The Supreme Court while dimissing a PIL against the recognition granted to Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre stated that there is no 'legal basis' for restricting a private zoo from acquiring animals.
A Division Bench comprising of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Krishna Murari opined that the petition lacks logic and proper research on part of the petitioner.
"There is hardly any scope to dispute that the respondent No. 2 is a recognised Zoo as well as a recognized Rescue Centre. We are unable to find any legal infirmity in grant of recognition to the Zoo and the Rescue Centre of the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1. The allegations of the petitioner regarding lack of expertise on the part of respondent No. 2 or regarding commercialisation remain uncertain and it does not appear that the petitioner has carried out the requisite research before moving this Court in PIL jurisdiction", the Court said.
The Court also asserted that the petitioner himself was not an expert in the field and has based the petition merely on news-reports which too, do not appear to have been made by the expert.
The petitioner who claimed to be a public spirited person and an Advocate by profession, filed the petition in the nature of PIL with reference to his interest in the welfare of environment and compassion towards protection and improvement of wild-life.
He had shown reservation on the permission so granted to the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre to establish a Zoo in District Jamnagar, in the State of Gujarat.
The challenge was mounted essentially based on the information said to be available in public domain on the internet and in the form of news-reports.
The petitioner would submit that the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centrea being a private Zoo is not permitted to receive animals, whether from abroad or in India.
The petitioner further submitted that the master layout plan for the Zoo was approved in the month of February, 2019 but it was not clear as to how they qualified to take the animals from abroad or from a public Zoo.
He informed the Court that the zoo authorities are planning to have largest number of species and animals in Zoo in order to attract visitors and to make business out of the same, which remains entirely impermissible. It was averred that they in the garb of making Rescue Centre for animals, was seeking to carry out commercial activity; and that a Zoo and a Rescue Centre cannot be operated under one roof.
In the counter-affidavit, the respondent opposed the writ-petition and asserted that the same is entirely misconceived and is based on incorrect and incomplete news-reports.
It was further submitted that recognitiion was granted for establishment of Zoo and Rescue Centre under Section 38-H(1A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 subject to certain conditions; and after due inspection and evaluation.
One of the respondent took exception against the allegations of commercialisation as made against it while maintaining that it has been operating as a non-profit organisation with principal objective of welfare of animals.
It was also stated that except Zoological Park, which would be open to the public, no other area would be open to the public and would be maintained only as Rescue Centre. It was also asserted that Zoological Park itself would be operated essentially for educational purposes and creating awareness for promoting welfare of animals. It was yet further stated that even if any revenue is generated from the Zoological Park, the same shall be, after payment of taxes, used only towards rescue, relief and rehabilitation operations.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
