SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5596

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
M/s. Askar Sea Shell Merchant - Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wild Life Warden, Forest Headquarters – Respondent 
W.P.No.30668 of 2025 & WMP.Nos.34370 & 34372 of 2025
Decided on : 05-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.Baskaran
For the Respondent: Dr.T.Seenivasan

The Wildlife (Protection) Act permits trade of certain imports without prior approval if classified under free categories, imposing a requirement for licenses strictly for commercial activities, ensuring compliance with protective laws.

Headnote:(A) Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 - Section 39(3) - Import/export regulations - The court quashed the wildlife authority's decision denying NOC for importing conch shells, stating reliance on outdated regulations and misinterpretation of 'Prohibited Imports' is erroneous, as 'PT' is categorized under free imports - The petitioner is ordered to apply for a license under Section 44 for trade purposes, ensuring compliance might safeguard wildlife interests. (Paras 22, 65)

(B) Administrative Law - Principles of Natural Justice - The authority's decision was non-speaking, disregarding proper procedure and due process, requiring an opportunity for personal hearing before concluding actions. (Paras 6, 60, 62)

(C) Licensing - Requirements - While 'PT' does not require permission for import, it necessitates a license for trading activities, affirming a distinction between import regulation and commercial operations. (Paras 65, 38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an importer of wild life articles, contested a refusal by the wildlife authority for NOC regarding the entry of conch shells, allegedly stating that the species falls under Schedule II which prohibits trade. The prior permissions and compliance to wildlife protections were noted, alongside the nature of legality under international trade agreements.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order was quashed due to fundamental flaws in authority powers. The petitioner must secure a specific license to initiate trade post-clearance while ensuring all protective regulations are followed.

Issues: The legality of refusing NOC based on Schedule II status of 'PT' against its classification under free import categories; the application of wildlife protections in trade versus import.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the authority misinterpreted regulations and confused import and export policies, emphasizing the necessity for case-by-case assessment in issuing licenses without arbitrary refusals, thus, upholding trade freedoms.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. background of the case and petitioner's claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court's examination of prior decisions and procedures. (Para 6 , 8 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. arguments regarding the applicability of wildlife laws. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. details on amendments to wildlife legislation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. interpretation of regulations under wildlife laws. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

1. The petitioner is an importer and trader of various goods. He is registered with the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade and possesses GST and Income Tax Registrations. The petitioner imported a particular variety of conch shells on 07.12.2024, classified as “Pleuroploca Trapezium” (hereinafter referred to as 'PT'). The goods were imported from the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (herein after referred to as 'Sri Lanka'), through the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'ISFTA'). The goods fall under the Customs Tariff Heading No.050-800-90.

2. The petitioner, in order to clear the goods, filed the following documents along with the bill of entry:-

(i) 'International Zoo Sanitary Certificate for products of Animal Origin Destined for use in Animal Feeding or for Industrial or Pharmaceutical use' issued by the Department of Animal Production and Health, Ministry of Animal Quarantine, Sri Lanka;

(ii) Letter of No Objection issued by the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Sri Lanka to the overseas exporter to transport and keep in possession of 'PT';

(iii) Identification Certificate of the Conch Shell issued by the Director General, National Aquatic Resources Research & Development Agency, Sri Lanka;

(iv) Fumigation Certificate dated 03.12.2024 issued by SML Eco Pest Control, Member of Pest Managers Association of Sri Lanka;

(v) ISFTA Certificate; and (vi) Certificate of Origin

3. The Customs Department, after having performed their duty, assessed the goods and collected a duty of Rs.20,000/-. As the products were animal products, the customs referred the matter to the Wild Life Crime Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as 'WCCB'), Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climatic Change, Chennai, for approval and for issuance of No Objection Certificate for clearance of the goods.

4. The WCCB, in turn, addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Customs, Tuticorin, informing that 'PT' fell under Schedule II of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Consequently, invoking Section 39 (3) of the Act, 1972, WCCB stated that every wild animal, animal articles etc., are the properties of the State Government. Therefore, it informed the Customs authorities that no person can acquire the same or keep in possession, custody, or control or transfer them to any other person by sale or gift or destroy or damage, without obtaining the prior permission from the Chief Wild Life Warden or Authorised Officer. Accordingly, the WCCB directed the petitioner to obtain permission to stock the consignment. On being intimated to this effect by the Wild Life Crime Control Bureau, the petitioner wrote to the Chief Wild Life Warden seeking a No Objection Certificate for release of the imported 'PT' from the Tuticorin Port.

5. The Chief Wild Life Warden passed an order on 24.01.2025 directing the District Forest Officer to ensure the return of the imported consignment to its country of origin/Sri Lanka and report the same to him. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached this court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.6549 of 2025.

6. After hearing both sides, this court came to a conclusion that the order was a non-speaking order, which was passed without any reference to the documents filed by the petitioner and without adherence to the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the order dated 24.01.2025 was set aside with a direction to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Wild Life Warden to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top