The Chief Wildlife Warden's authority under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to ensure public safety justifies actions regarding dangerous wild animals, and premature petitions challenging such orders are dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of February 2024 A.J. Desai, C.J.

The present writ petition, in the nature of public interest, is filed by a trust, the objective of which is to adopt, rescue, treat, and feed stray animals and provide legal assistance in activities involving any kind of animal cruelty. The challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P5 order dated 10.02.2024 of the Principal Chief Conservator (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden, Kerala/1^st respondent, issued in exercise of the power under section 11(1)(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short “1972 Act”), granting permission to drive a Makhna elephant on the rampage back to the forest safely using Kumki elephants, following all the existing guidelines of the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and the standard operating procedure and failing which, to capture the said elephant by drug shooting or chemical tranquilisation.

2. Along with various other prayers, the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents/officers of the Forest Department to stop chasing the elephant, since it has already entered deep forest.

3. When a specific question was asked to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the basis on which the allegation that the elephant is being chased inside the forest and that attempts are being made to tranquilise the elephant, he failed to bring to the notice of this Court any evidence to substantiate the allegation. Instead, the learned counsel submitted that the elephant may die if it is tranquilised and captured by Forest officials and not released thereafter. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relied upon certain past incidents. He, therefore, would submit that appropriate orders may be passed.

4. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Forest Department would submit that the very same issue is pending before another Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.13204 of 2021 and therein an order has been passed on 19.02.2024, containing certain directions and observations as to the manner in which the issue is to be dealt with. He would submit that in the said proceeding, the petitioner herein has joined as additional respondent No.55. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have informed that Division Bench about the filing of this writ petition. He would further submit that the suggestions of the Division Bench are being seriously considered by the respondent Department. Apart from these aspects, he would submit that the Makhna elephant came from the Karnataka Forest and, after roaming around inside the Kerala border, had killed a native of Wayanad. The incident gave rise to large scale protest and Exhibit P5 order under Section 11 (1) of the 1972 Act was passed by the 1^st respondent after considering all relevant aspects. He would submit that this is a premature writ petition since the elephant is neither captured nor tranquilised by the Forest Department. He would submit that the elephant is presently in the forest shared by two States;

Kerala and Karnataka and if Exhibit P5 order is quashed, that may result in more human lives being put to danger. He would submit that the Chief Conservator has only directed to drive the elephant into the forest and if that is not possible, to capture the elephant by drug shooting or chemical tranquilisation. Therefore, he would submit that the petition ought to be dismissed.

5. We heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused Exhibit P5 order impugned in the petition.

6. Section 11 (1) of the 1972 Act reads as under:

“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 Ward