Wildlife Protection Society of India vs Union of India (UOI)

Manmohan Sarin, J.—Rule.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

Wildlife Protection Society of India has filed the present writ petition, seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hear and determine the applications/declarations of the traders, filed u/s 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act within such period as the Court may deem just and proper.

Notice in the writ petition was issued on 20.9.1999. Petitioner''s grievance from the beginning is that there is an inordinate delay in deciding the applications/declarations of the traders, filed u/s 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. This is resulting in the traders continuing to hold the stocks of ivory, which is otherwise prohibited. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association and Other Vs. Union of India and Others, and G.R. Simon Vs. Union of India, .

During the course of proceedings, certain difficulties have been pointed out by the respondent with regard to storage of the ivory. It was stated that the Articles were shifted from Tis Hazari to Kamla Nehru Ridge, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. Certain difficulties with regard to the security arrangements had also arisen. This Court gave directions from time to time to the concerned functionaries. As a result, the impasse with regard to space and security appears to be sorted out. NCT of Delhi has taken a decision that the guards from the Forest Departments would provide security and if required, home guards could be called in addition. Further, additional space, if required, will be requisitioned by the concerned departments from PWD and GAD.

Mr. V.K.Shali, at this stage, submits that the time frame may be fixed for disposal of the applications u/s 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. It is stated that out of 134 applications, 67 applications have been disposed of. There may not be any difficulty in fixing a reasonable time for disposal of the applications. These applications have been pending since 1992. There is merit in Mr. Panjwani''s submission that the stocks of the ivory ought to be taken possession of and placed in safe custody with the respondent while the applications are processed and dealt with.

I find that the Supreme Court had disposed of IA.No. 5 in Civil Appeal No. 7533/97 in the case of Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., with the following directions:-

"Respondent authorities are directed to conclude the inquiry u/s 49(C) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. They shall keep the imported ivory Articles with them after making a proper inventory and taking photographs of the same. The imported ivory Articles shall not be destroyed till the disposal of appeals by this Court.

IA stands disposed of."

While it is true that the aforesaid Order dealt with imported ivory, it would make no difference whether the ivory was imported or of Indian origin, as far as taking it into custody is concerned. Let the Chief Wildlife Warden take into custody the stocks of ivory in question within 8 weeks from today and applications u/s 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act be disposed of within 12 weeks from today.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

A copy of this Order be given dusty to counsel for the parties.