LexREGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR versus ZAVARAY S. POONAWALA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 381 REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. ZAVARAY S. POONAWALA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7130 of 2003) MARCH 26, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] A B Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Schedule I - c Protection of prohibited species - Stuffed leopard - Respondent seeking permission to import into India a trophy of one stuffed leopard - Refusal of permission by CITES - However, High Court holding that the authorities which were required to give permission had accorded due D permission to respondent and as such CITES had no locus to entertain the application or to reject it - Sustainability of - Held: Not sustainable - Conditions mentioned in the approval granted by the DGFT as well as Chief Wildlife Warden, were not met by respondent - In the absence E thereof it cannot be treated that there were any proper or valid approval/permission given by DGFT or by Chief Wildlife Warden to enable the respondent to import the trophy of stuffed leopard into India - Further, before import of any specimen of species included in Appendix I, prior F import permit of Scientific Authority and Management Authority is required and before such f} permit is given, the opinion of Scientific Authority as well as the Management Authority on particular aspects is required, which was not G obtained - Convention of International Trade on Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) - Arts I, fl, /II and Appendix /. 381 H 382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 Apart from many conditions imposed by DGFT and Chief Wildlife Warden, the most material condition, which has been ignored by the High Court, B was that those permissions were subject to the approval of the CITES and insofar as the CITES is concerned, it had not given any permission. On the contrary it had first issued letter dated 1.11.2002 which was treated as the show cause notice and thereafter, it C passed the order dated 17 .1.2003 specifically refusing the permission. Thus, the conditions mentioned in the approval granted by the DGFT as well as Chief Wildlife Warden, were not met by respondent no.1 and in the absence thereof it cannot be treated that there were D any proper or valid approval/permission given by the DGFT or by the Chief Wildlife Warden which could enable respondent no.1 to import the aforesaid item into this country. [Para 11] [388-D-G] E 1.2 Before import of any specimen of species included in appendix I, prior import permit of Scientific Authority and Management Authority is required and before such a permit i~ given, the opinion of Scientific Authority as well as the Management Authority on F particular aspects is required. The Scientific Authority would look into the matter from two angles, namely, that the import is not detrimental to the survival of the species involved and further the proposed recipient is suitably equipped of house and care for it. The G Management Authority is to satisfy itself that the specimen is not to be used for primary commercial purposes. [Para 30] [397-A-D] 1.3. The High Court while observing that the only H function of the Management Authority was to ensure REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR v. ZAVARAY S. 383 POONAWALA & ORS. that 'specimen' is not to be used for commercial A purpose looked into the function of Management Authority alone. Error is committed by glossing over the function of the Scientific Authority. This resulted in passing the impugned directions which are clearly erroneous. Matter is to be placed before the Scientific B Authority and it is this Authority which has to form an opinion as to whether the import will or will not be detrimental to the survival of the species involved. This becomes extremely important to carry out the objects of the said conventions read with the fundamental C principles stipulated in Article II thereof. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, is not sustainable. The judgment of the High Court is set aside for the same reason. The order of 17.1.2003 passed by the CITES, 0 Order dated 16.5.2002 as well as show cause notice dated 27.11.2002 given by the Custom Authority under Section 124 of the Customs Act is set aside. After the High Court had pronounced the judgment, respondent no.1 got the said item cleared from the Customs and is E in possession thereof as of now. In such circumstances, appropriate course of action would be to permit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.