Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - Transport of Animals rules, 1978 - Birds caught and brought to Mumbai-Inhuman and cruel treatment - High Court directed States to constitute committee.
Committee constituted. On such visits and inspection committee shall identify the cruelties to birds/animals , particularly as to method and manner of carrying them,, space for them, food and other provisions, etc. The Committee shall also verify whether the birds are being dealt with illegality or illicitly for trade , in contravention of provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. [Viniyog Parivar Trust and another vs Union of India. AIR 1998 Bom 71. M.B.Shah & S.D.Gundewar {J&J}]
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Preservation of - Banning trade/business in animal skins and articles made there from - Valid.
Banning trade/business in animal skins and articles made there from. Each and every animal plays role in maintaining the ecological balance. It cannot be said that certain animals have no role to play or are detrimental to human life. Neither State nor Bharat Leather Corporation are under legal obligation to buy stocks of the traders who failed to dispose of the same. [G.R.Simon vs Union of India. AIR 1997 Del 301 (FB) = 1997(41) DRJ 604. M.Jagannadha Rao {CJ}, Anil Dev Singh & Manmohan Sarin {JJ}]
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - Trade of imported ivory and articles made therefrom - Imposition of ban thereon - Not unreasonable restriction- Art. 14.
No citizen has a fundamental right to trade in ivory or ivory articles, whether indigenous or imported A law designed to abate extinction of an animal specie is prima facie one enacted for the protection of public interest as it was enacted to preserve and protect the elephant from extinction. It is not contravention of Art.14 of the Constitution [ M/s. Ivory Traders & Mfg Association vs Union of India. AIR 1997 Del 267 (FB) = 1997 AIHC 3988 = 1997(67)DLT 145 = 1997(42) DRJ 131 = 1997(41)DRJ 604. M.Jagannadha Rao {CJ}, Anil Dev Singh and Manmohan Sarin {JJ}]
Wild Life (Protection) Act Secs. 9 & 48-A Killing of wild animals and extraction of their body parts Central Government directions to be followed .
Adequate steps has already been taken for the protection of wild life and in fact the Government of India has also realised sufficient finance to the State Government , no further direction need be issued in this regard . [Wild Life Protection Society vs State of A.P. AIR 2002 AP 221. Dr.AR.Lakshmanan (CJ) & Venkatnaraya (J)]
Wild life protection - Immunization of live stock and registration of persons possessing arms - Affidavits regarding non-compliance .
Immunization of live stock and registration of persons possessing arms. Directed by order dated 22nd August 1997 to order effectively control the growing menace of poaching in the Sanctuaries/National parks the Central Governments/Union Territory administration should ensure that the forest guards in sanctuaries/national parks are provided modern arms, communication facilities, namely, wireless sets and other necessary equipment in that regard within six months. For filing affidavit the case considered. [Centre of Environment Law and WWF-I vs Union of India and others. [AIR 1999 SC 354. S.C.Agrawal, S.Sagir Ahmad and M.Sreenivasan {JJ}. ]
Wild Life (Protection) Act, (53 of 1972) -Alteration of Boundaries of Narayan Sarovar Chinkara Sanctuary- Vest with the State Legislature.State Government has no right to alter the boundaries by invoking Sec.21 of the General Clauses Act for the purpose of repealing the notification.
It would be safer to apply the principle of protection and the principle of polluter pays keeping in mind the principle of sustainable development and the principle of intergeneration equity . Instead of quashing the notification court permitted restricted and controlled exploitation of mineral wealth of that area, watch it effects for a period of about 5 years and direct a comprehensive study of the area from the environmental point of view. [Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad Vs.Union of India. (2000)3 SCC 599 = 2000(2) JT 189 = 2000 (2) Supreme 238 = 2000 (1) Scale 606. G.N.Nanawati & S.N.Phukan (JJ) ]
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 -- Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 --- Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 -- Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 -- Rule 24(B) -- Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 -- Section 349 -- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 --Section 2(ii) -- mining activity -- de-reservation of forests, sanctuaries and national parks was prohibited. Therefore, exclusion of companys land in terms of the Notification under Section 35(4) of the Act though same was being used for mining by the company, was not in order to that extent -- it is proper to accept the time period fixed by the Forest Advisory Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Conservation Act. That means mining should be allowed till the end of 2005 by which time the weathered secondary ore available in the already broken area should be exhausted. This is, however, subject to fulfillment of the recommendations made by the Committee on eco-logical and others aspects. [K.M. Chinnappa Applicant In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad vs Union of Indian and Ors. Respondents]