Delhi High Court - Orders
Red Lynx Confederation vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 July, 2020
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Chief Justice, Prateek Jalan
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 1029/2020
RED LYNX CONFEDERATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Dogra, Director
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with
Mr.Akshya & Mr. Jatin Puniyani, Advs. for R-1 to
R-3
Mr. Ashutosh Senger, Adv. for Central Zoo
Authority
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 08.07.2020 Proceedings of the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
We have heard the petitioner in person at length. This writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:
"i. Court may kindly allow this petition.
ii. Court may issue quo Warranto directions to Respondent 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 for their personal appearance before the Hon'ble court for this repeat hostile behavior and human jumping in animals enclosure and death of human and let loose attitude against Wildlife Protection Act 1972 & Against Zoo Rules; iii. To initiate vigilance inquiry through respondent 8 and 9 against Respondent 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7 against the funds utilization and monitoring in detail iv. Court may kindly regulate and Impose fine under draft Wildlife (Protection and Management) Bill 2016 as per W.P.(CRL) 1029/2020 Page 1 of 2 increased amount of minimum 5 lakhs and maximum 50 Lakh Rs. amount which may deem fit by Hon'ble Court AND/OR; v. Court may pass any other order which may deem fit as per the cause raised in the petition."
Having heard the petitioner (through its Director), it appears that the main grievance of this petitioner is about the deaths caused by humans jumping in animal enclosures. The petitioner alleges that the behavior of respondents No.2 to 7 has been hostile to this situation, however, nothing has been stated in the petition or argued out by the petitioner as to how the respondent officers particularly are responsible for such incidents.
We see no reason to issue writ of mandamus against respondent No.2 to 7, much less a writ of quo warranto as prayed in the memo of writ petition. Nonetheless, looking to the instances of violation of the provisions of different laws, as pointed out in this writ petition, we hereby permit this petitioner to prefer proper representation with clear averments, allegations and annexures to the concerned respondent authorities. As and when such representation is received, the respondent authorities shall decide the same in accordance with law, rules, regulations and Government policy applicable to the facts of the present case as expeditiously as possible and practicable.
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN, J JULY 08, 2020 ns W.P.(CRL) 1029/2020 Page 2 of 2