JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

On an issue of three incidents, which had unfortunately chanced in village adjoining to Bhowali areas, because of which three human lives were lost, because of the unprecedent attacks made by a man-eater, which as per the Forest Department, was claimed to be an unidentified mammal, whether the man-eater was leopard or tiger.

2. The issue of concern for us was, that no doubt the man-eater, if identified, has had to be dealt with, but then strictly in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 11 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be called as “the Act”) and there cannot be any irrational decision by the Chief Wild Life Warden the authority competent to direct to hunt a wildlife included in Schedule 1 of the Act, to issue a direction at the hands of the Chief Wild Life Warden, to hunt down the animal without the satisfaction being recorded by him, who is an authority designated by law as contemplated under Section 11 (1) (a) of the Act. Section 11 (1)(a) of the Act is extracted hereunder:-

“(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of Chapter IV,—

(a) the Chief Wild Life Warden may, if he is satisfied that any wild animal specified in Schedule I has become dangerous to human life or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery, by order in writing and stating the reasons therefor, permit any person to hunt such animal or cause such animal to be hunted:

(1) Provided that no wild animal shall be ordered to be killed unless the Chief Wild Life Warden is satisfied that such animal cannot be captured, transquilised or translocated:

(2) Provided further that no such captured animal shall be kept in captivity unless the Chief Wild Life Warden is satisfied that such animal cannot be rehabilitated in the wild and the reasons for the same are recorded in writing.

Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (a), the process of capture or translocation, as the case may be, of such animal shall be made in such manner as to cause minimum trauma to the said animal.]”

3. The legislature has specifically used the words, that it is the responsibility of the Chief Wildlife Warden, that before he issues any order or direction for any wild animal or man-eater to be killed or to be hunted, since it has caused threats to human being, he has to satisfy himself, based on material placed before him, that the wild animal as specified in Schedule 1, which is inclusive of leopard and tiger, has become dangerous to human being or because of the disablement of the wild animal, he is required to be hunted which becomes inevitable. The decision of Chief Wildlife Warden, has to be on a rational basis, foundationed on credible material, and not because of any pressure being exhorted by local politicians or people.

4. The use of each and every word, in the provisions contained under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act, becomes relevant. The word ‘satisfaction’ in its literal meaning, means, that it has to be a self determination which is mandatorily required to be recorded and reached by the Chief Wildlife Warden, based on consideration of material by the Chief Wildlife Warden, who has been vested with an authority to pass an order of hunting down any wild animal, who has been declared to be a man-eater, posing threat to human survival.

5. ‘Satisfy’ in its literal meaning, means as given in Oxford Dictionary, that it means to meet the expectations, need or desire provided and backed with adequate information about a proof of something to determine wild life to be man-eater to comply with a condition or the obligation of demand as provided under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act.

6. Under Article 246 of the Constitution of India, it deals with the law making authority given to the Parliament and to the State Legislation and its under Article 246, that the 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India has been framed and in its Entry 17B as it has been i