Advocates:
['MANOJ KUMAR BISWAS', 'ASST SG', '', 'BISWANATH MAJUMDER']

Page 1 of 16

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

W.P.(C)(PIL) No.11/2022

Smt. Adwitiya Chakrabarti, Daughter of Lt. Dipankar Chakrabarti, Resident

of Matripalli Road, Badharghat, P.O. Siddhi Asharam, Agartala, West

Tripura, Pin – 799003.

-----Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest

and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road, New Delhi,

Pin – 110003, India.

2. The Chief Wild Life Warden and Principal Chief Conservator of Forests

(Wildlife), having their office at Office of Principal Chief Conservator of

Forests, Department of Forests and Wildlife, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, A-

Block, 2^nd Floor, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, Pin – 110002.

3. Director General of the Department of Revenue Intelligence, having their

office at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Headquarter), Drum Shape

Building, I.P. Bhavan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, Pin – 110002.

4. Chairman of the Custom and GST Board, having their office at North

Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Pin – 110001.

-----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Manoj Kumar Biswas, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Biswanath Majumder, C.G.C.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

Date of hearing

: 12^th September, 2022.

Date of judgment

: 21^st September, 2022.

Whether fit for reporting

: YES.

Page 2 of 16

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)

Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard all parties.

2.

The above PIL petition is filed by a law graduate in public interest

with prayers to seek issuance of show cause to the respondents as to

why a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued

declaring that possession of all exotic animals/ birds by persons (other

than those who have made voluntary disclosure with the time

contemplated in Advisory, dated 11.06.2020(Annexure -3), issued by

Respondent No. 1, is illegal and the person in possession of such

exotic animals/ birds be forthwith prosecuted for violation under the

Customs Act by Department of Revenue Intelligence and under the

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

3.

Petitioner relies upon news articles (Annexure – 1 & 2) to demonstrate

that there is proliferation of trade in exotic wildlife species in the

State.

4.

Petitioner submits that Birds and Animals can be categorized under

following heads via a) Indigenous/ local or Indian animal species and

b) Exotic/ Foreign or non-Indian animal species. Petitioner further

Page 3 of 16

submits that there is no provision/ prohibition under the Wild Life

(Protection) Act, 1972 qua the second category. Petitioner further

submits that Respondent No. 1 issued an Advisory dated 11.06.2020

for dealing with import of exotic live species in India and declaration

of stock within six months of the issuance of the Advisory.

5.

Petitioner in his written submissions further contends that –

<3. Significantly, if a person who has availed the

Advisory and made Voluntary disclosure is treated at par

with a person who has not made declaration during the time

period contemplated in the advisory; the legislative intent

behind issuing advisory i.e., to grant immunity to a person

making voluntary disclosure within stipulated time stands

defeated and the Advisory serves no purpose. By not carrying

out amendments in the two Acts granting immunity from

prosecution and forfeiture to a person who has not made

voluntary disclosure under the Advisory issued by Respondent

No. 1 and thereby treating him at par with a compliant citizen

would be violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.

4. The protection to the person found with exotic

species as noticed in the judgments of in the matter of Anil

Naidu Versus UOI (Writ Petition No. 807 of 2019) vide order

dated 11.09.2019 and Allahabad Hig