( 1. ) PETITIONER is challenging the action of the respondents in not permitting him to stage magic shows which include a magic trick of converting bear into a lady.

( 2. ) PETITIONER submits that he is a citizen of India and is a permanent resident of Jabalpur and is a renowned magician. He has performed large number of magic shows in India as well as abroad. At the time of filing the petition, the magic show at Satna was being organized.

( 3. ) PETITIONER submits that while performing the magic shows petitioner brings certain animals at the stage of show. Petitioner owns a bear, aged about one year, which is duly registered with Chief Wildlife Warden, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal as evidenced by certificate of ownership P-1.

( 4. ) FOR purposes of his profession of performing of magic shows, petitioner has to transport the bear from one place to another and certificate for this is issued under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act from time to time. A certificate P-2 has also been issued granting permission to the petitioner to transport the bear from Jabalpur to Satna.

( 5. ) THE Central Government by virtue of powers conferred by Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty on Animals Act, 1960 (for short the Act) has issued a notification P-3 dated 14th October, 1998, thereby placing ban on exhibition and training of performing animals which include bear ( 6. ) IN the petition it is averred that the sole object of issuing notification P-3 is to ensure that no cruelty takes place while training or performing the animal and while exhibiting a performing animal.

( 7. ) IT is averred that in the case of petitioner, performing animal, i. e. , bear is not subjected to any kind of training nor any training for purposes of exhibition is given. Bear is simply brought at the stage of show and thereafter disappears from the stage. No act or action is done by the performing animal at any point of time, therefore, the notification P-3 in the present case is not at all applicable. The said notification was subjected to judicial scrutiny and High Court of Kerala has upheld the validity of the same. The present notification though does not cover the case of petitioner is being made applicable to him and the authorities are not permitting the petitioner to include bear in his stage shows.

( 8. ) PETITIONER further submits that since the notification P-3 is not applicable in the case of petitioner, the restriction imposed by respondent authorities not to include bear in his stage show is violative of Articles 14, 19

(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents amounts to imposition of unreasonable and unjustified restriction infringing his fundamental right to carry on his profession of magician.

( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submits that the notification issued under Section 22 of the Act is proper and notification in question is attracted to magic show and the submission of the petitioner that no training is required to be imparted to bear is also not acceptable.

( 10. ) THE notification dated 14-10-1998 was issued by the Central Government in pursuance of the order of Honble High Court of Delhi. The Central Government constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Additional Inspector General of Forests (Wildlife) to have a fresh look at the Notification G. S. R. No. 252, dated 2-3-1991 in the light of the additional material available with any authenticated agencies or such other agency/persons. The said Committee submitted its report to the Central Government and the Central Government has taken into consideration the report of the said Committee. Now, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (59 of 1960), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Environment and Forests G. S. R. No. 252, dated 2-3-1991 and G. S. R. No. 485 dated 7-8-1991, except as respects things done or omitted to b