Ownership Of Wildlife Animal Article Shall Vest In Government If Declaration Of Ownership Is Not Made Within Time- SC

The Supreme Court while affirming the view taken by the Division Bench of Kerela High Court has held that, if a person holding/owning wildlife stock has failed to make any application within the stipulated time to declare the wildlife stock, then the ownership of such wildlife animal article shall vest in the government/forest department.

In a recent judgment authored and pronounced by Justice M.R. Shah of which Justice Manoj Misra was also a part observed, "Thus, nobody can plead any ignorance and/or nobody can plead that he had no knowledge to make such declaration and/or application for ownership certificate and that too, within a period of 180 days as per Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003. Therefore, once a person in control, custody or possession of any wildlife animal or wildlife animal article, fails to file such declaration and/or fails to make any application within the stipulated time mentioned in Rule 4(2) Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 then the bar/rigour under Section 40 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 shall be applicable and the ownership of such wildlife animal article of which the declaration is not made shall vest in the Government/forest department".

The Bench said that "In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly observed that the application submitted by the appellant herein which was made beyond the period prescribed under Rule 4(2) was liable to be rejected and was rightly rejected by the appropriate authority/Chief Wild Life Warden."

Advocate Lakshmeesh S. Kamath appeared for the petitioner while Advocate Abraham C. Mathew appeared for the Respondents before the Court.

Brief Facts:

The petitioner had filed an application/declaration on May 25, 2011, which was beyond the stipulated time in respect of the deer horn found in her house wherein the stipulated time mentioned in Rule 4(2) of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 was of 180 days to file the application/declaration expired on October 18, 2003, which resulted in the authorised authority refusing to issue ownership certificate in respect of the deer horn found from her house.

The appellant/petitioner preferred writ petition before the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by directing the Chief Wild Life Warden to consider whether time has been relaxed in any case for the purpose of granting the certificate of ownership and if so, under what circumstances, and if it is found that time has been relaxed in any case, consider the representation made on behalf of the appellant also in that background.

The order passed by the single judge was impugned before the Divison Bench Kerala High Court in which the Division Bench allowed the said appeal by observing that the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003 cannot be relaxed and/or the period cannot be extended. Consequently, the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order passed by the Single Judge.

Aggrieved with the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench the petitioner approached before the Supreme Court.

Court Held:

Considering the submissions the Supreme Court held that "Looking to the object and purpose of Sections 40 and 40A and the object and purpose for which Rules, 2003 has been enacted the period of 180 days prescribed under Rule 4(2) has to be construed and considered as mandatory, otherwise the object and purpose of the Act, 1972 and the Rules, 2003 shall be frustrated".

The Court while referring to Rule 3 of the Rules, 2003 which says that the "Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by the State Government was duty bound to give wide publicity to the intent of this notification in the regional language through electronic or print media or such other means" held that "Thus, nobody can plead any ignorance and/or nobody can plead that he had no knowledge to make such declaration and/or application for ownership certificate and that too, within a period of 180 days as per Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003. Therefore, once a person in control, custody or possession of any wildlife animal or wildlife animal article, fails to file such declaration and/or fails to make any application within the stipulated time mentioned in Rule 4(2) then the bar/rigour under Section 40 shall be applicable and the ownership of such wildlife animal article of which the declaration is not made shall vest in the Government/forest department."

Further, on the aspect of the rule being directory or mandatory the Court held that "Even otherwise, in view of the discussions hereinabove, we are not in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the period prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003 is directory".

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title- VISHALAKSHI AMMA V. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Click here to read/download the Judgment