9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Grant of license for dealing in birds bred in captivity under the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972. Detailed Analysis: The appeal was against a judgment allowing a writ petition for a mandamus to grant a license for dealing in captive birds. The respondent claimed to deal in birds specified in Schedule IV of the Act and applied for license renewal, which was not granted. The appellants argued that trapping birds for business violates the Act post-amendment. The High Court held in favor of the respondent, directing the grant of a license for dealing in specified birds bred in captivity. The Act aims to protect wildlife, defining terms like 'animal,' 'captive animals,' and 'dealer.' The Act prohibits hunting and trapping of wild animals specified in Schedules I, II, III, and IV. The amendment prohibits trapping of birds, including those listed in Schedule IV. Section 44 prohibits dealing in captive animals without a license, subject to rules and conditions. The Central Government made rules for licensing under the Act, considering factors like the applicant's capacity, supply sources, existing licenses, and implications on wildlife trade. The Act and rules must be strictly followed to protect wildlife. Granting a license for birds bred in captivity requires ensuring compliance with the Act and rules, especially regarding hunting and trapping prohibitions. The High Court erred in directing the grant of a license without considering the Act's provisions and rules. The Licensing Authority must assess the applicant's capability to comply with the Act, rules, and license conditions before granting a license. The appeal partially allowed, directing the Licensing Authority to evaluate the respondent's application for a license based on strict compliance criteria. In conclusion, the High Court's direction for license grant was set aside, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with the Act and rules. The Licensing Authority must assess the applicant's capability for compliance before granting a license. The appeal was disposed of with no costs awarded.
|
