Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 18 declaration of sanctuary Page 9 of about 7,149 results (0.253 seconds)

J.K. Johnson and ors. Vs. Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and o ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2005(4)ALD61; 2005(3)ALT533; 2006CriLJ1480

..... crime report and the seizure panchanama, discloses that, prima facie, the petitioners were suspected to have committed the said crime, which is serious in nature, under wild life (protection) act. it is also to be observed that the respondents without making any enquiry and without stating anything whether the offence committed by the petitioners relates to such offence, ..... rabbits along with 2 riffles were seized under the cover of panchanama. then, he registered a case in crime no. 43 of 2004 under section 9 of wild life (protection) act, 1972. the jeep was not at all seized under the cover of panchanama. but what was seized are only the carcass of the forest pig and 3 ..... compensation of rs. 25,000/-, forfeited the vehicle jeep no. ap 12 d 703 and two riffles of the petitioners to the state under section 39 of wild life (protection) act, 1972 and the third petitioner, who is the owner of the said vehicle, was informed that the said vehicle has been forfeited to the government vide .....

State of M.P. Vs. Sayed Yahya Ali

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ791

..... of section 50 to ensure that the vehicle which has been seized should not be returned to the accused. in contrast with the provisions of wild life (protection) act, the forest act does not contain a similar provision that the vehicle involved in the offence should be treated as the property of the government. the only power ..... the respondent but not otherwise. the learned judges of the division bench in the aforesaid matter dealt with the provisions of the indian forest act but not under the wild life (protection) act. the very purpose of carrying out the amendment making the seized vehicle as the property of the government, would be defeated by directing ..... as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the question of confiscation arises only after trial. the provisions of the wild life (protection) act being different from the provisions of the indian forest act, the observation of the learned judges of the division bench will not have application to the facts of this case.5. .....

State of Kerala and anr. Vs. P.V. Mathew (Dead) by Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... exclusion of ivory within the ambit of forest produce. further, after the amendment of the expression forest produce under section 2(f) of the act consequent to the enactment of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 it could not be said that ivory is a forest produce or that possession and transportation of ivory without valid authority is an offence ..... the sake of repetition, we reiterate that the definition of forest produce in section2(f) does not include any part of living or dead wild animals which is being taken care of by the wild life (protection) act, 1972. in view of the same, the interpretation and the argument of the learned counsel for the state cannot be accepted.8. ..... the district court as well as the high court and we are in entire agreement with the same. inasmuch as the provisions of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 take care of wild animals skins, tusks, horns, bones, honey, wax and other parts or produce of animals, in the absence of specific charge under the said .....

Mumtaj S/O Peer Bux (In Jail) Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2000CriLJ4497

orderb.k. rathi, j. 1. the applicant mumtaj has applied for bail for offences under section 49(b)/51 wild life protection act, 1972 (van jeejv sanrakshan adhiniyam), under section 10/15 prevention of cruelty to animals act, 1960 and sections 429 and 411, i.p.c.2. i have heard sri g.s. chaturvedi, senior advocate for the applicant and sri girdhar nath, learned counsel ..... for the c.b.i, and sri a.k. tripathi, learned standing counsel for wild life protection society, new delhi.3. according to the prosecution, on .....

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1996SC2715; JT1996(7)SC375; 1995(5)SCALE592; (1996)5SCC647; [1996]Supp5SCR241

..... an industry, process or operation proposed to be prohibited or restricted.(viii) proximity to a protected area under the ancient monuments and archaeological sites and remains act, 1958 or a sanctuary, national park, game reserve or closed area notified, as such under the wild life (protection) act, 1972, or places protected under any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or in pursuance of ..... any decision made in any international conference, association or other body.(ix) proximity to human settlements.(x) any other factors as may be considered by the central government to be relevant to the protection of the environment in .....

P.G. Narayanan Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by the Secretary, Mi ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2005(3)CTC582; (2005)3MLJ210; [2005]62SCL586(Mad)

..... is not interested in a case, a public interest litigation would not ordinarily be entertained'. in [chief forest conservator (wild life) v. nisar khan], the question related to the grant of license under the wild life (protection) act, 1972. the supreme court spelt out the scope of writ jurisdiction in matters such as these. it was held therein ..... constitution of india.the court will not ordinarily transgress into a policy. it shall also take utmost care not to transgress its jurisdiction while purporting to protect the rights of the people from being violated.xi) ordinarily, the high court should not entertain a writ petition by way of public interest litigation questioning ..... who is in a disadvantaged position and, thus, not in a position to knock the doors of the court. the court is constitutionally bound to protect the fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to direct the state to fulfil its constitutional promises.ii) issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental .....

Pranab Kumar Roy Vs. State and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 2004(3)CHN661

..... registered.2. the following facts are not in dispute.3. the assistant wild life warden, wild life division no. 1, port blair filed a petition under section 50(4) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 before the court of chief judicial magistrate, port blair, thereby indicating the petitioner for violation of the provisions of wild life (protection) act, 1972 on the allegation that he was unlawfully carrying/transporting some of the ..... schedule i wild life articles.4. by the said application, the complainant prayed for keeping on record .....

Jaladhar Chakma and Etc. Etc. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, Miz ...

Court : Guwahati

..... of the impugned orders with their hearths and home and also having cultivable lands. the impugned orders were purported to have been made under the provisions of the wild life sanctuary (protection) act 1972 (for short 'the act') under which there may be a declaration of sanctuary by virtue of the provision of section 18 of the ..... : 'no. tpb. 9/79-80/40 dated tuipuibari, the 13th october, 1980. tothe secretary,village council, tuipuibari i/ tuipuibari ii.sub : eviction of villagers within the dampa wild life sanctuary. as per the deputy commissioner, aizawl's letter no. aam.20/79-80/249 of 26-9-80 it is hereby ordered that (it is) time for shifting of ..... is found out from the records that under section 18 of the act a notification has been issued on 20th jan. 1976 by the development commissioner. ex-officio secretary to the govt. of mizoram declaring the area given in that notification as dampa wild life sanctuary. section 18 requires that such a declaration is to be made by a notification. .....

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC4256; (2005)6CompLJ158(SC); JT2005(8)SC588; (2006)1SCC1

..... ) the funds received from the user-agencies in cases where forest land diverted falls within protected areas i.e. area notified under section 18, 26a or 35 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, for undertaking activities related to protection of bio- diversity, wildlife, etc., shall also be deposited in this fund. such ..... monies shall be used exclusively for undertaking protection and conservation activities in protected areas of the respective state/ut;(d) the amount ..... of harmful chemicals in the ambient atmosphere and in food chains, growing risks of environmental accidents and threats to life support system, the environment (protection) act, 1986 (for short, the 'ep act') has been enacted. it has been noted in the statement of objects and reasons that although there are existing .....

Satish Ravilal Shah Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1999CriLJ727

..... 11-10-1998, police station, mathania under sections 147, 148 r/w 149 & 201, ipc, sections 9, 39, 51 & 52, wild life (protection) act, 1972 and 27 arms act.2. the brief facts are that wild life conservator,. jodhpur, sent a written report on 11-10-98 that a case fir no. 93 (26) dated 2-10-1998 is under ..... also forwarded the copy of the statement. a case was registered under sections 147, 148 read with 149 & 201, ipc and sections 9, 39, 51 & 52 wild life (protection) act, 1972 at police station, mathania. the petitioners apprehend their arrest in this case. hence, they have moved bail applications.3. harish dulani has disclosed in his statement ..... true facts and an attempt has been made to falsely implicate the petitioner. it was vehemently argued that no court can take cognizance of any offence against wild life (protection) act, 1972 except on the complaint of the persons mentioned in section 55 and the police officer authorised by the state government.5. learned counsel on behalf .....