Anil Dev Singh, J.

( 1 ) THERE are two sets of writ petitions before us. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1016/92, 1272/92, 1631/92, 1749/92 the petitioners challenge certain amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991 whereby the trade in imported ivory and articles made therefrom have been banned. In Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1303/92 and 1964/93 the grievance of the petitioners is that though they are not covered by the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991, the authorities are taking action against them for their being in possession of mammoth ivory and articles made therefrom. Besides, like Writ Petition No. 1016/92 etc. they also challenge the amendments carried out in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 by the Amendment Act No. 44 of 1991.

( 2 ) IN so far as the first category of cases are concerned it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 1016/92 as the points raised in this writ petition and the other writ petitions, namely, CWP Nos. 1272/92, 1631/92 and 1749/92, are the same.

( 3 ) WRIT Petition No. 1016/92: The writ petitioners in this writ petition are mainly aggrieved by the ba

Click Here to Read the rest of this document