Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 5a constitution of the national board for wild life Page 19 of about 188 results (0.147 seconds)

Boraiah @ Boregowda @ Papanna Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... by a competent person. hence, :21. : without complaint from a competent person, the court cannot take cognizance of the offences alleged under the wild life protection act and taking cognizance, without there being any complaint, has vitiated the entire proceedings. though the trial court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed ..... reversed the acquittal judgment rendered by the trial court. the trial court had rightly come to the conclusion in respect of section 55 of the wild life protection act, 1972 relating to cognizance of the offences taken place. the trial court has appreciated the entire evidence on record relating to the ingredients of ..... in :6. : coming to the conclusion that without complaint from a competent person, the court cannot take cognizance of the offences alleged under the wild life protection act and taking cognizance, without there being any complaint, vitiates the entire proceedings. further, it is contended that except the evidence of official witnesses, the .....

Planters Forum Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

..... repugnant to various central laws is inoperative and void. the act is enacted to take over property of private persons under the guise of protecting forests. provisions of the act are violative of the provisions of the indian forest act, 1927 and wild life protection act, 1972, hence the provisions of the 2003 act to take over private properties are legally unenforceable. (xi) the state legislature has no authority ..... the reply. the counter affidavit states that as per article 48a of the constitution of india, the state is obliged to endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country. the 2003 act is in conformity with article 48a and 51a(g) of the constitution. the subject 'forest', coming as item no.17a under the .....

Parimal Kumar Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... the state government in the matter and that such steps and proposal should come to its logical end. upon reference to the provisions of wild life protection act, 1972, the stand taken is that 'wildlife sanctuary' with adequate ecological, faunal, flora, geomor-phological, natural or zoological significance for the purpose of ..... after discussion and considering the proposal etc. opined that mere conversion of kakoijana reserve forest into a wild life sanctuary cannot achieve the desired goal. as per the opinion of the board, the reserve forest which is under the protection of joint forest management committee, if converted to a wildlife sanctuary, there is likelihood of the ..... the state government.7. after the aforesaid developments, the matter was placed before the state board of wild life and the board in its meeting held on 17.3.2007 decided to maintain the existing reserve forest with full protection. it was also decided not to convert the reserve forest to a wildlife sanctuary.8. the .....

Centre for Environmental Law World Wide Fund for Nature (Wkf), India V ...

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR1999Ori15

..... love.' 3. article 48a in part iv (directive principles) of the constitution of india, 1950 brought by the constitution (42nd amendment) act, 1976, enjoins that 'translate shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.' article 47 further imposes the duty on the state to improve public health as its primary duty. article 51a ..... an operation of trawlers within the radius of 20 kms of the 'gahiramatha' area of 'bhitarkanika' wild life sanctuary (sea ward). as such, construction of jetties by no way infringes fishing regulation act as there was no proposal of fishing within the restricted area, as indicated in the act and adequate remedial and protective measures are being taken and will be taken to preserve and .....

Sansar Chand. Vs. State of Rajasthan.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... of, inter alia, 2 tiger skins, 38 leopard skins and 1 snow leopard skin and has been named as an accused in the complaint filed under section 55 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 in this case. narayan chand is also an accused in court case no. 1145/2009 being tried before the additional chief judicial magaistrate, haldwani, arising from preliminary offence report ..... 51a (g) of the constitution states that it is the duty of every citizen of india to protect and improve the natural environment including the wild life.9. the wildlife (protection) act, 1972 was enacted for this constitutional purpose. chapter iii of the said act prohibits hunting of wild animals except in certain limited circumstances. chapter iv enables the state government to declare any area as a .....

Pramod S/o Arjun Kanakupakar Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... of forest produces from the car alleged to have been belong to accused is not in accordance with procedure contemplated under the karnataka forest act and also under the wild life protection act. both courts below have also not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses in terms of legal requirement to prove the seizure of ..... court without there being any complaint by any of forest officials covered under section 55 of the wild life protection act. therefore, on this count also conviction of accused for the offence punishable under section 51 of the wild life protection act cannot be legally sustained. the courts below erroneously proceeded to believe oral evidence of p.ws. ..... is hereby set aside. the accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 24(j), 50(3) of the karnataka forest act and section 51(1) of the wild life protection act. the bail bond of accused and that of his surety stand discharged fine amount, if any deposited by accused, is ordered to .....

Sri Shivappa Vs. State By Gundlupet Police

Court : Karnataka

..... officer authorised as aforesaid.15. the above said provision is a mandatory provision which debars the court from taking 18 cognizance of any offence under the wild life (protection) act except on the complaint by a person authorised under the said provision. the said provision is meticulously read, it does not include the police officers to ..... p.no.4968/2014 dated 07.11.2014 wherein it is held that as per section 55 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 which is a mandatory provision debars the court from taking cognizance offence under the wild life (protection) act except on the complaint by a person authorised under the said provision. therefore, it is relevant to ..... for the death of the female elephant, contended that the trial court erroneously convicted the accused under section 51 of the wild life protection act and also under section 135 of the electricity act by wrongly appreciating the evidence of pws.4 to 7 in order to come to conclusion that the appellant has committed the .....

E.Seshan Vs. Union of India

Court : Chennai

..... mudumalai. while we are sure that all appropriate measures are being taken by the department for capture and translocation of these animals, as per provisions of the wild life protection act, 1972 and other guidelines of this ministry in this regard, it is requested that the following may kindly be ensured: i.that most humane treatment is ..... said letter for capture and relocation of elephants, various departments of state government has to seek permission under section 12(bb) and 9(i)(a) of wild life (protection) act, 1972 and accordingly, they sent a letter to the above said department, who in their reply dated 18.07.2012 makes it very clear that after ..... releasing, but on the contrary, the fourth respondent has passed an order dated 19.08.2013 by invoking section 11 of the wildlife (protection) act, 1972 and ordered tranquilizing the wild elephants and translocate them to existing elephant camps in the state.6. it is the primordial submission of the learned counsel appearing for the .....

M.k. Ranjitsinh Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... 19. india s efforts to combat climate change are manifold. parliament has enacted the wild life (protection)act 1972, the water (prevention and control of pollution) act 1974, the air (prevention and control of pollution) act 1981, the environment (protection) act 1986, the national green tribunal act 2010, amongst others. in 2022, the energy conservation act 2001 was amended to empower the central government to provide for a carbon credit ..... the endangered species of the gib. they are: i. the gib is listed in part iii of schedule i of the wild life (protection) act 1972. the species listed in schedule i are granted the highest level of protection from hunting, in terms of this statute; ii. under the centrally sponsored scheme titled development of wildlife habitats , financial and technical assistance is being provided to .....

Regional Deputy Director Vs. Zavaray S. Poonawala and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... for confiscation of the aforesaid trophy sought to be imported by it. the defence of respondent no.1 was that it is the chief wildlife warden under the wild life (protection) act, 1972, who was competent authority to grant the permission and respondent no.1 had the permission of the said authority granted to him vide letter dated 11.4.2002.9. ..... herein wanted to import into india a trophy of one stuffed leopard which he shot in zambia. leopard is a protected and prohibited specie under schedule i of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and also under the convention of international trade on endangered species of wild fauna and flora (cites). therefore, requisite permission under the aforesaid provisions is needed to import such a trophy. respondent .....