SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Vishalakshi Amma – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1720 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 15232 of 2020)
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an application for an ownership certificate beyond the prescribed period under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, which was rejected by the Chief Wild Life Warden. The appellant challenged this decision before the High Court.Finding of the Court:
The Division Bench upheld the rejection of the application, stating that the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) is mandatory. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding and dismissed the appeal.Issues:
Whether the time limit for filing an application for ownership certificate under Rule 4(2) is mandatory or directory.Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that failure to file a declaration within the stipulated time would result in government ownership of wildlife animal articles. It emphasized that no one can plead ignorance as wide publicity was given about making such declarations within a specified period.Final Decision:
The appeal was dismissed as there was no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment.JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 109/2020, by which, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the State of Kerala and others - respondent(s) herein and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4772/2019, by which the learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by directing the appellants herein to consider the declaration made by the original writ petitioner under Rule 11 of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2003) by relaxing the time to file such a declaration in case the time is relaxed in any other case, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:-
2.1 Under Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1972), every person having at the commencement of this Act the control, custody or possession of any captive animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or animal article…... or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, shall, within thirty days from the commencement of this Act, declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer the number and description of the animal, or article of the foregoing description under his control, custody or possession and the place where such animal or article is kept. As per sub-section (2) of Section 40, no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, 1972, acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession, the animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or any animal article including the deer horn, except with the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer. However, Section 40A of the Act, 1972, is an exception and gives immunity in certain cases. As per Section 40A, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 40 of this Act, the Central Government may, by notification, require any person to declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer, any captive animal, animal article….. in his control, custody or possession, in respect of which no declaration had been made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of Section 40, in such form, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) of Section 40, provides that any action taken or purported to be taken for violation of Section 40 of the Act, 1972 at any time before the commencement of the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 shall not be proceeded with and all pending proceedings shall stand abated.
2.2 In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 40A read with Section 63 of the Act, 1972, the Central Government had made “the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003.” Rule 3 to 14 read as under:-
“3. Publicity of intent of notification and Assistance in making application.—(1) The Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by the State Government in this regard shall cause to give wide publicity to the intent of this notification in the regional language through electronic or print media or such other means.
(2) The Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by the State Government in this regard shall take necessary action to assist the local communities and individuals especially the poor and illiterate in the declaration of their possession, filling up the specified form and any other matter connected therewith and shall make every attempt to ensure that no individual or community associated with animals is deprived of this opportunity.
4. Procedure for filing applications.—(1) An application to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by the State Government in this re
C.D. Gopinath v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2010 SCC Online Mad 2851 [Para 3.2]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period for filing an application under Section 49N of the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022, and the i....
The time limit prescribed under Section 40 (2-B) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is not a period of limitation, and applications made after the prescribed period should still be considered by....
Section 40(2B) provides that every person inheriting any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy under sub-section (2A) shall, within ninety days of such inheritance make a declarati....
The declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme serves as sufficient evidence of acquisition for Exotic animals, and subsequent legislation cannot revoke benefits conferred by the Scheme.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seizure and summon issued to the appellant for the transportation of the Exotic Live Bird were illegal and an abuse of the process of law,....
The court upheld the state's authority to declare a wildlife sanctuary despite claims of traditional rights not being substantiated.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of commercial transfers of elephants without permission under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and the penal consequences for ....
The court has the duty to decide the proper custody of property pending trial, including determining the person with a better claim, and can decide who has a better title if there are rival claimants....
The court ruled that provisions of the Kerala Forest Act restricting capture of wild elephants violate the fundamental rights of landowners, being expropriatory without compensation and lacking reaso....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.