. Governor.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case as discernible from the impugned
orders are as follows:
3.1 The petitioner apparently was, the owner of two female
elephants. The petitioner, admittedly, filed declarations with regard to
the said animals, with the respondents. The declarations were filed on
29.03.2001 and 14.07.2013. It is not disputed before me that both the
elephants were microchipped.
3.2 It appears on 29.06.2012, the elephants collided with a truck.
Resultantly, one of the elephants died.
3.3 The petitioner seeks issuance of a certificate of ownership vis-
a-vis the other elephant, which is, concededly, in the custody of the
DFO, State of U.P.
3.4 It appears that the petitioner approached the Allahabad High
Court for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him and
for grant of interim custody of the surviving elephant. The Allahabad
High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following operative
directions :-
"..In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the Courts
below have not at all erred in rejecting the application of the
petitioner for interim custody of the elephant in question. No
case for quashing the FIR is made out, as prima facie the
offence under the Act and IPC had been committed by the
accused persons. However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case it is desirable that the Chief Wild Life Warden, NCT,
Delhi should take an early decision u/s. 42 of the Act on the
fresh application of the petitioner with regard to the elephant in
question, if it is filed by the petitioner. The application of the
petitioner should be decided irrespective of pendency of the
instant case. In case certificate of ownership is issued to the
petitioner in respect of the animal in question, he may apply
for its interim custody before the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar. Such application should also
be disposed expeditiously by the learned Magistrate after
hearing the parties' counsel with a reasoned order. With these
observations, the petition is finally disposed of...."
3.5 As would be evident from the above, the respondent herein was
directed to take a decision on the petitioner's application under Section 42 of
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short the 1972 Act). The said
provision deals with issuance of certificate of ownership.
3.6 By virtue of the order-in-original i.e., order dated 10.10.2013, the
petitioner's application was declined, as indicated above, by the Chief
Wildlife Warden. This order was affirmed in appeal by the Lt. Governor
vide order dated 29.01.2014.
4. The learned counsel for the parties have, in the background of the
aforesaid facts, advanced submissions in consonance with the pleadings
filed in the matter.
5. A perusal of the order dated 10.10.2013 would show that the
petitioner's request for grant of certificate of ownership has been declined
on the ground that he has violated the provisions of Section 40(2) of the
1972 Act. There is no other rationale provided in the order.
5.1 The appellate authority (i.e., the Lt. Governor) has affirmed the same
by simply recording the facts of the case and noting in the conclusion that he
concurs with the reasoning set out in the order of the Chief Wildlife Warden.
5.2 As indicated above, there is in substance no reasoning in the order-in-
original. The operative part of the order-in-original reads as under :-
"..This elephant had been transported from Delhi to Noida
(UP) without prior permission in writing of the Chief
Wildlife Warden on 29.06.2012 which amounts to an offence
under Section 40(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
irrespective of the fact whether he holds or does not hold an
Ownership Certificate in respect of the animal. In that event,
it becomes a Government property in terms of section
39(1)(a) of the said Act and no Ownership Certificate can be
issued in respect of the same.."
5.3 It is apparent that the authorities below declined the permission to
issue certificate of ownership on the premise that the petitioner was
transporting the animal. It is the petitioner's case that at the border of Delhi,
the animal, i.e., elephant strayed into Noida, in the State of U.P., while
grazing. There is nothing recorded by way of finding that this was an overt
or even a covert case of transport. The petitioner, was found along with the
animal. There was no third party available at the relevant point in time.
Record does not indicate the presence of indices of an attempt by the
petitioner to transport the animal out of Delhi, as alleged.
6. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The case is
remanded to respondent no.1 to take a de-novo decision in the matter.
Respondent no.1, will pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the
petitioner.
7. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition is
disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
APRIL 08, 2015
yg
