9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Export ban on seafans based on inclusion in negative list of exports and Wild Life (Protection) Act. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in exporting seafans, faced an export ban due to the classification of seafans as a form of coral under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The petitioner argued that seafans were not listed as wild animals in the Act or the negative list of exports, thus challenging the ban. The respondent contended that seafans fell under the Act's definition of wild animals and were included in the negative list, justifying the ban. The court analyzed the definitions of "wild animal" and "wild life" under the Act, concluding that seafans, being aquatic and part of the animal kingdom, could be considered wild animals. As all forms of wild animals were prohibited for export as per the negative list, the ban on seafans was deemed justified. The court highlighted the slow growth and ecological importance of corals, including seafans, emphasizing the need for conservation and sustainable practices. Referring to expert opinions and environmental concerns, the court upheld the ban on seafan exports for reasons such as preventing overexploitation, protecting marine habitats, and safeguarding against ecological damage during natural disasters. The court dismissed the petitioner's argument that seafans were not explicitly listed in the negative list, ruling in favor of sustaining the export ban on seafans. The judgment concluded by dismissing the writ petition with no costs awarded.
|
