Samir Mathur Vs. State of A.P. and ors.

Samir Mathur vs State of A.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Feb 03, 2003

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/431633

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/431633
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: V.V.S. Rao, J.
Decided On: Feb 03, 2003
Case Number: WP No. 5781 of 1995
Subject: Environment
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Environment - seizure of wild life trophies - Section 40 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Rule 35 of Andhra Pradesh Wild Life (Protection) Rules - writ petitioner challenged action of respondent in seizing tiger skin after he made declaration under Section 40 - no notice given to petitioner before inspection ...

Key legal issue: Environment
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 40; Andhra Pradesh Wild Life (Protection) Rules - Rule 35

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Samir Mathur

Advocate Vilas K. Afzulpurkar, Adv.

Respondent

State of A.P. and ors.

Advocate Government Pleader for Forests

Legal References

Acts: Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 40; Andhra Pradesh Wild Life (Protection) Rules - Rule 35
Reported In: AIR2003AP321; 2003(2)ALD858; 2003(3)ALT47

Excerpt

.....that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the act. thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in section 2(xv) of the act. whatever products are declared as such by the government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the act. consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of the act on them it is competent for the government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [per p.s. narayana, j,(dissenting)]if livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. sections 4 & 3: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] declaration of notified area held, it is only under section 3 that government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. it is very conspicuous that section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing..........(3) the chief wild life warden or the authorised officer shall make an inventory in form no. 12 of such animals or objects found upon the premises. (4) the chief wild life warden or the authorised officer shall affix upon the objects referred to in sub-rule (3), identification marks as far as possible in indelible ink. 5. from a reading of section 40(1) of the act and rule 35 of the rules it becomes very clear that after making a declaration the authorised officer has to give notice to the declarant as to the date and time on which the officer shall enter upon the premises. after giving such notice, the warden or authorised officer has to conduct enquiry and come to a conclusion as to whether such trophy is kept illegal. in every case where the person gives declaration either under section 40(1) of the act or rule 35 of the rules, the law does not contemplate seizure of the article. be that as it may, before recording a finding that there is violation of chapter v(a), a notice as to the date of enquiry and date of inspection has to be given. the file produced from the office of the chief wild life warden does not show that any such notice was issued to the petitioner. therefore, the seizure is illegal. the articles seized from the petitioner on 4.9.1993 is illegal and cannot be sustained.6. in the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. there shall be an order for costs quantified at rs. 1,000/-.

Full Judgment

ORDER

V.V.S. Rao, J.

1. A short but interesting question as to the power of the Chief WildLife Warden to seize wild life trophies declared by a person arises for consideration in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner herein filed a declaration as required under Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, the Act), and Rule 34 of Wild Life (Protection) (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1974 (for short, the Rules) on 23.8.1993. In covering letter accompanying declaration it is stated that his father late R.R. Mathur, IAS acquired tiger skin in early 1960's and same came into possession of the petitioner. After having come to know that a declaration is required to be filed with the Chief Wild Life Warden under Section 40 of the Act, such a declaration was made. Respondents 2 and 3 came to petitioner's house on 4.9.1993 and confiscated the tiger skin in a box. Therefore, the writ petition is filed contending that the search and seizure is illegal.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by theDeputy Conservator of Forests, Wild LifeInvestigation, it is stated there was longdelay on the part of the petitioner in filingdeclaration under the Act and the Rules andthe authorities entertained a doubt as togenuineness of the tiger's skin and thereforethe same was seized. Under Section 40(1) ofthe Act every person at the commencementof the Act having control and custody orpossession of skin of any animal has to declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden giving the description of the article. Rule 34 of the Rules provide to make declaration in Form No. 2 after coming into force of the Rules. Be it also noticed under various provisions of Chapter-V(A) which is introduced by Wild Life (Protection) (Amendment) Act, 1986 trade or commerce in trophies, animals, articles etc., derived from certain animals is prohibited and under Section 50 of the Act, they are offences.

4. Rule 35 of the Rules lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Chief Wild Life Warden after receiving declaration. The same reads as under.

Rule 35. Inquiry and Preparation of Inventories :--(1) On receipt of a declaration under Rule 34, or under Sub-section (1) of Section 40 the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer shall give a notice to the person making the declaration as to the date and time on which he shall enter upon the premises of such person and such notice shall be served on the person making the declaration or sent to him by registered post.

(2) The Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer may, after making such inquiry as he may deem fit, inspect the premises and animal articles, trophies, uncured trophies, and castine animals specified in Schedule-I or Part II of Schedule II.

(3) The Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer shall make an inventory in Form No. 12 of such animals or objects found upon the premises.

(4) The Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer shall affix upon the objects referred to in Sub-rule (3), identification marks as far as possible in indelible ink.

5. From a reading of Section 40(1) of the Act and Rule 35 of the Rules it becomes very clear that after making a declaration the authorised officer has to give notice to the declarant as to the date and time on which the officer shall enter upon the premises. After giving such notice, the Warden or authorised officer has to conduct enquiry and come to a conclusion as to whether such trophy is kept illegal. In every case where the person gives declaration either under Section 40(1) of the Act or Rule 35 of the Rules, the law does not contemplate seizure of the article. Be that as it may, before recording a finding that there is violation of Chapter V(A), a notice as to the date of enquiry and date of inspection has to be given. The file produced from the office of the Chief Wild Life Warden does not show that any such notice was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the seizure is illegal. The articles seized from the petitioner on 4.9.1993 is illegal and cannot be sustained.

6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. There shall be an order for costs quantified at Rs. 1,000/-.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties Samir Mathur vs State of A.P. and ors. Same Subject Environment Same Judge V.V.S. Rao, J. Acts & Sections Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Sections 40; Andhra Prades...

Environment