1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1240 OF 2008. Shri Prakash s/o Tatoba Bansod .vs. The State of Mah. & others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. N.A. Padhye, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for petitioner, Mr. A.G. Mujumdar, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 & 6. Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 5, 8 & 9. Mr. S.P. Pawar, Advocate for respondent no.7. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2010. By this petition, the petitioner has questioned the killing of a tiger near Tadoba Wildlife Sanctuary. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner is that though an order was passed under Section 11 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, by which permission was granted to hunt a tigress, the authorities have actually killed a tiger and the entire action of killing an innocent animal who was not responsible for killing any human being is totally arbitrary. 2] The background of the case is that in the vicinity 2 of the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve there were reports of killing of human beings by a tiger. In the year 2005-06, the number of deaths was two and that figure increased to nine in 2007-08. In the month of October, 2007 within a span of six days from 15.10.2007 to 21.10.2007, two persons were injured and three were killed, the third being killed by a tiger on 21.10.2007. 3] Preliminary investigations revealed that these injuries and deaths were caused by a tigress. Naturally there were more than one tiger or tigress in the area when the human beings were killed. Eventually, after attempts to trap the tigress failed, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bramhapuri Division addressed a letter to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), M.S. Nagpur seeking permission to kill the animal which was believed to be a tigress. The letter reported that a tigress was found to be living in the area of Sonapur, Nanded and Kachhepar of Govindpur round of Talodhi range and had killed 3 human beings and injured two others during 15.10.2007 to 21.10.2007. Acting on this letter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in exercise of powers conferred on him by Section 11(1)(a) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 authorized the Dy. Conservator of Forest, Bramhapuri Forest Division to arrange for a tigress to be shot with the 3 help of the Police Department. Section 11(1)(a), to the extent it is relevant, reads as follows :- “S.11(1)(a) : the Chief Wild Life Warden may, if he is satisfied that any wild animal specified in Schedule I has become dangerous to human life or is so disabled or diseased as to be beyond recovery, by order in writing and stating the reasons therefor, permit any person to hunt such animal or cause such animal to be hunted. ..........” Thereafter camera traps were laid and eventually on 30.11.2007 a tiger was shot. This has given rise to the petition. 4] Shri N.A. Padhye, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the authorities formed an opinion that the offending animal liable to be hunted was a tigress and, therefore, they have acted arbitrarily and recklessly in shooting a tiger. 5] It was, however, contended on behalf of the authorities by Shri S.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel that the order authorizing the killing of a tigress was passed because it was genuinely believed that the animal was a tigress. This opinion was formed on the basis of pug-marks. The learned Counsel further submitted that the identification 4 of gender from pug-marks can be accurate to the extent of about 70-80% but there is always a margin of error and the assessment can be wrong. According to the learned Counsel, however, care was taken to trap the animal before it was shot and the animal that was shot was the very animal which was responsible for the injuring and killing of human beings and that animal turned out to be a tiger. The learned Counsel also relied on a photograph of one analyst Shri Harshvardhan Dhanwate, who certified that the animal that was shot was the offending animal and was a tiger. More importantly, the learned Counsel has relied on the affidavits of villagers who were present when the tiger attacked human beings. One of the affidavits is of a person who himself was the victim of the attack. In all these affidavits, the deponents have clearly stated that they were attacked by a male tiger and that they were called to identify the animal after it was shot and it was the same male tiger that had attacked them or their companions. 6] In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the petition any further. The impugned action cannot be considered to be arbitrary or reckless because in the order the animal was described as a tigress and not a tiger. Needless to say, however, that the Section casts a heavy responsibility on the officer forming an opinion that a 5 particular wild animal should be allowed to be hunted and such an opinion must always be formed on the basis of good, cogent and reliable evidence and care must be taken to ensure that the offending animal alone is identified and hunted. 7] Hence, the petition is dismissed. Judge Judge J.