M.V.Raghavan vs State Of Kerala on 4 June, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22668 of 2007(W)


1. M.V.RAGHAVAN, PRESIDENT,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :04/06/2009

 O R D E R
                              S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                  -------------------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C)No. 22668 OF 2007
                  -------------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009


                                  JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the President of the Parassinikkadavu Snake park,

which he claims is maintained as a zoo. According to the petitioner,

that zoo is recognised by the Central Zoo Authority as per Ext.P5.

Petitioner alleges that in spite of that fact, on the ground that the zoo

is being conducted without proper recognition, respondents have

been initiating action against the petitioner for closing down the zoo.

He is alleging that this is on account of political rivalry since the

petitioner is in the opposite political camp and whenever the opposite

side comes into power in the State the action against the park is

renewed. According to the petitioner, the earlier attempts to do the

same during the earlier period when the opposite political camp

came to power were disapproved of by a Division Bench of this

Court, as a result of which the petitioner was allowed to continue to

run the zoo. Petitioner now apprehends that similar action would be

initiated by respondents in the matter again, since the opposite camp

has again come to power. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ

WPC : 22668/07
-:2:-

petition seeking the following reliefs:

“a) issue a writ of prohibition commanding and compelling the
respondents not to initiate any action against the Parassinikkadavu

Snake Park which is a Zoo recognised by the Central Zoo

Authority, such as steps to close down the park or confiscate the

animals;

b) declare that the Parassinikadavu Snake Park is a Zoo

recognised by the Central Zoo Authority as per Ext.P5 and that the

park is legally entitled to function as a Zoo.

c) declare that the respondents have no manner of right or

authority under the Wildlife Protection Act the sole Act regulating

the functioning, recognition etc., of the Zoo in the country to initiate

any action against the park or to direct the park to be closed down

or to confiscate the animals since the park is a Zoo recognised by

the Central Zoo Authority;”

2. No counter affidavit has been field in the matter. Learned

Government pleader seeks time to file a counter affidavit. I am of

opinion that, in the nature of the order I propose to pass, it is not

necessary to keep this writ petition pending for filing counter affidavit.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the application

for permanent recognition of the zoo is pending consideration of the

Central Zoo Authority.

4. I am of opinion that any action if taken against the zoo, can

only be after proper notice and hearing to the petitioner. In view of

the allegations made by the petitioner, I am of opinion that, if

WPC : 22668/07
-:3:-

ultimately any proceedings are initiated which culminates in an

adverse order to the petitioner, the petitioner should be given

sufficient time to challenge that order appropriately. In the above

circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

Any action that may be initiated by the respondent against the

Parassinikkadavu snake park maintained by the petitioner shall only

be after due notice, opportunity to adduce evidence and hearing to

the petitioner. After the above procedure is completed, a considered

and reasoned order dealing with all the contentions of the petitioner

shall also be passed. If the order so passed is adverse to the

petitioner, the same shall not be implemented for a period of one

month from the date when the order is served on the petitioner, so

that the petitioner can take appropriate action to challenge the same

in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
ttb

WPC : 22668/07
-:4:-