Under Article 43A of the Constitution of India, the State has an obligation to protect and

improve the environment and safeguard the forest and wild life of the country. A fundamental
duty is cast on every citizen under Article 51A(g) to protect and improve the natural
environment including forest and wild life. R. Senniappan vs The Wildlife Warden. Indira ...
on 31 August, 1999.

Issue 1: Powers of the CWW under the Act

Sec 2(37) wildlife

2(38) Wildlife Warden

Section 11 of the Act permits hunting of wild animals in certain cases. It open with non-
obstante clause, but it is subject to provisions of Chapter IV and it authorizes Chief Wild Life
Warden to pass an order in writing with reasons therefor and permit any person to hunt such
animal or cause animal to be hunted. Before ordering such hunting, that officer has to satisfy
himself that such animal cannot be captured, tranquilized or translocated.

Issuing Permits and Licenses (Section 11): Section 11(1) of the Act empowers the Chief
Wildlife Warden to grant permits to hunt wild animals in specific cases.

Exercising Discretion (Section 11(1)(a)): Under Section 11(1)(a), the Chief Wildlife Warden
has the authority to grant permits when they are "satisfied that such animal…." This
provision grants the Chief Wildlife Warden a discretionary power to make decisions that they
believe serve the best interests of wildlife conservation.

Issue 2.1: The Act vests Discretionary Power in the Warden

The Chief Wildlife Warden's decision to issue a permit to hunt an aged and perceived threat
tiger is well-founded in the statutory language of Section 11(1)(a). It provides discretion to
the Chief Wildlife Warden to grant permits based on the satisfaction that it is necessary…
This language grants the Chief Wildlife Warden the authority to make decisions aimed at
wildlife conservation.
2.2 Conservation is in the Interest of Wildlife: The decision to issue a permit was based on
scientific research and data indicating that the specific tiger in question was aged, non-
breeding, and posed a potential threat to younger tigers and human life as well in the wild.
This evidence demonstrated that the removal of such a tiger was necessary to protect the
overall health and genetic diversity of the tiger population as a whole and human life as well.

2.3 Age and Perceived threat

Petitioner has himself agreed.

R. JERRYL AVINASH B... v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...

In this case, the tiger was translocated by an order of the CWW as he posed a threat to human
life and other animals in the area. A PIL was filed against the order of the CWW but the same
was upheld by the Court (Bombay HC).

3.1 Consistency with the Act's Objective: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, explicitly
aims to protect wildlife. The Chief Wildlife Warden's decision to issue a hunting permit for
specific conservation purposes is closely aligned with the core objective of the Act. It
demonstrates the Chief Wildlife Warden's commitment to preserving the critically
endangered tiger population as intended by the legislation.

3.2 No Explicit Prohibition: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, does not explicitly
prohibit the Chief Wildlife Warden from issuing hunting permits. The absence of such a
prohibition suggests that the Act allows for a degree of discretion on the part of the Chief
Wildlife Warden. In matters of statutory interpretation, it is well-established that if a statute
does not explicitly prohibit an action, it can be construed as permitting it. In this case, as the
Act does not expressly forbid the issuance of such permits, it can be inferred that the Chief
Wildlife Warden's actions are consistent with the Act.
3.3 Conservation Imperatives: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, places a significant
emphasis on conservation, protection, and sustainable management of wildlife. The decision
to issue a hunting permit for an aged and potentially threatening tiger can be seen as an act of
conservation and management, which aligns with the Act's objectives.

Instinctive Behavior: Tigers are apex predators with strong survival instincts. When injured
or wounded, they may become more unpredictable and defensive, as they are in pain and feel
vulnerable. This can make them more likely to lash out in self-defense.

Pain and Agitation: A wounded tiger is likely in pain, which can make it more agitated and
aggressive. Animals in pain may be more likely to react aggressively to perceived threats,
including humans.

Inability to Hunt: Wounded tigers may have difficulty hunting for their natural prey due to
their injuries. As a result, they might be more inclined to seek alternative food sources, which
can bring them into closer contact with humans and livestock.

Protecting Territory: Tigers are territorial animals. When wounded, they might be less able to
defend their territory effectively, leading to conflicts with other tigers that attempt to
encroach on their territory. This can result in aggressive encounters.

Perceived Threat to Other Tigers: In the context of the moot problem, a wounded tiger that is
unable to breed and poses a potential threat to other tigers may be seen as a challenge to the
overall health and stability of the tiger population. Removing such a tiger can be viewed as a
management strategy to safeguard other tigers in the wild.
The Supreme Court has recently held that writ petitions cannot be termed as “not
maintainable” merely because the alternative remedy provided by the relevant
statutes has not been pursued by the parties desirous of invocation of the writ
jurisdiction.

"The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 is plenary in nature. Any
limitation on the exercise of such power must be traceable in the Constitution
itself", a bench of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta has held.

The Top Court has further observed that Article 226 does not, in terms, impose any
limitation or restraint on the exercise of power to issue writs.

"While it is true that exercise of writ powers despite availability of a remedy under
the very statute which has been invoked and has given rise to the action impugned
in the writ petition ought not to be made in a routine manner, yet, the mere fact
that the petitioner before the high court, in a given case, has not pursued the
alternative remedy available to him/it cannot mechanically be construed as a
ground for its dismissal", the court has further observed.
The division bench has further opined that it is axiomatic that the high courts
(bearing in mind the facts of each particular case) have a discretion whether
to entertain a writ petition or not.

"One of the self-imposed restrictions on the exercise of power under Article 226
that has evolved through judicial precedents is that the high courts should normally
not entertain a writ petition, where an effective and efficacious alternative remedy
is available. At the same time, it must be remembered that mere availability of an
alternative remedy of appeal or revision, which the party invoking the jurisdiction
of the high court under Article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction
of the high court and render a writ petition not maintainable", Court has added.
Availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the
“maintainability” of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to
pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law, the Supreme Court has held.

Referring to the concepts of entertainability and maintainability as two distinct

concepts, the court has held that a writ petition despite being maintainable may not
be entertained by a high court for very many reasons or relief could even be
refused to the petitioner, despite setting up a sound legal point, if grant of the
claimed relief would not further public interest.

Hence, dismissal of a writ petition by a high court on the ground that the petitioner
has not availed the alternative remedy without, however, examining whether an
exceptional case has been made out for such entertainment would not be proper,
the bench has added.

Case Title: M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD vs. THE EXCISE AND
TAXATION OFFICERCUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY & ORS.