IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 19300 of 2011 PETITIONER:

K.H.MAHINKUTTY SAHIB AGED 45 YEARS KARATHUKUDI HOUSE, PP ROAD PO, PERUMBAVOOR.

BY ADVS.

SRI.V.U.PATHROSE SRI.P.M.POULOSE RESPONDENT:

THE CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY SPL.GP SANDESH RAJA.K, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

05.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(i)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P8.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to issue ownership certificate to the petitioner with respect to the deceased elephant Unnikrishnan and the other elephant Prasad respectively within such time frame as may be fixed by this Honourable Court.

2. Petitioner was the owner in possession of a deceased elephant by name “ Unnikrishnan” and another elephant by name “Prasad”. Petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application with respect to the deceased elephant and Ext.P6 with respect to the other elephant viz., Prasad before the respondent to issue ownership certificate. Since no orders were passed on the said applications, W.P.(C) No.9079/2011 was filed before this court and secured Ext.P7 judgment directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 and P6 applications. The applications were considered, however, rejected the applications as per Ext.P8 order assigning the reason that, the applications are belated one since the petitioner ought to have submitted the applications on or before 18.10.2003 in accordance with the order issued by the Government for registration of elephants and issuance of ownership certificates under an Amnesty Scheme. However, with respect to Ext.P6 application, it is stated that, petitioner had not obtained prior permission from the Chief Wild Life Warden before purchasing the elephant. Case of the petitioner is that,the reasons assigned in the order of dismissal declining the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be legally sustained.

3. Respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P8 order. The matter was heard by me. However, learned Government Pleader has produced an order dated 26.2.2016, from where, I am satisfied that, certain orders are issued by the State Government with respect to the regularising ownership of elephants and issuance of certificates. However, the said Government Order is under challenge before the Apex Court in I.A.25 & 27 of 2016 in Writ Petition Civil No.743/2014 and an interim order is passed staying the operation of the said Government Order.

4. I have heard respective counsel across the Bar and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

5. It is true, the Government has declined the ownership certificate sought for by the petitioner in respect of the two elephant specified above, which was declined as per Ext.P8 order relying upon various other Government Orders. Anyhow the subject matter was found to be regularised by the Government and it was accordingly that an order dated 26.2.2016 was issued. But the same is stayed by the Apex Court. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the issue raised by the petitioner with respect to the issuance of ownership can be considered by the Government if and when the Government Order specified above is upheld by the Supreme Court. To put it otherwise, if the Government Order dated 26.2.2016 is interfered with by the Apex Court, then the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the writ petition since Ext.P8 order is passed taking into account all the attendant circumstances remaining at that point of time. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, the situation would suffice, if a direct