Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 65 rights of scheduled tribes to be protected Court: chennai Page 1 of about 3 results (0.628 seconds)

Consumer Action Group Represented by Its Trustee Vs. the Union of Indi ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1994)1MLJ481

..... declaring the area as a forest area or a sanctuary. therefore, it cannot be contended that the respondents have violated any of the notifications under the wild life protection act or the forest conservation act, 1980.15. while paying homage and deliberating on the centenary celebration of dr. ambedkar, it is but proper that we begin with a reference to ..... by survey of india with copy rights reserved in favour of the government of india, prepared in the year 1970 shows that the entire area notified under the wild life (protection act as the area closed to hunting, is nothing but the adyar river estuary. in fact the backwaters from the mouth of adyar river is supposed to enter the ..... that their interest in maintaining the ecology and environment of the area. a large extent of 4.3 square kilometres has been declared under section 37 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 as being an area closed to hunting for a period of five years from 13.5.1992. this area is right from the adyar river on .....

R. Senniappan Vs. the Wildlife Warden. Indira Gandhi Wild Life Sanctua ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1999(3)CTC494

..... penning the cattle, namely anamalai mountain range is a sanctuary called indira gandhi wild life sanctuary. the parliament has enacted the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (act 53 of 1972), hereinafter reffered to as the act, which provides for the protection of wild animals and birds and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental there to ..... constitution. that fundamental right is subject to a reasonable restriction and that can be imposed. the wild life (protection) act is an act which provides for the protection of wild animals and birds and in order to protect them, restrictions and prohibitions have been imposed, which are reasonable and can be imposed. as rightly ..... 's representations and passed an order dated 28.4.1999 wherein he held that penning of cattle inside the indira gandhi wild life sanctuary is not permitted as per the wild life (protection ) act, 1972. however, he permitted the grazing of the cattle without penning. the writ petition is against this order.2 .....

J.P. Samuel and Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2002(141)ELT338(Mad)

..... and seawhips are forms of corals, which group -'coalenterata' is a part of the animal kingdom in view of the definition of wild life. under section 2(37) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, 'wild life' includes any animal, bees, butterflies, crustaces, fish and moths and aquatic or land vegetarian which forms part of any habitat. he ..... and 3rd respondents would also adopt the arguments of mr. s.r. sundaram and submitted that the seafans are included in the definition of wild life (protection). act as well as wild life and therefore the ban is imposed for export.4. in view of the above submissions, it is to be seen as to whether ..... the 4th respondent, the assistant director, marine products export development authority, tuticorin who clarified that seafans/seawhips did not fall in the first schedule of wild life (protection) act and did not figure in the negative list of exports. therefore, the 4th respondent informed the 3rd respondent namely the addl. collector of customs, tuticorin .....

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Forest an ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2005Mad304

..... the impugned notification dated 11.07.2001. in our opinion, the interpretation which we are taking will be in consonance with the aims and objects of the wild life protection act. as already stated above, heydon's rule of interpretation (the mischief rule) has to be applied in this case, and we have to see the mischief ..... 2001 issued by the first respondent, union of india, represented by its secretary, ministry of environment and forests, new delhi. by that notification, the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') has been amended by including various species to the schedule. the species with which we are concerned are as follows: -' part iv a - ..... sought to be rectified by the law. that mischief is stated in the statement of objects and reasons of the wild life protection act, 1972.40. the statement of objects and reasons state: -' the rapid decline of india's wild animals and birds, one of the richest and most varied in the world, has been a cause of grave .....

M. Muthuramalingam and Etc. Etc. Vs. District Forest Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2002CriLJ420

..... the petitioners were only on their voluntary confession and the same had been done in compliance with the procedures as contemplated under the tamil nadu forest act and the wild life protection act and as such, the proceedings cannot be said to be illegal.8. the learned government advocate would also incidently refer to the decision of the ..... from any person reasonably suspected of having committed any forest offence by way of compensation, while compounding the said offence.19. as per section 54 of the wild life protection act, 1972, the offence can be compounded by any officer, who is empowered to do so by the notification issued by the central government. in this case, ..... , in view of the fact that there are no materials to show that the petitioners have committed any offence either under the tamil nadu forest act or under the wild life protection act.32. this contention also, in my view, would be untenable. the case had been registered when they were caught red handed with the weapons .....

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to Gov ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2007(1)CTC513

..... listed for hearing, a petition has been filed for raising additional ground to the following effect:the suit is barred by section 60 of the wild life protection act since the actions complained of by the plaintiff as against the defendant/state government are all one which have been taken in good faith under the powers ..... of the wild life protection act, 1972 and hence the state government and its officers have an immunity from being sued.10. a counter affidavit has been filed by the plaintiff ..... state government approved the proposal of the chief conservator of forests to notify kalkakadu reserve forest as sanctuary for wild life and accordingly a notification under section 18(1) of the wild life protection act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act) was issued declaring its intention to constitute the said forest as wildlife sanctuary. on 14.11.1976, as .....

Fr.Sebastian Fernancies Vs. the District Forest Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

..... offence rather, it is a fee paid by the petitioner voluntarily in order to escape from the clutches of law and to avoid prosecution under the wild life protection act. therefore, this court is convinced that the petitioner cannot be granted any liberty to agitate the same claim before any other authority or forum.10. ..... . in any event, the conduct of the petitioner shows that he voluntarily accepted to compound the offence in order to escape from the prosecution under the wild life (protection) act. therefore, the petitioner is estopped from contending that the compounding fee, which was paid by him ought to be refunded. therefore, the second contention raised ..... female deer with bullet injury and waste material of another deer following removal of meat. since, the action of the petitioner was an offence under the wild life (protection) act, he was arrested along with his accomplices, c.k.balan, krishnan and muniappan and they were produced before the first respondent for investigation. it is .....

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 .....

C. Sam Joseph Raj Vs. District Revenue Officer and Addl. Dist. Magistr ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1998CriLJ3152

..... fruit bat heeded by the petitioner herein is not coming under the category of the 'vermin' found in schedule v of the act. further the contention of the petitioner herein that under section 9(2) of the wild life protection act, 1972, licence can be issued for hunting 'vermin' has also not at all been disputed by any of these respondents at ..... that from the very beginning, it is the case of the writ petitioner herein that section 9(2) of the wild life protection act, 1972 reads that licence can be issued for hunting 'vermin' as found in schedule v of the act. that being so, even though both the respondents have so far passed a number of orders in this regard, they ..... hunting of bats was not prohibited under section 9 of the wild life (protection) ac,u 1972 and the fruit bats, which the petitioner herein needs had been categorised as 'vermin' in schedule v of the act. further it is significant to state herein that section 13 of the arms act recognises a right of a citizen of india to have a .....

A.Kamarunnisa Ghori. Vs. the Chairperson Prevention of Money Launderin ...

Court : Chennai

..... penal code.paragraph-2offences under the arms act, 1959.paragraph-3offences under the wild life (protection) act, 1972paragraph-4offences under the immoral traffic (prevention) act, 1956paragraph-5offences under the prevention of corruption act, 1988paragraph-6offences under the explosives act, 1884paragraph-7offences under the antiquities and arts treasures act, 1972paragraph-8offences under the securities and exchange board of india act, 1992paragraph-9offences under the customs act, 1962paragraph-10offences under the bonded labour .....