The petition has been filed praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order made in Na.Ka.No.Va.U.1/14792/2016 dated 17.08.2016 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner in possession of two Indian female Elephants namely, SUMA and RANI. These elephants are to be transported from one place to another, after obtaining the permission from the 1st respondent herein under Form-B of the Schedule, under the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011. These elephants are used by the petitioner for poojas, religious festivals for various temples in the State of Tamil Nadu as well as other purposes. One of the elephants named SUMA, was sent to Gaja Pooja in Sree Varatharaja Perumal Temple, Kancheepuram between 17.05.2016 and 30.05.2016. The petitioner obtained permission from the 1st respondent in Form-B in Na.Ka.No.14792/16/WL1 dated 10.05.2016, to transport the elephant for the aforesaid period. In pursuant to the same, the elephant was transported to the destination along with a Mahout and a Cavady. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner had some personal commitments to look after, because of which he was enable to be present in the festival, reposing trust on the Mahout and Cavady, Mr.Santhanam and Mr.Saravanan respectively to take care of the elephants. While so, the petitioner received a report in Na.Ka.No.M1/2657/2016 from the 2nd respondent, stating that the elephant SUMA was used to beg money from the commuters and that the news regarding the same was published as a news item in Tamil News Daily Dinakaran. The 1st respondent herein therefore issued a show cause, notice to the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause, as to why his licence should not be cancelled in pursuant to the said event. The petitioner through his reply to the 1st respondent apologized for the alleged incident and further explained that the Mahout and the Cavady have been terminated from service and further requested the 1st respondent to continue providing the transit licences. The said explanation was not accepted by the 1st respondent and the impugned order dated 17.08.2016 was passed. In the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to pay the charges and the transit license was suspended till the completion of training for the Mahout and the Cavady. The said order was passed under the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011. Challenging the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the authorities concerned, on the basis of the materials and the statement made by the petitioner, temporarily suspended the permit granted under Form B for violating Rule No.4(5) of Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011 and that the impugned order shall apply only to elephant Suma. The learned Additional Government Pleader also submitted that, in the aforesaid impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Authority for grant of fresh transit permit to the petitioner, if he satisfies the norms and conditions of the 1st respondent. The learned Additional Government Pleader also brought to the notice of this Court that in the certificate of Ownership issued to the petitioner under Section 42 of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972, one of the conditions imposed by the first respondent, in Clause 8 of the conditions is that, the elephant should not be used for begging. The said Clause has also been incorporated under Sub Rule (11) of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011. Hence, in the light of the said Rules, the impugned order has been passed by the 1st respondent.
4. I have considered the submissions made by Mr.G.Ethirajulu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Shanthana Raman, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
5. The explanation offered by the petitioner is that without his knowledge, the Mahout and Cavady had made the elephant to beg and collected money from the shops and public. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the Mahout and Cavady were permanently removed from their service and he engaged the services of a trained Mahout and Cavady for maintenance of Elephant Suma. By order dated 01.09.2016, this Court granted interim order of stay only in respect of the other elephant, namely, Rani. Insofar as the present impugned order passed in respect of the elephant, named Suma is concerned, the petitioner admitted that the elephant should not have been used for begging, in violation of the provision of Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011. The petitioner also undertakes that he is ready and willing to comply with any conditions that may be imposed by the respondents and requests the Court to grant leave to make necessary application to the 1st respondent to obtain the transit permit licence.
6. It is seen from the impugned order of the first respondent that four conditions have been imposed in the impugned order of rejection and they are:-
(i) As the petitioner failed to exercise control over the two female domestic elephants by name Suma and Irani and left the elephants to the Mahout as well as Assistant Mahout, it is his responsibility to ensure that the elephants are not utilised for thepurpose other than for which licence was issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner, for having violated the conditions of licence, was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.24,400/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Four Hundred Only) as Training Fees for 2 elephant mahouts for 2 elephants Further, Rs.9,500.00 has been fixed as Training Fees for each elephants Assistant Mahout. Hence, the petitiner was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.19,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Only) (2 x 9,500 = Rs.19,000) as Training Fees 2 elephants Assistant within 30 days
(ii) The second condition is that in order to participate in the temple function, the Transportation Permission would be accorded only after the conclusion of training to the Elephant mahout as well as Elephants Assistant Mahout and until then, the transportation permission is temporarily suspended.
(iii) The petitioner was also instructed to approach the Forest Livestock Officer and to send a Report regarding the present health condition of the elephants and the expenses relating thereto has to be borne by the petitioner.
(iv) It was also stated that if the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions (i) to (iii) above, his licence will be cancelled permanently.
7. As mentioned above, the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes before this Court to comply with any conditions as imposed and that he would also submit necessary application for compliance of the aforesaid order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In such circumstances, the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court.
8. Before parting with the order, through this Writ Petition, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, today, the elephants are largely used for performing entertainment, without engaging them in active work. The elephants are also utilised to bless and receive money in return, which is nothing but begging. It is useful to refer to Sub Rule (11) Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, wherein it is stated that elephants should not be used for begging.
Sub Rule (11) Rule 6 reads as follows:
6. (11) The elephant should not be taken to street and other places for begging or any other mean purposes.
9. The aforesaid condition is also incorporated in the certificate of ownership issued under Section 42 of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. Therefore today begging of elephant would amount to exploitation the animals and they are thereby subjected to uncharacteristic behaviours. Captive elephants are mostly owned by temples, mutts and individuals who use them for festivals, and other religious functions. Often they are shifted from one place to another for a specified purpose. As seen in the present case, the concerned elephant was used for a temple festival and the Mahout used the elephant for street begging and made it to walk on the concrete road. The above act is a regression from the natural behaviour of the elephants and shall result in constant suffering, pain and stress. Therefore, in order to ensure the best possible atmosphere and health conditions of captive elephants, The Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011 was framed and the provisions thereof have to be followed scruplously. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that only a meagre amount of money is being paid to the Mahout and Cavady. Therefore the concerned authority is directed to take steps to ensure that the Mahout and Cavady are paid adequate monthly salary by the owner. The aforesaid rules has been framed to ensure the healthy condition of captive elephants in terms of housing, feeding, work, care, mahout and cavady, transportation, retirement and activities and not tantamount to causing cruelty to the captive elephants. Therefore in the light of the aforesaid rules framed by the Government, as long as animals are forced into captivity, it becomes the duty of the authorities concerned to ensure the best living conditions and / or survival of those elephants. Therefore the District Forest Officers are directed to ensure that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011 are strictly implemented in its true letter and spirit so as to ensure the welfare of the captive elephants.
10. In view of the submissions made by the parties, this Court is not interfering with the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent. In the light of para 2 of the impugned order and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:
(1) In the present Writ Petition, as far as the elephant Rani is concerned, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is quashed. Insofar as the elephant Suma is concerned, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent, if so advised with all the particulars as per the norms and conditions of the 1st respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(2) On such approach by the petitioner, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on merits for grant of the transit permit under Form B, within a period of four weeks thereafter.
(3) The 1st respondent is also directed to incorporate particulars of the Mahout and Cavady for the purpose of satisfying the norms and guidelines in Form 'B'.
(4) It is brought to the notice of this Court, that there are various incidents by violating Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011 in the State of Tamil Nadu. The 1st respondent is directed to ensure implementation of the Sub Rule (11) of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, in the letter and spirit by communicating to all the concerned officials to take necessary action immediately.
(5) The concerned District Forest Officer is directed to communicate of Sub Rule (11) of Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, in Tamil Version to all the concerned owner of the Elephants.
11. The Writ Petition is disposed with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.04.2017 speaking order Index: Yes Internet:Yes jv D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.
jv To 1 Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Chief Wildlife Warden Panagal Palace, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
2 District Forest Officer, Chengalpet Circle, Kancheepuram.
W.P. No. 30470 of 2016 04.04.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in