Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Banhi Chakraborty And Ors vs The Union Of India And Ors on 1 September, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
&
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE
WPA(P)/244/2025
BANHI CHAKRABORTY AND ORS.
VS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
With
WPA(P)/236/2025
SAVE WILD ANIMALS OF ZOO AND OUR NATURE (SWAZON)
VS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. A. Halder, Adv.
Mr. Omar Faruk Gazi, Adv.
Mr. Pintu Karar, Adv.
Mr. Badrul Karim, Adv.
Mr. Kiron Sk., Adv.
Ms. Suparna Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Sarajit Roy, Adv.
Mr. Aritra Ghosh, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Ashok Kr. Chakraborti, Ld. ASG.,
Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Adv.
Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Adv.
Ms. Amrita Pandey, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Kishore Datta, ld, AG.,
Ms. Sumita Shaw, Adv.
Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Adv.
For the KMC : Mr. Alak Kumar Ghosh, Adv.
2
Mr. Gopal Chandra Das, Adv.
Ms. Ananya Das, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Vivekananda Bose, Adv.
(WBZA in WPA(P) 244 of 2025) Mr. Ratikanta Pal, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Arka Kumar Nag, Adv.
(WBZA in WPA(P) 236 of 2025) Mr. Kushal Das, Adv.
For the KMDA : Mr. Satyajit Talukder, Adv.
Mr. Arindam Chatterjee , Adv.
For the Respondent nos.21 & 22 : Mr. Abhratosh Majumder, ld. Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Chayan Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Saaqib Siddiqui, Adv.
For the CAG : Mr. Sourav Mondal, Adv.
Heard On : 01.09.2025
Sujoy Paul, J.:
1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matters were analogously heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
2. In these petitions, the principal grievance of petitioners is relating to monetization of land by issuing the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 23.07.2025 Annexure "R-2" whereby they have decided to invite bids for allotment of 166.50 Cottah (11137.50 Sq. Metre) land in premises no. 34A, Belvedere Road, Alipore under Ward no. 74 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) on freehold basis for commercial use which shall inter alia includes an aquarium as per the specification. The learned counsel for the petitioners took a common stand that the land in question is an integral part of Zoological Garden, Alipore. Previously, another NIT was issued but in 3 absence of any application preferred for the same, the previous NIT was cancelled. It is submitted that the NIT was issued without following the "due process" and the "decision making process" is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.
3. To elaborate, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the Calcutta Gazette of April 7, 1875 whereby the Zoo was first established. This was highlighted to show that the Zoo contains two plots i.e., plot A and plot B. In the instant case, we are concerned with plot B. This notification makes it clear that both the plots are integral part of the Zoo. They were within the villages of Begunbari and Zeerat.
4. The page of 'assessment register' of KMC is referred to show that the honorary Secretary Zoological Garden is the owner of the land in question. However, the document dated 25.07.2024 shows that a joint visit was undertaken on 09.07.2024 by Mayor KMC, Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Secretary, PWD Department, Municipal Commissioner, KMC, District Magistrate, EDM & DL & LRO South 24-Paraganas with Director Alipore Zoo and other Higher Officials of Forest Department of Government of West Bengal. In this report dated 25.07.2024, it is mentioned that custodian of the land is honorary Secretary Zoological Garden and ownership of the land is with KMC. Heavy reliance is placed on this document to show that entire process which resulted into issuance of impugned NIT started with this note wherein it is clearly mentioned that the KMC has approved the decision under Section 37 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 for early disposal of the issue.
5. It is submitted that Section 37 of the said Act is an emergency provision and in the factual backdrop of this matter, there exists no 4 ingredient on the strength of which such emergency provision could have been invoked. Thus, it is complete misuse of power on the part of the KMC for initiating such an action in the teeth of Section 37 aforesaid.
6. That the main say, in a matter of this nature was of the Zoo authorities and the Forest Department. It is submitted that when matter was discussed at various levels, it was noticed that on the opposite side of Zoological Garden, Alipore, another 1.681 hector land is available in which Zoo hospital, aquarium, nursery and staff quarters are located. By taking this Court to the definition of "Zoo" as mentioned in Section 2(38) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Act of 1972), it is urged that the hospital, aquarium, nursery and staff quarters are integral and inseparable part of the Zoo in question. The very existence of Zoo depends on the existence of the aforesaid support system.
7. The "Zoo Master Plan" is referred to show that it came into being in 2016 and will cover the period between 2016 to 2037. The "Zoo Master Plan" has a statutory backing under the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009 (Zoo Rules). The "Zoo Master Plan" also specifically provides for "future action plan" and the entire existence, future planning, expansion and monitoring. Management of the Zoo must be inconsonance with "Zoo Master Plan". The impugned action of issuing NIT to monetize the sizable portion of Zoo land runs contrary to the "Zoo Master Plan". The minutes of meeting of Committee of Secretaries (on monetization of land) dated 02.08.2024 was referred to show that the committee took a decision that after having the NOC from Forest Department, the entire 254 Cottah land would be monetized by allotting the same through E-Auction on "as is where is" basis. The certain notes are appended to the minutes of this high level meeting. 5 Reliance is placed on note 5 which records that opinion of forest department prior to providing the opinion of UDMA department is necessary and since KMC has moved the proposal, it is assumed that KMC is the owner of the land. However, since forest department/West Bengal Zoo authority were in possession of the land, their comments were directed to be obtained. The Note no. 11 shows that admittedly plot in question is under possession of zoological garden Alipore since 1875. The note further makes it clear that the zoo is consisting of animal hospital, isolation building, post-mortem room, staff quarters, aquarium, nursery, rescue centre, quarantine centre etc. It is further recognized that the existence of rescue centre, quarantine centre, staff quarters, veterinary hospital, post-mortem rooms are essential for zoo management. The availability of staff is also essential for smooth functioning of zoo. Similar emphasis is laid for quarantine centre and specific finding was given that the said parts are integral part of "Zoo Master Plan" as approved by Central Zoo Authority of India. Clause 1.16 of Zoo Master Plan reads thus:
"1.16 Legal status of the land:
The total area of the zoo is 20.49 hectare out of which an area of 18.811 hectare of land lies on the Western side of the Alipore Road leading from zerrut bridge to National Library. The zoo proper having entrance and exit gate, administrative building, store, animal enclosure etc. has been set up the aforesaid 18.811 hectre of land which is bounded by periphery wall of 2.1 mitre high.
On the opposite side of the zoo proper, the Zoological Garden, Alipore is having another 1.681 hectre of land on which the zoo Hospital, Aquarium, Nursery and staff quarters are located.
This 20.49 hectare of land is owned by the Government of West Bengal and was used to manage by the Managing Committee, Zoological Garden, Alipore till 2009. The said Managing Committee was constituted by the State Government and time to time the same was reconstituted by the Government of West Bengal. After the issue of theft of 8nos. of Common Marmoset from the Zoological Garden, Alipore, the management of Zoological Garden, Alopore has been 6 vested upon West Bengal Zoo Authority. "
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. The finding of Note no. 11 is heavy relied upon which contains following finding "the KMC is not able to show any document regarding ownership of the said land located at 34A Belvedere Road, Alipore". Since, it could not be established with accuracy and precision that KMC is the owner of the land, the entire action of issuing tender by assuming that the said land belong to KMC is bad in law. In other words, the very premise on which the impugned NIT is issued is without any basis.
9. The Memo dated 26.12.2021 issued pursuant to cabinet discussion filed with supplementary affidavit is referred to highlight the views of the forest department. The forest depart clearly opined that quarantine and rescue centre must be established within 1-2 KM of existing Zoo and for that 2000 Sq. Metre land will be required without which the zoo cannot run properly as Zoonotic and contagious diseases can spread from sick animals to healthy zoo animals and also to human being. The said specific objection of forest department went in vain and without providing 2000 Sq. Metre land within aforesaid distance, the impugned NIT has been issued.
10. Shri Ashok Kumar Chakraborty, learned ASG submitted that the Zoo cannot be equated with land. The present Zoo is a "large category" Zoo within the meaning of Act of 1972 and it is under the control of the Central Government. As per Section 38H of the Act of 1972, the full and ultimate control on the affairs of the Zoo is in the hands of the authority working under the Central Government. Entry 17A of 7th Schedule of concurrent list of the Constitution is also referred to show that the power is vested with the 7 Central Government to take decisions in this regard. Article 48A of the Constitution is cited to argue that there are restrictions on transportation of wild life.
11. The letter of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change dated 8th June, 2022 is read out by learned ASG to highlight that the Zoo is recognized as non-forestry activity and for this activity, multiple layers of permission are required to be procured from different agencies. The action of State Government and its agencies in issuing the impugned NIT is certainly bad in law and against 'public interest'. A report is supplied to the Court by supplying copy to the other side by learned ASG and it is submitted that when recently an inspection of Zoo took place, the relevant registers containing the details of the animals were not found to be kept properly. There were mismatching in numbers of animals. In certain pages, signatures of the curators/authority were missing. He undertakes that the same report shall be filed along with affidavit of a responsible officer. Thus, in his view, the matter has a public interest element and deserves to be entertained.
12. Shri Kishore Datta, Learned Advocate General for the State supported the impugned NIT and submitted that the petitioners basically have two apprehensions. The first is that impugned action will result into closure of Zoo. Secondly, regarding the impugned NIT which is founded upon a cabinet decision. By placing reliance on (1987) 2 SCC 295 (Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) it is submitted that scope of judicial review in the matter of this nature is very limited. No mala fide is alleged against the State Government. The State Government has followed the entire process in accordance with law. In the case of 8 Sachidanand Pandey (Supra) a piece of land was sought to be provided to a 5-Star hotel. Interestingly, the said land was also adjacent to the present Zoo. Thus, one of the argument before the Supreme Court was that the lease does not take care of needs and interest of the Zoo or the facilities provided in the Begunbari land for the Zoo.
13. In the said case, the Government provided the land to a 5-Star hotel even without adopting any tender process. The Apex Court opined that the decision of cabinet was justifiable. Merely because a specific reference was not given to any particular point, it cannot be presumed that cabinet has not considered a relevant aspect.
14. Learned Advocate General further submits that Zoo is admittedly not the owner of the land in question. Cabinet's conscious decision which became foundation for issuance of impugned NIT cannot be called in question. Lastly, he submits that the State does not have any sovereign duty to maintain a Zoo. Article 163 (3) of the Constitution was referred to bolster the submission that the Court should be loath to interfere in a NIT which is based on a Cabinet decision. The owner's name mentioned in 'inspection book' (page 94) has no evidentiary value.
15. Learned counsel for the KMDA borrowed the argument of learned Advocate General and in addition, urged that the KMDA is established under the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning and Development) Act, 1979. The Schedule VI of this Act deals with Zoological Gardens. The road in question i.e., Belvedere Road falls in Zone 'C' falls within Schedule 1. The Clause 7.1 shows that commercial activity is permissible in a road falls within Zone C. The prohibition is only in 9.1 which relates to Schedule VI. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned process. The learned counsel 9 for the KMC, Shri Alak Kumar Ghosh submits that although at present he is not equipped with any documentary evidence to show that KMC is the owner of the Zoo land, it can be presumed that land in question is a "public land"
16. Sri Ghosh further submits that after long deliberations which continued for 1-2 years, a conscious decision was taken by the cabinet and consequently NIT was issued. Thus, no fault can be found in the impugned action.
17. The learned Counsel for respondents 16 and 17 (Zoo Authority) submits that the Zoo is only obliged to prepare the inventory of animals and take care of management of the Zoo. No material is shown that 'Master Plan' for Zoo has been violated. Thus, at present, there is no cause of action. So far inquiry report submitted by learned ASG is concerned, it is submitted that zoo authority reserves its right to file its exception.
18. Learned Counsel for Housing and Infrastructure Department also borrowed the argument of learned Advocated General and submits that the Forest Department is the Administrative Department for the purpose of present case. Physical verification of the place had taken place after that it was decided to earmark 166 cottahs for commercial purpose. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Section 38C of the Act of 1972 and urged that the functions of Zoo Authority are defined in this section. The Zoo Authority is under no obligation to take objection to the impugned decision and the NIT.
19. In rejoinder submissions learned Counsel for petitioners urged that without allotting land for Quarantine and Rescue Centres, the NIT has been issued which is bad in law.
10
20. We have heard the parties at length on the question of admission and interim relief. The relevant portion of the Calcutta Gazette dated 7th April, 1875 reads thus:-
"The 6th April 1875 - Whereas it appears to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal that land is required to be taken by Government at the public expense for a public purpose, viz. for the site of zoological garden in the villagers commonly called Beganbari and Jeerat, situate in pergunnah Maroorah, Zillah 24-Pergunnahs, it is herby declared that for the above purpose the two plots of land described below and measuring , more or less, 162 beeghas, are required within the aforesaid villages of Begunbari and Jeerat.
A plan of the lands may be inspected at the officer of the Collector of the 24- Pergunnahs.
Plot A is bounded on the north by the Orphangunge Road, on the east by the Belvedere, and Alipore Roads , on the south by the Orphan Society's School Road, and on the west by the same Society's lands, and contains by estimation an area of 119 beeghas.
Plot B is bounded on the north by Tolly's Nullah on the east by the same Nullah and the Alipore Jail Hospital premises, on the south by the Jail Road, and on the west by the Belvedere Road, and contains by estimation an area of 43 beeghas.
This declaration is made, under the provisions of Act X of 1870, to all whom it may concern." (Emphasis Supplied)
21. A minute reading of this notification makes it clear that both the plots i.e. Plot A and Plot B are integral part of the zoo from its inception. The minutes of the meeting of Committee of Secretaries dated 02.08.2024 shows the land used of Zoological Garden, Alipore, Kolkata, which reads as under:-
"The Zoological Garden, Alipore has a plot of land - 34A Belvedere Road in KMC ward number 74 opposite Alipore Zoo. This plot is of 16,991.564 square mts or about 254 Cottah, at present, it is having the Animal Hospital, Isolation building, Post Mortem room, Staff quarters, Aquarium, Nursery, Rescue Centre, Quarantine Centre etc.. The land belongs to the KMC under UD & MA department and Zoo management is in possession of the Land since 1875." (Emphasis Supplied)
22. In this note, it was further mentioned as under:-
11
"For scientific management of zoo, as per the Central Zoo Authority of India guideline as mentioned in the Legislation, Policy, Guidelines and Strategy, 2014 one 'Quarantine Centre' for animals brought from outside and one Rescue Centre" for rescued wild animal are must for any zoo and these structures must be located within reasonable distance (1 to 2 kms) from the zoo. The combines area of these two structures in case of Alipore Zoo are 2000 square meters. At present these two structures are planned behind the existing Aquarium in zone A and are an integral part of the Zoo Master plan as approved by the Central Zoo Authority on India. The Zoo authority will need a secure land on land of 2000 sqm for this purpose within a radius of 2 kms from the Hospital."
(Emphasis Supplied)
23. We have already recorded that in the same note it is mentioned that "KMC is not able to show any document regarding ownership of said land located at 34A, Belvedere Road." The petitioner further places reliance upon Schedule VI Para 9.1 to substantiate that that the Zoological Garden has been earmarked as Item no. 162 in the list of 'Parks and Public Open Spaces' and the Belvedere Road has been also earmarked as an area as Schedule 1 under Para 7.1 under Development Control Zone C. The petitioner, however, has been able to demonstrate from the documents that 34-A, Belvedere Road forms an integral part of the Zoological Garden of Alipore. It was also argued that Chapter 21 speaks of regulations for control of development of parks, public open spaces, ponds, wet lands, canals and river front based on Regulation No. 21, the petitioner submits the zoo does not fall within the same.
24. While introducing the 'Master Plan' of Zoological Garden, Alipore which covers the period between 2016-17 to 2036-37 it was recorded as under:-
"In National Zoo Policy, 1998, it has clearly been mentioned that the main objective of the zoos shall be to complement and strengthen the national efforts in conservation of the rich bio-diversity of the country, particularly the wild fauna. In the said policy, it 12 has also been mentioned that zoos shall prepare long term master plan for development to ensure optimum utilization of the land, water, energy and finance.
In such changing scenario, we have taken the task of master planning of the Zoological Garden, Alipore for the first time. In conformity with the stated objectives and proposed animal collection plan of the zoo, future action plan has been set out. Phasing out of species as well as specimens of some species has been mentioned with the demolition of outlived houses/enclosures of the zoo. Visitors circulation, land-scaping, proposed new enclosures, zoo hospital and other necessary components of the zoo like gates & ticket counter, office buildings, store, rest-sheds, drinking water spots etc. have been indicated in the layout plan of the zoo."
(Emphasis Supplied)
25. In the said plan, "the legal status of the land" is mentioned in Clause 1.16 which is reproduced for ready reference:-
"1.16 Legal status of the land:
The total area of the zoo is 20.49 hectare out of which an area of 18.811 hectare of land lies on the Western side of the Alipore Road leading from zerrut bridge to National Library. The zoo proper having entrance and exit gate, administrative building, store, animal enclosure etc. has been set up the aforesaid 18.811 hectre of land which is bounded by periphery wall of 2.1 mitre high.
On the opposite side of the zoo proper, the Zoological Garden, Alipore is having another 1.681 hectre of land on which the zoo Hospital, Aquarium, Nursery and staff quarters are located."
(Emphasis Supplied)
26. In view of foregoing discussion, the petitioner could make out a strong prima facie case that both Plot A and Plot B are integral and inseparable part of the same zoo. It is also prima facie established that the Rescue Centre, veterinary hospital, staff quarter, Quarantine Centre, post-mortem room are also integral part of the zoo. The existence of Zoo itself will be in stake if the said centres are not in place. The respondents during the course of argument could not establish that despite specific objection of forest department, they have already provided land in vicinity for 13 establishing the aforesaid centres which are essential for the existence and continuation of the Zoo.
27. It was also pointed out that when the judgment in the case of Sachidanand Pandey (supra) was passed in 1987, the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the Zoo Master Plan and the Zoo Rules of 2009. However, in the said case also, the Apex Court recorded as under:-
"In India, as elsewhere in the world, uncontrolled growth and the consequent environmental deterioration are fast assuming menacing proportions and all Indian cities are afflicted with this problem. The once Imperial City of Calcutta is no exception. The question raised in the present case is whether the Government of West Bengal has shown such lack of awareness of the problem of environment in making an allotment of land for the construction of a Five Star Hotel at the expense of the zoological garden that it warrants interference by this Court? Obviously, if the government is alive to the various considerations requiring though and deliberation and has arrived at a conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be for this Court to interfere in the absence of mala fides. On the other hand, if relevant considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant considerations influence the decision, the court may interfere in order to prevent a likelihood of prejudice to the public. Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the court, the court is bound to bear in mind Article 48A of the Constitution, the Directive Principle which enjoins that "the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country," and Article 51A (g) which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures". When the court is called upon to give effect the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the court is not to shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a matter for the policy-making authority. The least that the court may do it to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind and irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the court may go further, but how much further must depend on the circumstances of the case. The court may always give necessary directions. However the court will not attempt to nicely balance relevant considerations. When the question involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority. We may now proceed to examine the facts of the present case."
(Emphasis Supplied) As per this judgment also, interference can be made if relevant considerations have not been taken care of.
28. The relevant partition of Section 38C of Act of 1972 reads as under: 14
"38C. Functions of the Authority.- The Authority shall perform the following functions, namely:-
(a) Specify the minimum standards for housing, upkeep and veterinary care of the animals kept in a zoo;
(b) Evaluate and assess the functioning of zoos with respect to the standards or the norms as may be prescribed;
(c) Recognise or derecognise zoos;
(i) Co-ordinate research in captive breeding and educational programmes for the purposes of zoos;
(j) Provide technical and other assistance to zoos for their proper management and development on scientific lines;
(k) Perform such other functions as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act with regard to zoos.
(Emphasis Supplied)
29. Clause (a) aforesaid provides that 'minimum standard for housing, upkeep and veterinary care of animals' is one of the primary functions of the authority. Likewise, Clause (k) makes it obligatory for the authority to function in a manner which is necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act of 1972. The purpose of Act is as under :
"An Act to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country."
(Emphasis Supplied)
30. In the Zoo Rules, the law makers inserted Rule 3 which deals with development and planning of every Zoo. The same is reproduced for ready reference.
3. Development and planning.- (1) Every zoo shall prepare and get the master plan approved by the Central Zoo Authority.
(2) Zoos which are in operation at the time of the commencement of these rules, shall prepare and get the master plans approved from the Central Zoo Authority within one year from the date of commencement of these rules. (3) The master plan referred to in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), shall, inter alia, include all round development of the zoo for a period of twenty years which shall be revised every ten years along with a detailed layout plan prepared on the basis of the theme adopted by the zoo, indicating the locations of green belts, lawns, gardens, animal display are, visitor facilities, support infrastructure for animal upkeep and healthcare, buildings for administrative and maintenance unit.
(4) Atleast 30% of the area earmarked for the zoo shall be kept under green belt and natural vegetation and the area for animal housing shall not exceed 30% area of the zoo.
(5) Every zoo shall take adequate care to locate and design all pucca buildings including the visitor facilities in such a manner that the natural 15 landscape of the zoo and animal enclosures are not masked and the cleanliness and hygiene of the zoo is not affected.
(6) Every zoo shall, in consultation with the Central Zoo Authority, prepare a collection plan indicating the names of the species and maximum number of animals of each species to be housed in the zoo, having due regard to the congeniality of the climatic conditions of the locality for the general health and well being of the species, availability of the space and infrastructural support for proper upkeep and healthcare of the species, proximity of the zoo to the habitat range of the species and the past record of the zoo in management and breeding of the species and no zoo shall compromise on housing and upkeep standards of animals for accommodating new species or additional animals of the species in its collection.
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. A plain reading of Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 3 makes it clear that it is mandatory for every Zoo to prepare and get the 'master plan' approved by Central Zoo authority. Thus, the 'master plan' mentioned hereinabove has a statutory backing. Once 'master plan' is prepared and approved by Central Zoo authority, any change in relation to the functioning of Zoo must be with the approval of the Central Zoo Authority. Otherwise, the very purpose of bringing a Zoo 'master plan' and its approval as per statutory scheme will vanish in thin air.
32. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 3 provides that 'master plan' should take care of all round development of the Zoo for a period of 20 years. The plan should take care of various factors including availability of green belts, lawns, gardens support infrastructural for animal upkeep and health care. Most importantly, Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 3 mandates that the general health and well-being of species, availability of space and infrastructural support for proper upkeep and healthcare of species should be taken care of and proximity with the Zoo is a relevant factor. In no uncertain terms, it is mandated that no Zoo shall compromise on housing and upkeep standards of animals.
16
33. The relevant portion of Rule 6 reads thus:
"6. Veterinary and infrastructure facilities.- (1) Every zoo shall,-
(a) have veterinary facilities appropriate to the size and type of the animal collection of the zoo;
(b) have a full-fledged veterinary unit with all basic diagnostic facilities, comprehensive range of drugs, operation theatre and in-patient wards: Provided that a mini zoo shall have at least facilities of a treatment room. (2) No zoo shall acquire sophisticated and costly diagnostic equipments unless there is adequate technically qualified manpower to operate and use the same.
(3) Every zoo, except mini zoo, shall have a post-mortem room, isolation ward, quarantine ward, animal restraining and tranquillizing equipments and a veterinary care reference library. (4) Tranquilization of any animal shall be done exercising utmost care and following the standards specified in this regard by the Central Zoo Authority from time-to-time.
(5)Every zoo operator shall provide each zoo the veterinary support staff as specified in the Table below; namely:-
S. No. Support Staff Large Zoo Medium Zoo Small Zoo
(1) (2)
(3) (4) (5)
1. Lab. Assistant
1 1 ----
2. Stockman or
compounder 2 1 1
Provided that a Mini Zoo shall have at least one whole time employee to take care of upkeep and feeding of the zoo animals.
(6)Every zoo shall have linkages with the eminent institutions and organizations working in the field of wild animal healthcare with the objectives to provide for-
(a) the assistance in scientific diagnosis of diseases of serious nature and advise on the effective remedial treatment;
(b) the training and upgrading technical skills of zoo staff; and
(c) the development of protocols for preventive medicines and vaccination."
34. Similarly, relevant portion of Rule 7 reads thus:
"7. Post-mortem and disposal of carcasses of animals.- (1) Every animal died in the zoo shall be subjected to a detailed post-mortem examination by registered veterinarian to determine conclusive the cause of the death. (2) The findings of the post-mortem examination referred to in sub-paragraph (1) shall be recorded in such format as may be prescribed by Central Zoo Authority and in this regard and shall be maintained for a period of not less than six years.
(3) In the event of the post-mortem being inconclusive and no specific reason for death is identified, the zoo authorities shall send the samples of the tissues and organs, blood, viscera, etc., for further examination to the qualified diagnostic laboratory having adequate specialization for further investigation and identifying the cause of death.
(4)Every zoo shall ensure that the carcasses of the animals, after the post-
mortem has been conducted, is disposed off by burying of burning in a 17 manner that does not have any adverse impact on the hygiene and cleanliness of the zoo:
Provided that the carcasses of large cats shall be disposed off by burning in the presence of the Director of the zoo or any officer in the next rank to him and authorized by him in this behalf:
Provided further that the carcasses of animals died due to Anthrax or such other communicable diseases shall not be opened and subjected to post- mortem, as a safeguard against spread of the disease. These shall be buried intact."
(Emphasis Supplied)
35. A conjoint reading of both rules makes it clear that the veterinary facilities, basic diagnostic facilities, operation theatre, in-patient ward, post-mortem room, isolation ward, quarantine ward are part and parcel of the Zoo. Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 6 provides the details of 'support staff'.
36. Rule 7 mandates that post-mortem facility and arrangement of disposal of carcasses of animal must be inseparable part of the Zoo.
37. As noticed above, admittedly KMC could not produce a scrap of paper to establish that land in question is its land. Importantly, the revenue department expressed its inability to produce any relevant record to throw light on the ownership of the land. In absence of establishing this elementary aspect, the decision of issuing NIT is prima facie flawed. As per the Act of 1972 and Zoo Rules made thereunder, the existence and establishment of certain cartres is essential for smooth running and existence of the Zoo. Despite the specific objection of forest department in the meeting, no efforts were made to allot the land in close proximity for establishment of staff quarters, post-mortem room, quarantine centre, rescue centre, isolation building etc. The allotment or earmarking of the land alone is not sufficient, only after making such centres functional, it can be said that necessary support system is in place for Zoo's survival.
38. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the starting point of issuance of NIT is a note/decision taken by Mayor, KMC in 18 exercise of power under the section 37 of the KMC Act, 1980 but such power, in absence of existence of necessary ingredients could not have been exercised, has not been rebutted by the other side. A cursory reading of Section 37 of KMC Act makes it clear that for exercising emergency power, one of the following factors must be there:
i) Maintenance of service or safety of public.
ii) Prevention of extensive damage to property of KMC.
39. During the course of hearing, no document could be pointed out to establish that learned Mayor has initiated the action under Section 37 after having satisfied about existence of these relevant factors. Prima facie, this starting point itself raises doubt on the correctness and purity of the decision making process.
40. In view of above discussion, it is prima facie clear that the respondents intend to monetize a portion of the zoo which action may be detrimental to the very existence of the zoo. More so, when no alternative arrangement has been made to establish staff quarters, post mortem room, Quarantine Centre, Rescue Centre and Isolation building within proximity. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner. If impugned NIT is not stayed and third party rights are created and construction is made at the cost of destroying the centres which are essential for existence of zoo, it will certainly cause irreparable loss to the zoo and 'public interest' at large. Thus, necessary ingredients for grant of interim relief are available in the present case. For these cumulative reasons, the respondents are restrained from proceeding further upon their "notice for E-auction dated 23.07.2025. The parties are directed to file their affidavit- in-opposition within 4 weeks. The learned ASG may file the above report 19 along with the affidavit of the responsible Officer. Exception (if any) may be filed within 2 weeks therefrom. It is expected that the Zoo Authority and Forest Department while filing reply will also deal with the contention of the petitioners raised in the petition about missing animals from the zoo.
(Sujoy Paul, J.) I agree.
(Smita Das De, J.)