JUDGMENT

: D.N.PATEL, Chief Justice (Oral)

Proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

1. This public interest litigation has been preferred with the following prayers:-

“(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent to include other vulnerable exotic animals/birds species in the definition of “exotic live species” in Part I (a) of the Advisory for dealing with import of exotic live species in India and declaration of stock dated 11th June 2020;

(b) Direct the Respondent to clarify the nature and extent of immunity contemplated by the Advisory as also whether it would cover other vulnerable exotic live species which are not mentioned in the Appendices to the CITES;

(c) Pass any other or further order/s as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

2. Petitioner No.1 is an establishment involved in maintenance of rescue shelters for animals of Indian origin as well as exotic species. It was registered at Ahmedabad on 9th October, 2019 under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 vide registration No.E/22724/Ahmedabad. It was established by a group of like minded persons who have been involved in the promotion of animal welfare and wildlife protection activities since several years with an objective of protecting, improving and serving the natural environment including wildlife, and promoting compassion towards animals and welfare of animals.

3. Petitioner No.2 is a wildlife enthusiast and was conferred with the Amrita Devi Bishnoi Wild Life Protection National Award by the Government of India in 2008 and he has served as a member in various boards and committees as stated in the memo of the writ petition.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an Advisory has been issued by the respondent No.1/Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for dealing with the Import of Exotic Live Species in India and declaration of stock, entitled as “Advisory for Dealing with Import of Exotic Life Species in India and Declaration of Stock” (hereinafter referred to as “Advisory”). It is also submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the aforesaid Advisory was accompanied by a press release dated 11th June, 2020 which are in the public domain.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners that –

(a) The Advisory does not sufficiently specify the nature of protection offered and thereby discourages the people from declaring their stock;

and (b) The Advisory limits the operation only to those exotic species that are mentioned in Appendices I, II and III of the “Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species on Wild Fauna and Flora” (hereinafter referred to as the “CITES”) whereas many other threatened species also requires protection which are left out from the ambit of the Advisory.

6. The aforesaid two difficulties have given birth to the present writ petition in larger public interest with an objective of ensuring that there is a proper record of keeping of even those vulnerable exotic animals and birds species which are not mentioned in the Appendices I, II and III to the CITES and as such to ensure that such species are also protected.

7. We have issued notice and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed counter affidavit. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that so far as inclusion of other vulnerable exotic animals and birds species are concerned, it is implementing the provisions of the International Convention – CITES. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent that at present the scope of the Advisory issued is limited to the species included in Appendices I, II and III of the CITES. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent that the suggestion of the petitioners to enlarge the scope of the Advisory to all exotic live species which are listed in Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is acknowledged. The relevant pa