IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9491 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N.G. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. NANDILATH GOVINDAN, NANDILATH HOUSE, 19/187, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 004. BY ADV. MR.ANIL SIVARAMAN, MR.ROBSON PAUL. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS & CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. PAMMEKKAVU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.M. PAULOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 9491/2009-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2 & P2(a): COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22/12/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT DATED 09/01/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DECLARATION IN FORM 13. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION U/S 40. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN N.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN AND PARAMEKKAVU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE DATED 07/10/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE APPLICATIION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20/12/2005 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/12/2005 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22/12/2005 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE GIFT DEED. EXT.R2(e): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(f): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/05/2006 ADDRESSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(g): COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 08/01/2006. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 9491 of 2009-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner had offered to the third respondent Temple two elephants by way of Nadayirithu. One of them was by name “Nandilath Gopalakrishnan”, but in the meanwhile, the said Gopalakrishnan expired due to natural causes, on 8.1.2006, before completing the dedication ceremony. 2. The present writ petition relates to the claim of the petitioner for legal custody of the tusks of the deceased elephant. By Ext.P7, his claim was rejected by the first respondent and accordingly the second respondent has been directed to take custody of the tusk of the deceased elephant. The Devaswom had also claimed the ownership of the tusks. 3. Going by Ext.P7, the stand taken is that the elephant was gifted to the Paramekavu Devaswom as per the gift deed dated 23.12.2005, the Devaswom had already declared the possession of the said elephant after complying with all the legal formalities provided under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Therefore, the petitioner has no right over the animal from 23.12.2005. Before the ownership certificate could be issued, wpc9491 /2009 2 the elephant expired also. 4. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit in support of the order impugned. 5. Along with I.A. No.3645/2010, the petitioner has produced Ext.P8 memorandum of settlement entered into between the petitioner and the Devaswom. The terms of the settlement shows that the dispute between the petitioner and the Devaswom regarding the custody of the tusk and the insurance amount, have been settled amicably. According to the terms of the settlement, the Devaswom has agreed that the petitioner herein will have the full ownership and claim over the tusks of the deceased male elephant of which he is having ownership certificate. He is also having the rights regarding the insurance amount due. The Devaswom will not have any claim regarding the tusks and the insurance amount also. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of Ext.P8, a direction may be issued to the first respondent to reconsider the matter. It is further pointed out that Ext.P7 order was issued without hearing the petitioner. 7. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P7 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the first respondent to take a fresh decision in the light of the settlement between the parties, with notice to the petitioner and the wpc9491 /2009 3 third respondent Devaswom and after hearing them, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce the original of Ext.P8 before the first respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/