The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of privately owned elephants, without involving any commercial transaction, is permissible under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The court also emphasized the responsibility of the trust in providing care and facilities for the elephants.

ORDER

1. This public interest litigation has been filed seeking intervention of this Court in the matter of transfer of some Elephants from State of Karnataka to respondent No.3 Trust which was reported in the media. A direction has been sought to the State Government to issue guidelines directing that no person can sell or transfer or translocate Elephants from the State of Karnataka to the respondent No.3 Trust. A direction has been sought to respondent No.3 Trust to send back the 4 Elephants that were transported to the said Trust and also send back all the Elephants which have been taken by the Trust, back to the respective Forest Department of the States from which these Elephants were obtained.

2. Notice for respondent No.1 has been accepted by learned Additional Government Advocate, whereas Dr. Sujay N. Kantawala has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we propose to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage without calling for counter affidavit / statement of objections.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the Elephants cannot be entrusted with private individuals or organizations and must be reclaimed by the State Government. His case is that by allowing organizations like the respondent No.3 to give refuge to Elephants, the State Governments or the Central Government is abdicating its responsibility. A perusal of documents annexed to the writ petition indicates that 4 Elephants were rescued from a Circus couple of decades ago. The Court, acting on a petition filed by animal rights activists, had directed the Forest Department to take over the Elephants. After the Court order, the Mysore Royal Family volunteered to take care of the Elephants and they were accordingly sent to the Mysore Palace. The Elephants were a tourist attraction at the Palace and were used for Elephant Safaris. The Forest officials has informed that in 2017, the Royal Family wrote to the Forest Department that the handlers were not taking proper care of the animals. However, the animals were not shifted due to administrative issues. These 4 Elephants have been given to respondent No.3 Trust by way of Gift Deeds for their better care. The permission was given by the Forest Department for transportation / translocation of these animals.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No.1 should not allow the transfer of Elephants from Karnataka. The forest authorities had wrongly granted permit in favour of respondent No.3 to transfer the Elephants from Karnataka to Jamnagar, Gujarat. It is also contended that the preference is being given to respondent No.3 in getting the wild animals on extraneous considerations. It is submitted that the animals which are transferred or translocated shall be sterilized. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is a strong apprehension that these animals would be put to commercial use and the respondent No.3 may misuse these animals by opening a breeding centre.

5. The respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the petition. We have perused the counter affidavit. The preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition has been raised, which are as under:

i. The instant writ petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence the petition to be dismissed at the outset.

ii. The Respondent No.3 is a separate, distinct and independent organization in the form of a Public Trust and has no legal association with Reliance Industries Limited as is confused in many news reports attached with the Petition.

iii. The Petitioner has suppressed material facts and made false statements in this writ petition and averments contained in the instant writ are clearly aimed at misleading this Honble Court and therefore the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief ads claimed in this writ petition.

iv. It is submitted that instant writ petition is clearly an abuse of process of this Honble Court and hen