VENKITACHALAM V R Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri and others v. Union of India,2007 4 KHC 140 requires reconsideration, with reference to the mandate of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, (as amended in the year 2003 by Act 16 of 2003) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) governing the transfer of captive animals, particularly captive elephants in the State of Kerala, is the basic question to be considered in these Writ Petitions filed as Public Interest Litigations by the very same petitioner. In W.P. (C) 34618 of 2007, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to take all steps to see that no elephant is transferred to the State of Kerala, in contravention of Section 43 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and also to direct the second respondent to take appropriate action on Ext. P-4 representation ventilating the grievances. In the other Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action as per Sections 50, 51, 53 etc. of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 against the possessors of captive elephants planted with micro chips and who do not have the ownership certificate as contemplated under Section 42 of the Act and further to direct the second respondent to strictly implement the provisions of the said Act and other laws intended for protection of the animals, by letter and spirit.

(2.) The matters were heard at length on different dates, lastly, on 24-2-2012. During the course of hearing, it was put across the Bar, why the petitioner in W.P. (C) 3049 of 2010 has not chosen to implead the necessary parties, who according to the petitioner have committed various acts/offences contrary to the provisions of law, against whom appropriate action is sought to be pursued under Sections 50, 51 and 53 of the Act; simultaneously pointing out that the second relief prayed for in the said Writ Petition did not constitute any specific cause of action, as the same was only to implement the relevant provisions of the Statute, by letter and spirit.

(3.) Mr. P.B. Sahasranaman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the cases, submitted that both the Writ Petitions have been filed in view of the 'public interest' involved and since the main issue/grievance has already been projected in W.P. (C) 34618 of 2007, the arguments would stand confined only to the said case and that W.P. (C) 3049 of 2010 need not be separately dealt with or considered. As such, reference is made to the pleadings/proceedings and the parties and exhibits as arrayed in W.P. (C) 34618 of 2007.