CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (WILD LIFE) AND ORS. versus NISAR KHAN

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 18-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.B. SINHA, AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (WILD LIFE) AND ORS. 
B 
c 
v. 
NISAR KHAN 
FEBRUARY 18, 2003 
(y.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972/Wild Life (Protection) Licensing 
(Additional Matters for Consideration) Rules, 19~3: 
Ss.9,44(4)-Schedule IV/r.3-Grant/Renewal of licence for carrying on 
business as a dealer in birds specified in Schedule JV- Declined by Wild Life 
authorities-Notice issued to dealer to dispose of all birds in his possession--
Writ petition before High Court by dealer-Allowed-Wild life authorities · 
directed by High Court to grant licence to the petiti.Jner-He/d, trapping of 
D birds which comes within the purview of the term 'hunting' is prohibited in 
terms of s.9-Although grant of licence in respect of birds in captivity is not 
altogether prohibited but before grant of licence the licensing authority is 
under a statutory obligation to ensure that thereby inter alia the provisions 
of s. 9 of the Act as also the provisions of the Rules are not violated-Any 
E provision contained in the Act aiming protection of wild animals must 
necessarily be strictly complied· with-When hunting of the birds specified in · 
Schedule-JV is prohibited, there can not be any doubt whatsoever that no 
person can be granted a licence to deal in birds in captivity which are procured 
by hunting which would also include trapping-Rule 3 clearly postulates that 
the licensing authority is not only required to c01_isider the source and the 
F manner in which the supplies for the business concerned would be obtained 
but also is required to bestow serious consideration as regards implications 
which the grant of such licence would have on the hunting or trade of wild 
animals concerned-When the licensing authority arrives at a finding of fact 
having regard to the past transactions of a licensee that it can not carry on 
G the business by reason of breeding of captive birds but necessarily therefor he 
is to hunt, the licensing authority would be justified in refusing to grant a 
licence in terms of the provisions of the Act-The licensing authority is capable 
of strictly complying with the provisions of the Act, the Rules as also the terms 
and conditions of the licence laid down therefor-Only in the event of his 
being satisfied upon considering the objective criteria laid down therefor in 
H the statute, he may issue a licence and as such it was not within the domain 
196 
CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (WILD LIFE) v. NISAR KHAN 
197 
of the High Court to issue the impugned direction-It is set aside accordingly- A 
Constitution of India-Article 226-Wild Life (Transactions and Texidermy) 
Rules, 1973. 
Ss.2(1), 2(5),2(11),2(16),2(36) and 9-'Animal', 'captive anima/s'-
'Dea/er '-'Hunting'-'Wild animal '-Dealer in birds-Term 'animal' includes 
birds-'Hunting' includes trapping of any wild animal-'Trapping' of birds B 
which comes within the purview of the meaning of the term 'hunting' is 
prohibited in terms of s.9. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDI~TION : Civil Appeal No. 5519 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.93 of the Allahabad High C 
Court in C.M.W.P.No. 36693 of 1991. 
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, (A.C.) A.K. Shrivastava, 
Y.P. Singh Ajay K. Agrawal, C. Siddharth and Sushi! Kumar Jain for the 
appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
D 
This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 27th August, 
1993 passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. 
Writ No. 36693of1991 whereby and whereunder a writ petition filed by the E 
respondent herein, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus 
directing the appellants herein to grant a licence for carrying on business as 
a dealer in birds which are bred in captivity, was allowed. 
Before the High Court, the contention of the respondent was that he 
had been dealing in birds of several varieties specified in the Schedule IV F 
appended to ·the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 (hereinafter called "the 
Act") wherefor he had applied for and had been granted a licence which was 
valid upto 31st December 1990. For renewal of the said licence for the year 
1991, he filed an application but the same had not been granted. According 
to the respondent he had mainly been dealing in Munias, Parakeets, Mainas G 
and Buntings which are found in abundance in the State of Uttar Pradesh and 
as such no prohibition can be imposed on his business in ca
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.