C D GOPINATH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 06.03.2006, rejecting the petitioner's application for grant of ownership certificate in respect of the Wild Life Trophies inherited by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, his father was a wild life enthusiast, who had during his life time, had collected several Wildlife Memorabilia and after the demise of his father, the petitioner is stated to have inherited such Memorabilia. According to the petitioner, these collections have a sentimental value and therefore, it is incalculable in terms of money. Section 40(A) was inserted in the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, by the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act 2002, Act 16 of 2003, with effect from 01.04.2003. This provision was inserted with a view to grant immunity in certain cases. For better appreciation the provision is extracted as hereunder:-

(2.) IN exercise of powers conferred under Sub-section (1) and (3) of Section 40A read with Section 63 of the Act, the Declaration of Wild Life Trophies Stocks Rule 2003 came to be published with effect from 18.04.2003. Rule 4 prescribed the procedure for filing an application to the Chief Wild Life Warden or Officers authorised by the State Government and it shall be presented in the form as per the rules either in person or through agent or by duly authorised legal practitioner or by registered post. Rule 5 prescribes the procedure for presentation and scrutiny of such application. The place of filing an application is dealt with in Rule 6, and Rule 7 deals with the hearing to be afforded by the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized Officer for hearing of application, if required. IN terms of Rule 8, the Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorized by the State Government shall verify the facts mentioned in the application and make such inquiry as required. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 8, states that the competent authority as far as possible decide the application within six weeks from the date of receipt of the application and communicate the same to the applicant in writing. Rule 9 empowers the authorized officer to hear an application at his discretion. IN terms of Rule 10(1), the authorized officer is directed to conduct a detailed enquiry. IN terms of the Section 41 of the Act and a copy of such enquiry report is required to be furnished to the applicant thereafter, the certificate of ownership to be issued under Rule 11.

(3.) THE correctness of the impugned order is assailed on several grounds, primarily on the ground that summary rejection of the application by the authority without considering the request for condonation of delay is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the delay in filing the application, which was not intentional. It is further contended that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted by the authority before passing the impugned order and when the rules prescribed a detailed enquiry by the authority, the order summarily rejecting the application is erroneous.