VISHALAKSHI AMMA versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 1081 · Decided: 17-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1081
VISHALAKSHI AMMA
v.
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1720 of 2023)
MARCH 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
Wildlife (Protection Act), 1972: ss. 40, 40A – Time for
declaration of custody or possession of any captive animal or animal
article – Relaxation of – On facts, the appellant filed the application/
declaration on 25.05.2011 much beyond the prescribed period –
Refusal of the authorised authority to issue ownership certificate
in respect of the deer horn found from the house of the appellant
which was in custody and possession of the appellant on the ground
of delay in the application/declaration – Writ petition by the
appellant – Single Judge directed the Chief Wild Life Warden to
consider whether time has been relaxed in any case for the purpose
of granting the certificate of ownership – Division Bench set aside
the order passed by the Single Judge holding that the time limit
prescribed u/r. 4(2) cannot be relaxed and/or extended – Interference
with – Held: Not called for – Period of 180 days prescribed u/r.
4(2) has to be construed and considered as mandatory – Nobody
can plead any ignorance or that he had no knowledge to make
such declaration/application for ownership certificate – Thus, once
a person in control, custody or possession of any wildlife animal or
wildlife animal article, fails to file such declaration/application within
the stipulated time mentioned in r. 4(2) then the bar/rigour u/s.40
would be applicable and the ownership of such wildlife animal
article of which the declaration is not made shall vest in the
Government/forest department – Division Bench rightly held that
the application submitted by the appellant was made beyond the
period prescribed u/r. 4(2) and was rightly rejected by the
appropriate authority/Chief Wild Life Warden – Wild Life Stock
Rules, 2003.
C. D. Gopinath v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
2010 SCC Online Mad 2851 - referred to.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 1081
1081
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1720
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.05.2020 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA No. 109 of 2020.
Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, Ms. Samriti Ahuja, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Abraham C. Mathew, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Mrs. Anu K Joy,
Alim Anvar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 29.05.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 109/2020, by which,
the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said appeal
preferred by the State of Kerala and others - respondent(s) herein and
has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4772/2019, by which the learned Single
Judge disposed of the said writ petition by directing the appellants herein
to consider the declaration made by the original writ petitioner under
Rule 11 of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 (hereinafter
referred to as the Rules, 2003) by relaxing the time to file such a
declaration in case the time is relaxed in any other case, the original writ
petitioner has preferred the present appeal.
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as
under: -
2.1 Under Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1972), every person having at the
commencement of this Act the control, custody or possession of any
captive animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or animal
article… or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, shall,
within thirty days from the commencement of this Act, declare to the
Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer the number and
description of the animal, or article of the foregoing description under his
control, custody or possession and the place where such animal or article
is kept. As per sub-section (2) of Section 40, no person shall, after the
commencement of this Act, 1972, acquire, receive, keep in his control,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1083
custody or possession, the animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of
Schedule II or any animal article including the deer horn, except with the
previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the
authorised officer. However, Section 40A of the Act, 1972, is an exception
and gives immunity in certain case
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.