The Deputy Commissioner has the jurisdiction to decide the claim of ownership of an elephant captured by a licensee under the Elephants Preservation Act, 1879 and the Elephant Hunting Rules, 1930. The State Government does not have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal or revision against such an order.

In this writ application the core question is whether the State Government has any jurisdiction to hear appeal or revision against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner exercising his powers under the Elephants Preservation Act, 1879 or the Elephant Hunting Rules, 1930 framed by the State Govern­ment u/s. 6 of ''the Act". The Deputy Commissioner directed respondent No. 3, a "Kheddah Shikari", a licensee permitted to capture wild elephants, to return the cow-elephant to the petiti­oner. On enquiry made and having held that the cow-elephant was indeed the domesticated elephant of the petitioner which had escaped to jungle and captured by Respondent No. 3. The peti­tioner contends that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar dated 23.6.78 directing Respondent No. 3 to return the cow-ele­phants to him was final and the State Government had no juris­diction to set aside the said order under "the Act" or "the Rules" framed there under and has questioned the decision of the State Government in this Writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of the question posed are set forth here in after:

Respondent No. 3 Giasuddin Laskar had an elephant hunting license issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, under the provisions of "the Act" and "the Rules". The license contained certain terms and conditions. The relevant conditions 11 to 16 ate quoted here in below:

11. That in the event of your capturing any elephant which shows distinct signs of domestication and other marks of its previous captivity as identified by the Forest Depot Officer as 'BONGHARASIA' which the term applicable for domesticated elephant escaping to Forest, such capture shall be kept in your custody and you cannot claim such elephant to be one of your wild elephants captured under this linense.

12. That you shall be responsible for feeding and upkeep of such capture till such time a decision is made about such a capture.

13. That Deputy Commissioner on receipt of report from Forest Depot Officer and on receipt of claim petition if any will decide the claim.

14. In the event of Deputy Commissioner admitting any claim of any owner of such 'BONGHARASIA' elephant you will be paid the cost of capture, fooding and upkeep cost as estimated by Forest Depot Officer.

15. On payment of such dues, you are to hand over such 'BONGHARASIA' to the claimant whose claim has been admitted.

16. That if the claim for such 'BONGHARASIA' is rejected, such elephant will be treated like any other wild elephant under this license and you can get Transit Pass from Divisional Forest Officer after payment of royalty monopoly as provided under this agreement".

It will be seen that respondent No. 3 was granted the linense under "the Act" and "the Rule" to capture wild elephants. The licensee had absolute right to capture wild elephants. However, in the course of hunting if the licensee captures an elephant which bears signs of domestication and other marks of its previous captivity detected by the Forest Depot Officer, such capture was allowed to be kept in the custody of the licensee until the Deputy Commissioner decides the claim of the Forest Department. Apart from the Forest Department, it appears from clauses 13 and 14 of the license, a person claiming to be owner of such 'BONGHARASIA' elephant may present his claim. If the Deputy Commissioner decides that it is a wild elephant, the licensee was entitled to the elephant. However, if it is found by the Deputy Commis­sioner that the claim of any owner of such 'BONGHARASIA' elephant is justified he may direct return of the elephant to such owner and the licensee is entitled to the cost of capture, fooding and upkeep cost to be estimated by the Forest Depot Officer. Admittedly there is no provision of any appeal or revision against the order of the Deputy Commissioner contained in the license and/or "the Act" or "the Rules" framed there under.

3. In the instant case, respondent No