Disposed

M.Saravanan v. the Secretary,Govt of India

Madras HC7 Jul 2022WP(MD)/10893/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During arguments, the Assistant Solicitor General for the first respondent submitted that Japanese Quails were de-listed from Schedule IV of the Wild Life (Protection) Act in 2013, rendering farming permissions unnecessary. Consequently, the Court held no further adjudication was required.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without adjudication; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

M.Saravanan Vs the Secretary,Govt of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.10893 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.07.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.10893 of 2012 and

¶7

M.P.(MD)Nos.2 & 3 of 2012

M.Saravanan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Enviornment & Forest, (Wildlife Division), Paryavaran Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

¶12

Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), represented by its Director General, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶13

The Central Avian Research Institution (CARI), represented by its Director, Izatnagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh – 243 122.

¶14

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Chief Wild Life Warden, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.(MD).No.10893 of 2012

¶19

PRAYER :

¶20

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the communication of the first respondent in F.No.3-3/2011/WL-1 dated 22.09.2011 and quash the same and consequently, forbearing the first respondent and anybody claiming under the impugned communication in F.No.3-3/2011/WL-1, dated 22.09.2011 from interfering with the business of the petitioner to continue with the business of Japanese Quail Farming-production, rearing and marketing of Japanese Quails.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem

¶22

for T.Antony Arulraj

¶23

For respondents : Mr.L.Victoria Gowri Assistant Solicitor General of India

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The present writ petition has been filed challenging a circular issued by the first respondent herein under which a direction was issued to the state Governments and Union Territories not to issue any new license for farming of Japanese Quails and also not to give any permission for expansion or augmentation of the existing farming

¶26

2/5

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.10893 of 2012

¶29

facilities.

¶30

The learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the first respondent, on instruction, submitted that the Japanese Quail has been de-listed from the Schedule IV of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the farming of Japanese Quails no longer require any permission from the statutory authorities. The de-listing has been done by way of notification issued by the Additional Director General of Forest and the Director of Wild Life Reservation, dated 06.12.2013. The same is recorded. In view of the subsequent de-listing, no further adjudication is required in the writ petition.

¶31

With the above said observations, the Writ Petition stands

¶32

disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶33

07.07.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No jbr 3/5

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.(MD).No.10893 of 2012

¶36

¶37

The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Enviornment & Forest, (Wildlife Division), Paryavaran Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

¶38

Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), represented by its Director General, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶39

The Central Avian Research Institution (CARI), represented by its Director, Izatnagar, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh – 243 122.

¶40

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Chief Wild Life Warden, Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai – 15.

¶41

4/5

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

W.P.(MD).No.10893 of 2012

¶44

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.

¶45

jbr

¶46

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10893 of 2012

¶47

07.07.2022

¶48

5/5

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Saravanan v. the Secretary,Govt of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Saravanan v. the Secretary,Govt of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilvel Uma Maheswaranar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mlwa Higher Secondary School Vs the District Collector

Cicily Koshy, Vs the District Collector

N.Radhakrishnan Vs the District Collector

H.S. Mohaideen Vs Paramakudi Municipality

R.Kamaraj Vs the Secretary,Govt of India