Remanded

Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2019WP(C)/4772/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala directed the respondent authorities to examine if time limits for declaring wildlife stock and granting ownership certificates were relaxed in any prior instance, and if so, to consider the petitioner's representation accordingly when such relaxation is found.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider whether time has been relaxed in any case for granting ownership certificates and, if found so, consider the petitioner's Ext.P7 representation accordingly w

Vishalakshi Amma Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.4772 OF 2019(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VISHALAKSHI AMMA AGED 83 YEARS W/O. (LATE) SREEDHARAN NAIR, EDOTH HOUSE, KANNANKARA P.O., CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001

¶11

2 CHIEF WILD LIFE WARDEN AND PRINCIPAL, CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (WILD LIFE),WILD LIFE OFFICE, FOREST HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶12

3 FOREST RANGE OFFICER THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 573

¶13

BY ADV.SRI.SANDESH RAJA, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WPC No.4772 of 2019

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.4772 of 2019

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner who is an octogenarian has approached this court seeking orders for preserving a sambar antler which is stated to have been preserved by her for many years.

¶20

It is stated that the petitioner and her predecessors have been keeping the sambar antler for the last more than 150 years; that she preferred Ext.P1 application for certificate of ownership of the sambar antler when she came to know of the requirement to declare the same and that Ext.P1 has been rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P3 communication stating that the petitioner has not declared the sambar antler in terms of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 (the Rules). In terms of Ext.P3, the petitioner was

¶21

WPC No.4772 of 2019 3

¶22

also directed to surrender the sambar antler to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kozhikode. It is stated by the petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P3 direction, she has surrendered the sambar antler on 8.6.2018 and later preferred another representation on 5.7.2018 to the second respondent for grant of ownership certificate. It is also stated by the petitioner that the enquiries made thereafter revealed that several persons who have preferred applications for ownership certificates much after the time limit prescribed under the Rules for declaration have been granted ownership certificates. 10 among such certificates obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act have been produced as Ext.P9 series in the writ petition. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P7 representation in the light of Ext.P9 series ownership certificates.

¶23

A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. The stand taken by the second respondent in the statement is that in terms of the provisions of the Rules, the petitioner should have declared the sambar antler on or

¶24

WPC No.4772 of 2019 4

¶25

before 18.10.2003 and in so far as the petitioner has not declared the sambar antler before 18.10.2003, the petitioner is not entitled to ownership certificate in respect of the same. It is asserted by the second respondent that nobody has been given ownership certificate in respect of any wild life stock which is not declared within the time stipulated in the Rules.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned special Government pleader.

¶27

True, the Rules provide that the wild life stock in the possession of the public should have been declared within a period of 180 days from the date of publication of the Rules and the said 180 days expired on 18.10.2003. The Rules do not confer any power to the authorities concerned to enlarge the time limit prescribed therein for making the declaration. But if the time has been relaxed in favour of one person for the purpose of granting the certificate of ownership, I do not find any reason why such relaxation cannot be extended to others, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ext.P9 series and Ext.P10 certificates of ownership produced by

¶28

WPC No.4772 of 2019

¶29

¶30

the petitioner would prima facie indicate that the applications in respect of the wild life stock referred to therein have been preferred long after 18.10.2003. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to consider whether time has been relaxed in any case for the purpose of granting the certificate of ownership and if so, under what circumstances, and if it is found that time has been relaxed in any case, consider Ext.P7 representation also in that background. Ordered accordingly. This shall be

¶31

done within 2 months.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WPC No.4772 of 2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.5.2011 WITH POSTAL RECEIPT

¶41

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.W.L.(5)3202/2011 DATED 3.6.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR FOREST EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 8.6.2018 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.7.2018 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY TK PADMESH UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, DATED 14.11.2018 WITH CHALAN EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM 2003 TO 2013 (10 IN NUMBER) WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10.12.2018 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP ISSUED TO VINEETH VARGHESE.

¶42

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Master Gautham Prasanth Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Modern Steels Vs Kerala Chumattu Thozhilali Union

Ansar M. Vs the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

P.C.Thomas and Company Vs the Chief Engineer SZ111(ERSTWHILE)

Noorjahan.N.S Vs the General Manager, State Bank of India