IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 26.2.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P. NO. 38131 OF 2002 AND W.P.M.P. NOS. 57131 & 57132 OF 2002 G.Rajendran .. Petitioner vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary Forest Department Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Chief Wild Life Warden Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai-15. 3. The Wild Life Warden Ooty, Nilgiris District. 4. Union of India, by its Regional Dy. Director Wild Life Preservations Ministry of Environment and Forest C-2-A, Rajaji Bhawan Besant Nagar, Chennai-20. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 herein, in the case of death of elephant or any wild animal in future, to conduct post-mortem of those elephant or animal only in the presence of the 4th respondent and his Veterinarian with further direction to take all necessary suitable action agai9nst any erring forest officials. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajendran, Petitioner-in-Person For Respondents : Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, Spl.G.P. for RR-1 to 3 ORDER (ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. ) The writ petition, in public interest, was preferred by the petitioner-in-person for direction on 1st and 2nd respondents to conduct post-mortem of elephants and other animals only in presence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the 4th respondent, the Regional Deputy Director, Wildlife Preservations, Ministry of Environment and Forests, an officer of the Union of India and his Veterinarian and to take steps against erring forest officials of the State. 2. The petitioner-in-person highlighted certain facts to suggest inefficiency on the part of State Forest Officials, who do not take proper care of the elephants and other animals. According to him, on 29th Sept., 2002, in the evening, he received a telephonic message that some anti-social elements were illegally strolling away male elephants with babies for making use of "Tusk" and forcibly carried away a baby elephant. The locals chased away those miscreants, who escaped after throwing away the baby elephant near Masinagudi Check Post. The baby elephant was four months old and required milk feeding, but no follow-up action was taken by State Forest Officials to reunite the baby elephant with the herds for three days. The 3rd respondent and his subordinates took no responsibility of follow-up action, which resulted in desertion of baby elephant, who wandered without milk here and there and, ultimately, collapsed due to starvation. In another incident, an elephant, which was under the captivity of the 3rd respondent, died due to negligence, which can be proved beyond doubt. Though the 3rd respondent was knowing about the injury of a female elephant due to snooze on the left leg and was wandering near the road side of Masinagudi village, but his subordinate officers caught the elephant on 3rd Sept., 2002, removed the snooze and gave sedative injection to the elephant. Due to overdose of sedative medicine, the elephant died as reported in the newspaper "The Hindu" on 5th Sept., 2002. Further case of the petitioner is that though his men asked the wildlife warden not to give excess dosage, which may harm the elephant and also supplied imported medicine to save the elephants in case of danger to its life, but the doctors and warden refused to take assistance of petitioner or his men. The medicine given to elephants is "Xylazine", but no antidotes are kept for emergency, if excess does is given. Many of the times it causes harm to the elephants. It is in this background it was submitted that post- mortem should be conducted only in the presence of the 4th respondent so that the truth may come to the light of the people. 3. The 3rd respondent, in its counter affidavit, denied the allegations. According to the 3rd respondent, on receipt of information about the stray wild elephant calf in an estate about 1.00 p.m. on 26th Sept., 2002, the Ranger and his subordinates rushed to Sathyakumar Estate area and found the elephant calf entangled in a swamp area. Swelling was noticed on the jaw and right leg of the elephant calf. The animal was not able to swallow food and water. The subordinate staff were posted there to watch the animal and the Ranger rushed to Theppakadu to bring the forest Veterinary Doctor; since the Forest Veterinarian was away at Bandipur for training, the range staff attempted to feed the animal, but the animal was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ responding due to swelling in the jaws and the elephant calf died around 1.00 a.m. on the same day. Post-mortem was conducted on 29th Sept., 2002 and the cause of death was diagnosed as starvation and dehydration due to tooth infection. The other allegation has also been denied by respondents 2 and 3, who have stated that no such incident took place on 3rd Sept., 2002 as alleged by the petitioner and reported in the newspaper, "The Hindu" on 5th Oct., 2002. In the said report it is not stated that any elephant calf died of overdoes of sedatives. According to counsel for the respondent, the petitioner should have verified the correct status before making any allegation against the officers of the forest department. 4. We have heard the petitioner-in-person and counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. From the submission made by the parties, it will be evident that the State Government is conducting post-mortem on the death of elephant and other protected animals. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any rule or guideline issued by any competent authority that post-mortem should be conducted by the State authorities in presence of the officers of the Central Government. In absence of such guideline, no such direction can be issued as prayed for by the petitioner, which otherwise will amount to laying down a policy, which this Court is not supposed to lay down under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petitioner submitted that atleast post-mortem should be done in presence of some independent person or any Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO). In case of negligence on the part of the State Forest Officials, correct position may be reflected in the post- mortem report. But such submission cannot be accepted as it cannot be presumed that in case of negligence of duty, the Veterinarian of the State will not submit a correct post-mortem report. If the petitioner wants that NGO's should be involved in the matter for assisting the State officials at the time of post-mortem of elephant or other protected animals, he may approach the State and the State, in its turn, may allow the same. 6. In view of our observation aforesaid, no further order required to be passed in the present case. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. But there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sub Asst. Registrar. CS/GLN To 1. The Secretary Forest Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Chief Wild Life Warden Panagal Building Saidapet, Chennai-15. 3. The Wild Life Warden Ooty, Nilgiris District. 4. The Regional Dy. Director Wild Life Preservations Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India C-2-A, Rajaji Bhawan Besant Nagar, Chennai-20. + 1 CC to the Special Government Pleader SR NO.10319 W.P. NO. 38131 OF 2002 PUR(CO) JJM(10/03/08) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/