Supreme Court: In a Civil Appeal challenging the Kerala High Court Division Bench’s judgment and order setting aside the Single Judge’s decision refusing to allow any relaxation under Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 regarding declaration of custody or possession of any captive animal or animal article, Division Bench of M.R. Shah and Manoj Mishra, JJ. refused to interfere with the Division Bench’s order and dismissed the appeal.
The Court in the instant matter scrutinized the Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 regarding bar on custody or possession of any captive animal, musk or horn to the Chief Wild Life Warden and Section 40A which is an exception to Section 40, empowering the Central Government to require declaration of any captive animal or animal article not declared under Section 40. The Central Government exercising its powers under Sections 40A and 63 of the Act made the “Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003” published on 18-4-2003, whose Rule 4(2) provides for application to Chief Wild Life Warden to be presented in the prescribed format within 180 days from date of publication of rules.
In the present matter, as pointed by the Court, the 180 days to file application/ declaration under 2003 Rules expired on 18-10-2003, while the appellant filed application for such declaration on 25-5-2011. The authority refused to issue ownership certificate for the deer horn found from the appellant’s house being in her custody and possession on the ground of delay in declaration beyond the prescribed period in 2003 Rules.
The appellant proceeded with the Writ Petition before Single Judge of Kerala High Court who directed the Chief Wild Life Warden to consider whether time has been relaxed in any case for granting ownership certificate and the specific circumstances and thus, consider the appellant’s representation. The said order was challenged before the Division Bench of Kerala High Court who allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order and observed that the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) cannot be relaxed and time cannot be extended.
The Court explained that there is a bar on keeping a specified captive animal or animal article in custody or possession, but Section 40A grants immunity in certain cases, and Rule 4(2) lays the 180 days time limit to declare for obtaining ownership certificate. The Court observed that the 2003 Rules reflect that the prescribed period of 180 days must be considered mandatory, or the object and purpose of the Rules shall be frustrated.
The Court further noted that the Chief Wild Life Warden as per Rule 3 was duty bound to give wide publicity to the intent of the said notification in regional language through various media, take necessary action to assist the local communities and individuals in declaration of such possession. Therefore, nobody in the Court’s view could evade this declaration due to lack of knowledge.
The Court held that “once a person in control, custody or possession of any wildlife animal or wildlife animal article fails to file declaration within the stipulated time, then the bar under Section 40 shall be applicable, and the ownership of such wildlife animal article shall vest in the Government or forest department.”
The Court thus upheld the Division Bench’s observation justifying the Chief Wild Life Warden’s rejection of appellant’s application. The Court refused to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court and dismissed the present appeal.
[Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 292, judgment dated 17-3-2023]
Judgment authored by: Justice M.R. Shah
