Letters Patent Appeal No.915 OF 2001 ----- Against order dated 21st August, 2001 passed in C.W.J.C.No.8324 of 2001 ----- M/S AJANTA CIRCUS, 89/3, Ripon Street, Calcutta- 16(W.B.), A/P Harding Park, P.S.Kotwali, District- Patna, through Khandaker Abu Salman, Manager -----------Appellant Versus 1.Union of India through Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Lodi Road, New Delhi. 2.The State of Bihar, through Secretary, Department of Forest, Bihar, Patna 3.The Additional Director, General Forest (Wild Life) Pariyaya Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi 4.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest -cum- Chief Wild Life Warden, Bihar, Patna 5.The Director, Sanjay Gandhi Biological Park, Patna 6.The District Magistrate, Patna -----------Respondents ----- For the Appellant : M/s Badri Narayan Singh and Kumar Gaurav,Adv. For the State : Mr.Kaushal Kr.Jha, S.C.18 and Mr.Baidyanath Thakur, J.C. to S.C.18 For Union of India : Mr.Pradeep Narain,Adv. ----- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH Shivakirti Singh & Jayanandan Singh,JJ: Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant had preferred a writ petition before this Court making a prayer to quash an order dated 23rd June, 2001, whereby the Director, Sanjay Gandhi Biological Park, Patna in continuation of his earlier letters directed the - 2 - writ petitioner to hand over the lions, tigers, panthers, bears and monkeys to the designated Rescue Centres mentioned in D.O. letter dated 18th May, 2001 of the Additional Director General of Forest (Wild Life), Government of India. The appellant had also sought direction against the respondents for payment of cost of such animals and also for a direction to respondent no.3, the Additional Director General of Forest (Wild Life), Government of India to pay the cost of Rs.15,000/- per day from 23.6.2001, the date when the show of the said animals was stopped till 31st August, 2001. 3. The writ Court declined to interfere with the orders directing the appellant to hand over the animals mentioned above. In respect of claim for payment of compensation, the writ Court took the view that as per letter of the Principal Secretary of the Central Zoo Authority (Annexure- 9) the final view on payment of compensation had not been taken and hence the Court refrained from expressing any view on the said question. Liberty was granted to the petitioner that he may pursue the said matter before the authority concerned. 4. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that as a fact the appellant had imported certain lions from Africa and the restriction imposed by a notification putting restriction on exhibition and training of lions - 3 - and four other species of animals should not be read to include African Lions because such notification is under an Indian Act i.e. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. On going through the provisions of section 22 of the aforesaid Act and the relevant notifications, we find no merit in the aforesaid submission. The power given to the State covers any animal without any reference to its origin. 5. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that inspite of liberty granted by the writ Court and representation filed by the appellant, the concerned authorities have not intimated any decision in respect of claim of compensation which, according to the Principal Secretary of the Central Zoo Authority, was pending for decision. 6. Admittedly, a contempt petition in relation to the said issue has been filed by the appellant. The enforcement to any relief flowing from the impugned judgment and order may be dealt with in the pending contempt or through appropriate proceeding. It will not be proper to take up such a matter in this Letters Patent Appeal preferred against judgment and order of the writ Court. On merits, this Court does not find good ground to interfere with the judgment and order of the writ Court. The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. If the authorities have not decided as - 4 - yet on the pending matter relating to claim of the appellant for compensation, they should do so expeditiously. It goes without saying that for violation of the order of the writ Court the appellant will always have right to seek relief through an appropriate proceeding. (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Jayanandan Singh, J.) Patna High Court The 23rd January, 2009 A.F.R./ Pradeep.