The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notifications banning the fishing of certain fish varieties, particularly Sea Cucumber, were valid as they were issued within the powers conferred under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and based on materials justifying the inclusion of Sea Cucumber in Schedule I.

In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notifications issued by the 1st respondent-Union Government bearing S.O.No.665(e) dated 11.7.2001 and S.O.No.1197(E) dated 5.12.2001.

2.The petitioners are fishermen doing fishing activities with the help of some mechanized boats. There are about 650 varieties of Sea Cucumbers and out of which 200 varieties are found in Tamil Nadu coastal areas. According to the petitioners, among them, Holothuria Scabra, Holothuria Spinifera, Holothuria Arta are the major catching varieties in Tamil Nadu and they are the main sources of income to the fishing community. Even according to the petitioners, there is a ban with reference to the catching of Sea Cucumber of sizes below 3 inches, from 1982 and so the petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions challenging the impugned notifications banning the fishing of several varieties of fishes.

3.Heard Mr.Gladys Daniel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.N.Muralikumaran, learned Addl., Central Govt., Standing Counsel appearing for 1st respondent-Union Government and Mrs. Selvi George, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notifications cannot be sustained, as the same have been issued without application of mind, as no study was conducted and no material was placed before the 1st respondent-Union Government to conclude such banning. The next submission put forth by the learned counsel was to the effect that the impugned notifications are contrary to law and ultra vires The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, hereinafter called 'the Act'.

5.Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-union Government, referring to the counter, submitted that only after getting experts' opinion and also on the basis of the materials, the impugned notifications were issued. He also submitted that in view of Sec.61 of the Act, the 1st respondent-union Government is having power to issue the impugned notifications and so these writ petitions cannot be sustained.

6.The Act was enacted for protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. The Act came into force on 9.9.1972. Before dealing with the case of the petitioners, I am inclined to deal with the scheme of the Act.

Sec.2(1) of the Act defines "animal" as follows:-

"animal" includes amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles and their young, and also includes, in the cases of birds and reptiles, their eggs."

Sec.2(36) of the Act defines "wild animal", as follows:-

" 'Wild animal' means any animal found wild in nature and includes any animal specified in Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III, Schedule IV or Schedule V, wherever found."

Sec.2(37) of the Act defines "wild life", which is as follows:-

" 'wild life' includes any animal, bees, butterflies, crustacea, fish and moths; and aquatic or land vegetation which form part of any habitat."

According to Sec.9 of the Act, no person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I,II,III and IV except as provided under section 11 and section 12."

7.Till the impugned notifications are issued, the variety of fish in Part IV C of Schedule I of the Act, namely, Sea Cucumbur (All Holothurians) was not brought within the scope of Sec.9 of the Act. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section(1) of Sec.61 of the Act,the Central Government made certain amendments to Schedules I and III of the Act by issuing notification dated 11.7.2001 which was published on 12.7.2001. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, we are now concerned only with Part IV C in Schedule I of the Act. Part IV C of Schedule I of the Act was included in Schedule I of the Act in and by the said notification. Though the petitioners challenge the notification dated 5.12.2001, it does not deal with Sea Cucumber mentioned in part IV C to Schedule I and so I am not dealing wit