Summary
A woman who found a deer horn in the upper floor of her old house applied in 2011 for a certificate of ownership under the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003, framed under Section 40A of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which required such declarations within 180 days of the Rules' publication on 18 April 2003. The Chief Wild Life Warden rejected the application as time-barred; a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court directed consideration of relaxation if time had been relaxed in other cases, but the Division Bench held the limit could not be extended. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, holding that given the object of Sections 40 and 40A and the wide publicity and assistance mandated by Rule 3, the 180-day period in Rule 4(2) is mandatory, and on default the bar of Section 40 applies and the article vests in the Government.
Issues
- Whether the period of 180 days prescribed by Rule 4(2) of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 for declaring possession of wildlife articles and seeking a certificate of ownership is mandatory or capable of relaxation.
Provisions considered
- Sections 40 and 40A, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972Section 40 bars acquiring or keeping scheduled animals and animal articles without permission; Section 40A, inserted by the 2002 amendment, allows the Central Government to require a one-time declaration of undeclared stock within a prescribed time as an immunity provision, and failure to declare within that time attracts the rigour of Section 40. (¶¶ 2.1, 5, 5.1)
- Rules 3 and 4(2), Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003Rule 3 obliges the Chief Wild Life Warden to give wide publicity in the regional language and assist the poor and illiterate in filing declarations, so no one can plead ignorance; Rule 4(2) requires the application within 180 days of publication, a period held mandatory in view of the object of the Act and Rules. (¶¶ 2.2, 5, 5.1, 6)
Held
- Having regard to the object and purpose of Sections 40 and 40A and of the 2003 Rules, the 180-day period in Rule 4(2) must be construed as mandatory, otherwise the object of the Act and Rules would be frustrated; once a person in possession fails to declare within that period, ownership of the article vests in the Government or forest department, and the application made in 2011 was rightly rejected. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 6)
- The Madras High Court decision in C.D. Gopinath is inapplicable on facts, and the Single Judge's view that the period is directory is disapproved. (¶ 6.1)
Result
Appeal dismissed; Kerala High Court Division Bench judgment dated 29.05.2020 holding the time limit under Rule 4(2) of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 incapable of relaxation affirmed.