IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19922 of 2011(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER. ----------------------------------- M.D.RAVI, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, ATHIRA, THEVALLI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILDLIFE, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 001. 2. CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN, FOREST HEADQUARTERS,VAZHUTHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM-695 001. 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PUNALOOR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 305. 4. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PATHANAPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA- PIN-689 695. 5. FOREST RANGE OFFICER,RANNY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 672. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.19922/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP DTD. 3.10.2006 ISSUED BY THE CONSERVATOR OF THE FOREST, EASTERN CIRCLE, JORHAT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26.3.2007 DTD. 26.3.2007 ISSUED BY THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, JORHAT. P3:- COPY OF THE PERMISSION ISSUED BY THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST BIHAR DTD. 11.5.2007. P4:- COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DTD. 8.45.2007. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 2.6.2008 ISSUED BY OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI TO THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER. P6:- COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 3.9.2010 OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER. P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, RANNY DATED. 19.7.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R5(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.V.E4-5977/11 DTD. 5.7.2011 OF THE ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, VIGILANCE, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. R5(b):- COPY OF THE FORM I REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RANNI IN OR 11/2011. R5(c):- COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DTD. 19.7.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RANNI. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).19922/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The controversy in this writ petition pertains to an elephant by name 'Joy Prasad @ Keethana Karthik'. Ext.P1 is the certificate of ownership issued by the Conservator of Forest, Eastern Circle, Jorhat, which contains the microchip No. of the elephant in question. 2. On the basis of Exts.P2 and P3, the elephant in question was permitted to be transported from Assam to Bihar and from Bihar to Kanyakumari. Subsequently the elephant was brought to Kerala and it was thereafter, the petitioner claims to have acquired the possession of the elephant. Later, the power of attorney holder of the owner, who brought the elephant to Kerala, intimated the matter to the third respondent. Ext.P6 is the report submitted by the Forest Range Officer, Pathanapuram, the fourth respondent to the third respondent concerning the elephant in question. 3. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the report made W.P.(C).19922/11 2 under Section 43(2) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, proceedings are now pending before the second respondent. In the meanwhile, respondents 4 and 5 issued Ext.P7 notice to the petitioner, restraining movement of the elephant. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed with the prayers as follows:- (i). Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with the custody of the elephant by the petitioner covered by Ext.P1. (ii). Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 within such time as may be fixed by this Honourable Court and grant written permission to the petitioner of the elephant covered by Ext.P1. 4. According to the respondents, the very transportation of the elephant in question to Kerala and all further action thereafter are against the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, and hence the impugned action. W.P.(C).19922/11 3 5. Irrespective of the contentions raised by the respondents, fact remains that according to the petitioner, the proceedings are pending before the second respondent. Therefore, at this stage, I feel that it is for the second respondent to finalise the proceedings, with notice to the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the second respondent shall finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 with notice to the petitioner and without any delay. It is directed that in the meanwhile, the petitioner will be permitted to retain possession of the elephant in question, but shall not part with the same. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs