Manjula Chellur,CJ
Petitioner, a registered society under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, is before this Court complaining inaction on the part of respondent authorities to rescue and rehabilitate an injured wild elephant which has been forced to stay in the water at Edamalayar Dam for about three weeks at the time of filing the writ petition.
2. According to petitioner, the elephant is aged about 10 years. It got stranded in the waters of Edamalayar dam, due to serious injury suffered to its left front limb. In spite of forest officials claiming that proper treatment was being given to the wild elephant, the wild elephant was not recovering and the condition became worse day by day. According to petitioner, on account of lack of seeking expert opinion in the matter of rescuing the wild animal, delay is caused and ultimately it would endanger the life of the injured wild elephant. With these averments, apart from approaching Loka Ayukta and other authorities petitioner is before this Court claiming the following reliefs:-
i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to rescue the injured elephant stranded in Edamalayar Dam and to give sufficient and adequate treatment to the injured wild elephant after constituting a team of experts in the field.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 3rd respondent to conduct an enquiry into the matter and to take appropriate action against the officers concerned for not taking effective and adequate steps to rescue the injured elephant and also for not giving proper and effective treatment to the animal.
Iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,direction or order, directing the 5th respondent to constitute a permanent team of experts for taking immediate and prompt action for rescuing injured wild animals as in the instant case, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
iv) issue any other writ, direction or order as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”
3. During the pendency of writ petition, counter affidavit came to be filed by 2nd respondent indicating, what is the medical treatment that was extended to the injured wild elephant and along with the details they have filed prescriptions given from time to time by Dr.Sunil Kumar Chief Veterinary Doctor of Palakkad district. They have referred to various steps taken by the department in such situations. The fact remains, during the pendency of writ petition, elephant died as the forest officials were not able to retrieve the elephant from waters and they have explained the reasons why they could not do so.
4. Ultimately, it is revealed that in spite of treatment, the injury sustained could not be treated therefore the wild elephant died on account of septicemia. It was suffering from complete dislocation of left elbow joint with inward(medial) displacement of Humerus and outward (Lateral) displacement of Radius and ulna. Added to this, it was suffering from muscle damage at the site of injury which extended up to knee joint and muscular degeneration ended in septicemia which resulted in non- function of vital organs leading to the death of elephant. They have also explained that the very location where the elephant was stranded was deep waters and if rescue team was sent into the waters the chances of elephant moving further into the deep waters was there. Therefore, they tried to send medicines through the pine apples. The fact remains, ultimately, in spite of best efforts, they could not save the elephant.
5. During the course of submissions on earlier occasion, learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that, the Committee formed to enquire into such matters including the line of treatment, rescue operations etc. refers to certain officers who are bound to reach the age of superannuation and nothing is indicated in the minutes indicating what should happen after their retirements. In other words, petitioner’s counsel apprehended that the Committee may not function in future once some of the officials reached the age of superannuation. Therefore, we directed the respondent authorities to indicate properly what exactly is the position once certain officials reach the age of superannuation. The answer to this query was by way of affidavit filed by Assistant Conservator of Forests & Liaison Officer, Ernakulam indicating what steps were taken to rescue the elephant and what steps were taken by the department for future follow up in similar situations. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit are very relevant which read as under:-
“2. The above writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein mainly for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents 1 to 4 for the rescue of the injured elephant stranded in Edamalayar Dam and to provide sufficient and adequate treatment to the above injured Elephant after constituting a team of experts in the field.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer, Malayattoor, who is the second respondent in the above writ petition had filed a counter affidavit dated 03.05.2014 in the above case. The second respondent has also filed an additional counter affidavit dated 21.05.2014 in the above case. In the affidavit dated 03.05.2014, the order passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests(Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden bearing No.BDC2-448/14 dated 26.04.2014 has been produced as Exhibit-R2(d). In Exhibit R2(d) it has been stated that for the rescue and treatment of the elephant and prevention of such incidence in future, a team of experts is constituted for advise on treatment procedures and rehabilitation of animals. In the above order, the names of 3 experts were mentioned with their name and designation. The names of 2 persons were mentioned with their official designation. It is respectfully submitted that when the above matter came up for hearing on 30.05.2014, this Honourable Court has orally directed the Special Government Pleader (Forests) to file necessary affidavit explaining whether the above expert team is of permanent nature. It is respectfully submitted that in Exhibit-R2(d) itself, it has been specifically stated that the above team was constituted for the rescue and treatment of the elephant and prevention of such incidence in future, the expert team has been constituted. It is further submitted that the experts mentioned in Exhibit-R2(d) by their individual name and designation are experts in the field dealing with rescue and rehabilitation of wild animals. The other members who are named by way of designation in Exhibit-R2(d) are also experts in the above field. It is further submitted that , when any of the above 5 expert team retires from service or due to any other reason the Forest Department feels that some other persons is to be inducted in their place, the same will be done.”
6. In the light of clarification now offered, the details referred to at Ext.R2(d) is for prevention of such incidents in future. The team of experts is constituted for advice on treatment procedure and also rehabilitation of animals. As per paragraph 3, they have satisfactorily explained what happens once the officials reach age of superannuation.
7. Placing the above explanation on record, we are of the opinion, the writ petition deserves to be disposed of directing the respondent authorities to see that team of experts constituted for the purpose are made use of in similar situations to find out ways and means for treatment, rescue and rehabilitation of wild animals.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
sj 20/06