B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally.

2. In Public Interest Litigation No.69/2017, the petitioner has taken up this Application questioning the order dated 9.10.2017 passed by Chief Wildlife Warden & Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Maharashtra State, Nagpur, under Section 11 (1)(a) of the Wild Life (Protection ) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). By said order in accordance with Section 11(2) of the said Act, permission has been given to destroy tigress (Cub-1 of T-27) and order is remained valid till 20th October, 2017. The impugned order also directs that, however, all efforts to tranquilize the tigress shall also continue.

3. It needs to be noted that this is the third order against the said tigress. Earlier order passed on 23.6.2017 was quashed by this Court on 29.6.2017. Tigress was, then, in captivity since 27.6.2017 and released on 29.7.2017.

4. Adv. Mandlekar submits that the impugned order overlooked the fact that tigress has been validly released into wild on 29.7.2017 and hence instances of human confrontation or deaths before such release are now not relevant. After 29.7.2017, first death is on 19.9.2017 while the last death is on 2nd October, 2017. Thus, for a period of about 50 days after release, there was no attack on any human being and tigress has survived on natural preys. Learned Advocate for petitioner contends that thus only because of two deaths, inference that tigress is a man-eater could not have been drawn. He points out that in this region there are several other carnivorous animals and any other animal may have caused death or then fed on dead body. He submits that after 29.7.2017, when problem surfaced only three efforts have been made for tranquilization and these efforts are not sufficient. He has invited our attention the minutes of the State level meeting conducted on 14.7.2017, to point out how decision to release this tiger into wilderness was reached. He submits that if there was no trained staff or then proper facilitators, there was no hurry to release the tiger held in captivity. He points out how case of another tiger wandering in Tadoba-Andheri Buffer area has been looked into and dealt with. He contends that thus proper precautions have not been taken and there is abdication of its duties by the Department. Inviting attention to material on record, he submits that when the SOP warrants permission to kill, to be issued to a competent officer only, here an outsider has been permitted. According to him, to satisfy the desire of said outsider or any third person such a hasty decision appears to have been taken.

5. Adv. Shukul, relies upon very same SOP. He submits that these are only the suggestions and not directions issued under Section 38-O of the Act. The same are also not exhaustive and when Section 11 gives power to the competent authority like the Chief Wildlife Warden, the statutory power of said Officer is not circumscribed by SOP. According to him, there are no pleadings of any mala fides or abuse by petitioner before this Court. The decision has been therefore reached honestly and after balancing all interests.

6. He submits that there have been a total of nine instances of human conflict after 18.5.2017 till 2.10.2017 and 4 have resulted in death of human beings. There is evidence on record of stalking and also of animal feeding on human flesh. He reads out the impugned order to urge that it looks into efforts made to tranquilize, the locations where deaths occurred and also coordinates retrieval through GPS to note movement of tigress in area where deaths occurred at the relevant time. He submits that said order also takes note of “not finding any other tiger” in that area since last census. According to him, in this situation, when after honest consideration of all events an order has been passed and subjective satisfaction of Chief Wild Life Warden is material, the satisfaction cannot be interfered