The Supreme Court has dismissed a PIL opposing the permission granted by the Central Zoo Authority to the zoo being arrange by Reliance Industries Limited in Jamnagar, Gujarat, and permitting it to obtain animals from different zoos in India or overseas. Allowing that it’s “unable”. Find an argument or floor in “petition.”
Dismissing the objections raised by the petitioner Kanhaiya Kumar, a Delhi-based lawyer, a bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari noticed: “We don’t discover any authorized lapse in recognizing the zoo and the rescue heart of the respondent no. 2 (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre) by respondent No. 1 (Central Zoo Authority).”
The court docket noticed that “it does not appear that the petitioner has done the necessary research before taking this court to the jurisdiction of the PIL” and that “the petitioner himself is not an expert in the field and has based the petition only on news reports”. which, too, doesn’t appear to have been made by the knowledgeable”.
Kumar had questioned the permission given to a personal group, Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, to arrange the zoo. He additionally demanded a SIT probe into the administration of the Centre.
Rejecting the petitioner’s submissions, the bench mentioned, “Keeping in view the submissions made along with the documents attached in the counter affidavit, we are satisfied that the permission granted for the “institution of the zoo and the consequential actions of the Center” has not been mentioned can go. be unlawful or unauthorized”.
Kumar, who described himself as a “public-spirited citizen … compassionate towards the conservation and improvement of wildlife”, had approached the court docket with reviews of animals being introduced in from Mexico, aside from Assam, Chennai and Madhya Pradesh. was cited.
Kumar argued that “it is a private zoo for which the master layout plan … was approved in February 2019, but it is not clear how it is eligible to move animals from abroad or from a public zoo”. .
The petitioner submitted that the Center is planning to maintain the most important variety of species and animals for commerce within the zoo, which is totally unacceptable, and within the guise of making a rescue heart for the animals, the zoo sought to undertake business exercise. doing. ,
In its counter-affidavit, the Center denied all of the allegations and mentioned that the petition is “completely false, based on false and incomplete news reports”.
It knowledgeable the bench that the Central Zoo Authority had “given due recognition to the Center after due inspection and evaluation”.
The counter affidavit additionally particulars numerous facets of the functioning of the zoo, together with the Leopard Rescue Center and the Crocodile Rescue Centre, whereas making certain that the veterinarians, curators, biologists, zoologists and different specialists perform the actions strictly. engaged for. Conditions of recognition and provisions of relevant regulation, together with the 1972 Act and the Zoo Recognition Rules, 2009.
Rejecting the allegations of commercialisation, officers mentioned that the zoo is working as a non-profit group for the welfare of animals.
Except the Zoological Park, no different space will likely be open to the general public and will likely be maintained solely as a rescue centre, zoo officers mentioned, including that the Zoological Park will likely be mandated for instructional functions and to create consciousness for selling the welfare of animals. to be operated. It mentioned “…even if any revenue is generated from the park, but after payment of taxes, it will be used only for rescue, relief and rehabilitation works”.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
