IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21630 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.V.RAGHAVAN, PRESIDENT, PARASSINIKADVU SNAKE PARTK, A UNIT OF PAPPINISSERI VISHACHIKILSA SOCIETY, PARASSINIKKADAVU P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST & WILD LIFE (WILD LIFE-I SECTION ) PARAYAVARAM BHAVAN, PHASE II, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CENTRAL ZOO AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER -S ECRETARY, BIKANER HOUSE, ANNEX -VI, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).21630/2009 ....................... Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General. 2. Petitioner is the President of the Parassinikadavu Snake Park. It seems that it is a Unit of the Parassinikkadavu Visha Chikilsa Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act. The society started out as an institution to give treatment to those persons in the area, who were afflicted by snake bite. Thus it became necessary to have a place to house those reptiles. Apparently there came into being a Park as a habitat for the snakes. Slowly other animals also came to be housed in the park. Officials of the Forest Department who came across wild animals also started entrusting those animals at the park because there was no other place which could form a reasonably safe habitat for such wild animals. Therefore, the snake park came to be recognized as a Zoo and this is evidenced by Ext.P1. W.P.(C).21630/09 2 Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a letter to the 2nd respondent on 13.3.2008 stating that the committee of the 2nd respondent had granted a conditional recognition to the Parassinikkadavu Snake Park and one of the conditions stipulated therein was that the Forest and Wildlife Department should shift all animals other than snakes. According to the petitioner, thereafter, many wild animals which the officials in the Department had come across in that area were entrusted to the officials of the petitioner's Park taking note of the facilities being provided. 3. Petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation for changing this condition. The matter had reached this Court in W.P.(C).30816/2008 which was disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take a decision thereon and a hearing was conducted. The Director of Zoo submitted Ext.P5, reiterating a request to grant recognition to the Parassinikkadavu Snake Park as a Zoo. By Ext.P9, an order was passed by the 2nd respondent W.P.(C).21630/09 3 again directing that all the animals other than the snakes be removed. This is challenged by the petitioner under Ext.P10 statutory appeal under Section 38(H)(7) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. In the meanwhile, show cause notice, Ext.P12, has been issued alleging non compliance of Ext.P9. Hence the writ petition. 4. I heard learned counsel on both sides and I have gone through the averments in the writ petition. 5. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 appeal after hearing a representative of the petitioner also within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 shall be kept in abeyance pending a decision on Ext.P10. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs