Madras High Court
Dr.V.Vallaiappan vs The Principal Chief Conservator Of ... on 14 November, 2024
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
W.P.No.33051 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.33051 of 2024
Dr.V.Vallaiappan
Chief Veterinary Surgeon & President,
Prani Mithran
(Trust for Animal Welfare & Protection)
No.103/G3, Kamban Nagar,
Ondipudur, Coimbatore 641 016. ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest &
Chief Wildlife Warden,
Tamil Nadu Forest Department.
2. The Director,
Aringar Anna Zoological Park – Vandalur Zoo,
Chennai. .... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
consider petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2024 for custody of the
monkey to the petitioner to continue treatment for recovery of the animal
which is presently disabled and partly paralysed below hip.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.33051 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.Sankara Subbu
for Mr.R.Venkatesan
For Respondents : Mr.T.Seenivasan
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2024 for custody of the monkey to him to continue treatment for recovery of the animal which is presently disabled and partly paralysed below hip.
2. The primate, Bonne Macaque having the scientific name Macaca Radiate commonly called monkey must be now wondering about its fate which is to be decided by men wearing black coats and black gowns.
3. The monkey is now in the custody of the Aringar Anna Zoological Park – Vandalur Zoo, Chennai. Very unfortunately, it suffered dog bites on 14.12.2023 at Sholinganur in Vellore District, now Ranipet 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33051 of 2024 district. At that point of time, the monkey was young just a month or so old. It was rescued. But those who rescued it, did not know what to do. By chance, the petitioner herein was running a camp near Sholinganur Bus Stand. Therefore for preliminary treatment it was handed over to his custody.
4. Section 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 very specifically states that a wild animal which is listed out in schedule – I of the Act, is Government property. Naturally the right of any private individual is restricted.
5. This particular monkey had been listed in Schedule – I of Part A of the Act. Technically the monkey is Government property.
6. Looking at the entire issue from a legal point of view, no individual can claim right of custody or right of transfer or right to retain such animal. It has to be handed over only to the Government and confidence must be placed on the authorities that they would take proper 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33051 of 2024 and good care.
7. The petitioner who had been entrusted with the monkey on 14.12.2023 at Sholinganur transported it, according to the papers available in the Court to Coimbatore and later shifted it to Hosur. Ultimately it was recovered from him at Coimbatore and lodged in Aringar Anna Zoological Park – Vandalur Zoo, Chennai on 24.10.2024.
8. As on that date, the petitioner was not able to give complete treatment. He could only treat it according to the limited extent of facilities which he possessed.
9. The records available in the Court reflect that Aringar Anna Zoological Park – Vandalur Zoo, Chennai had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which is still continuing with Tamil Nadu University of Veterinary and Animal Science. There cannot be any denial or dispute of the fact that TANUVAS is a reputed University recognised not only in this country but also outside the country and that 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33051 of 2024 Doctors who are professing medicine there treat with much concern every animal and bird which is brought for treatment. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt raised that the monkey, as on date which had come into the possession of the respondents only on 24.10.2024 would not be provided with adequate and professional treatment.
10. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is a Veterinary Doctor which fact itself is being questioned and challenged by the respondents but in order to bring in equanimity, I am not entering into any discussion on the same, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider a representation dated 28.10.2024 for the custody of this poor monkey. At this particular moment the monkey would be still wondering whether it would continue to be in the custody of the respondents or it would be relocated back to the petitioner.
11. The issue which has to be considered by this Court is availability of proper treatment for the monkey which had suffered dog bites at a tender age. It is also to be noted that it requires proper handling. 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33051 of 2024 The treatment requires that the infected parts are not exposed and infection does not spread to other parts of the body.
12. A status report has been filed on behalf of the respondents listing out the nature of the treatment which is being offered. It is seen that quite apart from internal medicines which are given, physiotherapy is also been done to ensure that mobility is once again got back. Therefore, since the treatment is now underway and the treatment is admittedly given by experts in the field, it may not be proper on the part of this Court to sit and judge over the nature of the treatment which is being given. The Court is confident that the treatment being given is as required for the monkey to recover fully.
13. It must also be kept in mind that a wild animal whether a monkey or any other creature or even a wild bird requires space to move around. It requires companionship of its own species. It cannot be kept in confinement of a house. The relief sought by the petitioner is a relief which cannot be granted under law, particularly in view of Section 39 of 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33051 of 2024 the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and in view of the fact that the monkey has been categorised as a wild animal as found in Schedule – I part A of the Act. The monkey is Government property. The petitioner must understand that particular fact. He cannot claim to have exclusive ownership of the said monkey.
14. This Court on the previous hearing date on 06.11.2024 had permitted the petitioner to vist the monkey. He had done so, but he had gone not only with his daughter but also with his counsel. In common parlance, three would always be a crowd.
15. In the status report filed by the repsondents, the respondents have raised grievances over the conduct of the petitioner herein at the time when he was permitted to interact with the monkey. Quite alarmingly, it is stated that he tried to pull the monkey out of the cage and it is contended that its feet were dragged to natural soil outside the cage. There was a possibility of the infection coming back and spreading through out the body. As a veterinarian, the petitioner should have 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33051 of 2024 exercised caution. He must permit the monkey to get better. It had been with him for nearly about 10 months. It has not recovered properly. Therefore it is only appropriate that other experts take over and treat the said monkey.
16. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respodents, it has also been stated that the monkey requires further intensive and specialised care. It has also been stated that the Veterinary hospital is equiped with facilities and qualified Veterinary Doctors and supporting staff are available to handle wild animals. This would be evident by visiting the Zoo. Nobody could be substituted for those experts and those experts can alone handle the wild animals.
17. The conduct of the petitioner has also been commented upon in the status report. The petitioner, for good measure, has also filed an additional affidavit stating his experience while visting the hospital. But let me make it very clear that the focus of this Court is not on the petitioner or on the respondents but only on the monkey which is now 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33051 of 2024 recovering from the unfortunate injury it had suffered. Viewed from that angle the best place for better treatment and there can be no doubt on this aspect, would be in the hands of the respondents. The petitioner, as any other person will have to take comfort that he had taken care of the monkey from 14.12.2023 till 24.10.2024. But he cannot claim ownership of the said monkey or claim exclusive possession of the said monkey. Such possession or even temporary possession is barred by the provisions of law. The Court cannot violate any provision of law.
18. Section 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 is very clear. This particular monkey namely Bonne Macaque is just one of a many listed as wild animals and if possession of this monkey is granted, then it would only open the doors for various other individuals to seek permission temporarily or even permanent or even to enter into the gate for interaction purposes with the numerous number of other animals which are listed in the schedule.
19. The Court acts as a Parens Patriae not only for the petitioner 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33051 of 2024 and the respondents but also of the litigant before this Court and also of the object of the litigation, in this case the poor monkey. The monkey requires companionship. It requires proper and effective treatment. It requires care and comfort. All these can be provided only by the respondents. I have no doubt that they shall take good care of the monkey.
20. As on date, even as per the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, the monkey which is a very small animal of a young age is kept in a cage of measuring 5ft x5ft x 5ft which is quiet sufficient to move around. Photographs have been produced to show that a comfort zone is extended to it. Let it be continued to be extended. All parties to this litgation should respect its privacy and its requirement to be treated with proper care and to be given proper medication.
21. I am not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. It is also stated that an exclusive Committee has been constituted to look after the welfare of the Monkey. I am confident that such Committee shall 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33051 of 2024 be constituted even for other animals which are in the custody of the Zoo. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
14.11.2024 dpq Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.33051 of 2024 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
dpq W.P.No.33051 of 2024 14.11.2024 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis