Wildlife Protection Society Of India Petitioner v. Union Of India, Delhi High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The Wildlife Protection Society of India filed a writ petition seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hear and determine applications/declarations filed by traders under Section 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act within a reasonable time. The petitioner complained of inordinate delay in deciding these applications, resulting in traders continuing to hold stocks of ivory, which is prohibited. Notice was issued on 20.9.1999. During proceedings, difficulties related to storage and security of ivory stocks were raised, which were addressed by directions from the Court and decisions by the NCT of Delhi to provide security and additional space. Out of 134 applications, 67 had been disposed of, but many had been pending since 1992.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to hear and determine the applications/declarations of ivory traders filed under Section 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act within a reasonable and fixed timeframe.

Whether the stocks of ivory held by traders should be taken into custody by the authorities pending disposal of these applications.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

There is a significant delay in disposal of applications under Section 49(C), causing traders to unlawfully retain stocks of ivory.

The delay undermines the objectives of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and should be rectified by judicial direction.

Relied on precedents including the Full Bench judgment in Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association and others v. Union of India and others and G.R Simonpetitioner v. Union Of India to support prompt disposal and custody of ivory stocks.

Respondent’s Position

Respondents pointed out practical difficulties in storage and security of ivory stocks, including shifting articles pursuant to Supreme Court directions and security arrangements.

NCT of Delhi decided to provide security through Forest Department guards and home guards if necessary, and to requisition additional space if required.

Agreed to fix a timeframe for disposal of applications, noting that a substantial number had already been disposed of.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 Delhi 267	Support for prompt disposal of applications under Section 49(C) and regulation of ivory stocks.	Relied upon to emphasize the necessity of timely adjudication and control over ivory possession.
G.R Simonpetitioner v. Union Of India, AIR 1997 Delhi 301	Legal principles regarding disposal of applications under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and control over ivory stocks.	Used to support the petitioner’s claim regarding delays and the need for judicial intervention.
Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7533/97	Directions for inquiry completion under Section 49(C) and custody of imported ivory pending disposal of appeals.	The Court applied this precedent to order custody of ivory stocks and to fix timeframes for disposal of applications.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 Delhi 267

Support for prompt disposal of applications under Section 49(C) and regulation of ivory stocks.

Relied upon to emphasize the necessity of timely adjudication and control over ivory possession.

G.R Simonpetitioner v. Union Of India, AIR 1997 Delhi 301

Legal principles regarding disposal of applications under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and control over ivory stocks.

Used to support the petitioner’s claim regarding delays and the need for judicial intervention.

Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7533/97

Directions for inquiry completion under Section 49(C) and custody of imported ivory pending disposal of appeals.

The Court applied this precedent to order custody of ivory stocks and to fix timeframes for disposal of applications.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s grievance regarding delays in disposal of applications under Section 49(C), which permitted traders to unlawfully retain ivory stocks. The Court considered the practical difficulties raised by respondents concerning storage and security, noting that these had been addressed by directions and administrative decisions ensuring security and space availability. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s prior directions in Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. to justify taking ivory stocks into custody and to ensure proper inventory and safekeeping. It reasoned that the distinction between imported and Indian-origin ivory was immaterial for custody purposes. Consequently, the Court fixed a strict timeline to take custody of ivory stocks within 8 weeks and to dispose of all pending applications within 12 weeks, balancing the need for prompt justice with practical considerations.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition is disposed of with directions that the Chief Wildlife Warden shall take custody of the ivory stocks within eight weeks and that all applications under Section 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act shall be disposed of within twelve weeks from the date of the order.

This decision directly compels the authorities to act within fixed timeframes, preventing further unlawful possession of ivory by traders. It does not establish new legal precedent but enforces compliance with existing legal obligations and prior judicial directions.

Wildlife Protection Society Of India Petitioner v. Union Of India

Manmohan Sarin, J.:— Rule.

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. Wildlife Protection Society of India has filed the present writ petition, seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to hear and determine the applications/declarations of the traders, filed under Section 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act within such period as the Court may deem just and proper.

3. Notice in the writ petition was issued on 20.9.1999 Petitioner's grievance from the beginning is that there is an inordinate delay in deciding the applications/declarations of the traders, filed under Section 49 (C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. This is resulting in the traders continuing to hold the stocks of ivory, which is otherwise prohibited. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 Delhi 267 and G.R Simonpetitioner v. Union Of India.S, AIR 1997 Delhi 301.

4. During the course of proceedings, certain difficulties have been pointed out by the respondent with regard to storage of the ivory. It was stated that the articles were shifted from Tis Hazari to Kamla Nehru Ridge, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court. Certain difficulties with regard to the security arrangements had also arisen. This Court gave directions from time to time to the concerned functionaries. As a result, the impasse with regard to space and security appears to be sorted out. NCT of Delhi has taken a decision that the guards from the Forest Departments would provide security and if required, home guards could be called in addition. Further, additional space, if required, will be requisitioned by the concerned departments from PWD and GAD.

5. Mr. V.K Shali, at this stage, submits that the time frame may be fixed for disposal of the applications under Section 49 (C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. It is stated that out of 134 applications, 67 applications have been disposed of. There may not be any difficulty in fixing a reasonable time for disposal of the applications. These applications have been pending since 1992. There is merit in Mr. Panjwani's submission that the stocks of the ivory ought to be taken possession of and placed in safe custody with the respondent, while the applications are processed and dealt with.

6. I find that the Supreme Court had disposed of LA. No. 5 in Civil Appeal No. 7533/97 in the case of Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., with the following directions:—

“Respondent authorities are directed to conclude the inquiry under Section 49(C) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. They shall keep the imported ivory articles with them after making a proper inventory and taking photographs of the same. The imported ivory articles shall not be destroyed till the disposal of appeals by this Court.

IA stands disposed of.”

7. While it is true that the aforesaid order dealt with imported ivory, it would make no difference whether the ivory was imported or of Indian origin, as far as taking it into custody is concerned. Let the Chief Wildlife Warden take into custody the stocks of ivory in question within 8 weeks from today and applications under Section 49(C) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act be disposed of within 12 weeks from today.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

A copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties.

W.P(C). 5657 of 1999

Wildlife Protection Society Of India Petitioner v. Union Of India

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Respondent’s Position

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Wildlife Protection Society Of India Petitioner v. Union Of India

Comments