Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. We have the rival contentions of the parties as to whether or the elephant is musth, musth is a temporary phenomenon during which a male elephant shows aggressive behaviour. It is common ground that during musth period, it is not advisable to attempt to shift an elephant. Further examination and health evaluation of Sunder as directed by this Court vide order dated 13th February, 2014 has been annexed to the affidavit. The report is a joint report dated 20 th February, 2014 is issued by Dr. E.K. Easwaran, Assistant Director, Elephant Expert, Department of Animal Husbandry, Kerala and Dr. wp2662-13 Yaduraj Khadpekar, Senior Veterinary Officer, Elephant Expert, Wildlife SOS,India, New Delhi. The report recommends that Sunder in his present state can be transported to an elephant care and rehabilitation Centre under regular sedation and transportation protocol. It further recommends that Sunder needs immediate enrichment of environment by appropriate association with other elephants in a rehabilitation and care centre to avoid any further permanent damage to mental status which shall, if left in his current condition, will eventually make him a rogue and dangerous through his lifespan and difficult to manage in captivity. Much material has been produced by both the sides, inter alia regarding the guidelines of the care and management of captive elephants.

20. We now deal with the second petition filed by Respondent No.4 in the first petition. The second petition was tagged with the first petition pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 13th February, 2014. By the said order, the Court directed Respondent No.4 in the first petition and the Petitioner in the second petition to permit the members of PETA to examine the elephant in the ensuing week from 15th February, 2014. The Petitioner in the second petition contends that elephants have been in the service of deity since a long time and that Sunder is being looked after. He contends that Respondent No.1 wp2662-13 has passed ex-parte order on 21st August, 2012 without jurisdiction and in breach of rules and natural justice. The Petitioner contends that the elephant is presently being maintained by the Warana Group and a team of 30 veterinary doctors / surgeons are employed with the said diary and in any event, the elephant has been properly taken care of.

26. This is a submission made across the bar. The pleadings are conveniently silent. It is, therefore, evident that no elephant health centre is likely to come up in or around the premises of the temple in the near future however good the intention of Respondent Nos.2 & 4 are. In the event of any elephant health center being set up or arranged for the elephant, thereafter the elephants in captivity may be vested with the temple, if the law permits. We are satisfied and hold that Respondent No.4 has no locus to question the jurisdiction of the Joint Secretary (Forests), Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra to issue order dated 21st August, 2012.

The prime consideration is to ensure that the elephant is set free from its present state of captivity. We may observe that the observation made by the Wildllife Rescue & Rehabilitation Centre in letter dated 17th December, 2013 addressed to the Petitioner to the effect that the Petitioner may state alternative sites for housing Sunder was relevant only during winter when the movement of the elephants is very frequent. This is no reason to prevent Sunder from being shifted to Bengaluru. Accordingly, the elephant should be transported to the facility of Bengaluru by using suitable methods in the best interest of the elephant. The State, the Chief Conservator of Forests and the Chief Wildlife Warden to take appropriate measures to ensure that the transportation is effected in the best possible method and in consultation with the experts in the field. They may take the assistance of the Petitioner in this regard.