1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 547 OF 2022

KANHAIYA KUMAR

....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CENTRAL ZOO AUTHORITY& ANR.

....Respondent(s)

ORDER

The petitioner, said to be a public spirited person and an advocate by

profession, has filed this petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation

(‘PIL’) with reference to his interest in the welfare of environment and

compassion towards protection and improvement of wild-life.

In this petition, the petitioner is essentially seeking orders against the

respondent No. 2 in the following terms:

“13.

The Petitioner therefore prays to the Hon’ble Court that in

the interest of public and the wildlife and the animals the following

order may be passed:-

(a)

Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to

respondent No. 2 for the acquisition of animals from any person,

government department or Zoo in India or abroad be banned by an

order of permanent injunction.

(b)

Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Detailed inquiry be

directed to be conducted by forming SIT into the management of

the Respondent No. 2.”

The respondent No. 1 herein is the Central Zoo Authority and the

respondent No. 2, Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre is

said to be a private entity, which has been given the permission by the

respondent No. 1 to import several endangered, vulnerable and

Digitally signed by

SNEHA DAS

Date: 2022.08.18

13:33:17 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

threatened animals from abroad and also domestically. The petitioner is

assailing the permission so granted to the respondent No. 2 to establish a

Zoo in District Jamnagar, in the State of Gujarat. The contentions of the

petitioner in challenge to the permission granted to the respondent No. 2

and its activities are essentially based on the information said to be

available in public domain on the internet and in the form of news-reports.

The petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 2 is a private Zoo and

is not permitted to receive animals, whether from abroad or in India. The

petitioner would further submit that the master layout plan for the Zoo of

the respondent No. 2 was approved in the month of February, 2019 but it

is not clear as to how the respondent No. 2 is qualified to take the animals

from abroad or from a public Zoo. According to the petitioner, the

respondent No. 2 is planning to have largest number of species and

animals in Zoo in order to attract visitors and to make business out of the

same, which remains entirely impermissible; that the respondent No. 2, in

the garb of making Rescue Centre for animals, is seeking to carry out

commercial activity; and that a Zoo and a Rescue Centre cannot be

operated under one roof.

The respondent No. 2 has filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing

the writ petition, while asserting that the same is entirely misconceived,

being based on incorrect and incomplete news-reports. It has, inter alia,

been submitted that on 14.02.2019, the respondent No. 1 granted

approval for establishment of Zoo and Rescue Centre to the respondent

No. 2 under Section 38-H(1A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

3

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1972”) subject to certain conditions;

and after due inspection and evaluation, respondent No. 1 granted due

recognition to the Centre of the respondent No. 2 by the order dated

17.08.2020 subject to various stipulations (Annexure R-6). The respondent

No. 2 has also given the details of various aspects of its functioning,

including the Leopard Rescue Centre and the Crocodile Rescue Centre,

while maintaining that Vats, Curators, Biologists, Zoologists and other

experts are engaged to carry out the activities strictly in terms of the

stipulations of recognition and the provisions of law applicable, including

the Act of 1972 as also Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009. It is submitted

that essentially, the respondent No. 1 is the only compet