/2023 INSC 0189/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1720/2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. 15232 / 2020)
Vishalakshi Amma               ...Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Kerala & Ors.       …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   29.05.2020   passed   by   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court  of   Kerala   at   Ernakulam
in   Writ   Appeal   No.   109/2020,   by   which,   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   appeal
preferred by the State of Kerala and others ­ respondent(s)
herein   and   has   quashed   and   set   aside   the   judgment   and
order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   in   Writ   Petition
No.   4772/2019,   by   which   the   learned   Single   Judge
disposed   of   the   said   writ   petition   by   directing   the
appellants  herein to  consider  the  declaration  made by the
original writ petitioner under Rule 11 of the Declaration of
1

Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 (hereinafter  referred to as the
Rules, 2003) by relaxing the time to file such a declaration
in   case   the   time   is   relaxed   in   any   other   case,   the   original
writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal. 
2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as
under: ­ 
2.1 Under   Section   40   of   the   Wild   Life   (Protection)   Act,   1972
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   Act,   1972),   every   person
having   at   the   commencement   of   this   Act   the   control,
custody   or   possession   of   any   captive   animal   specified   in
Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or animal article…... or
the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, shall,
within   thirty   days   from   the   commencement   of   this   Act,
declare   to   the   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden   or   the   authorised
officer the number and description of the animal, or article
of   the   foregoing   description   under   his   control,   custody   or
possession   and   the   place   where   such   animal   or   article   is
kept. As per sub­section (2) of Section 40, no person shall,
after   the   commencement   of   this   Act,   1972,   acquire,
receive,   keep   in   his   control,   custody   or   possession,   the
animal   specified   in   Schedule   I   or   Part   II   of   Schedule   II   or
2

any animal article including the deer horn, except with the
previous   permission   in   writing   of   the   Chief   Wild   Life
Warden or the authorised officer. However, Section 40A of
the   Act,   1972,   is   an   exception   and   gives   immunity   in
certain   cases.   As   per   Section   40A,   notwithstanding
anything   contained   in   sub­sections   (2)   and   (4)   of   Section
40   of   this   Act,   the   Central   Government   may,   by
notification, require any person to declare to the Chief Wild
Life   Warden   or   the   authorised   officer,   any   captive   animal,
animal  article…..  in his  control,  custody  or  possession,  in
respect of which no declaration had been made under sub­
section   (1)   or   sub­section   (4)   of   Section   40,   in   such   form,
in   such   manner   and   within   such   time   as   may   be
prescribed. Sub­section (2) of Section 40, provides that any
action   taken   or   purported   to   be   taken   for   violation   of
Section   40   of   the   Act,   1972   at   any   time   before   the
commencement   of   the   Wild   Life   (Protection)   Amendment
Act,   2002   shall   not   be   proceeded   with   and   all   pending
proceedings shall stand abated.
2.2 In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 40A read
with Section 63 of the Act, 1972, the Central Government
3

had made “the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003.”
Rule 3 to 14 read as under: ­ 
“3.   Publicity   of   intent   of   notification   and
Assistance   in   making   application .—(1)   The   Chief
Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by the State
Government   in   this   regard   shall   cause   to   give   wide
publicity   to   the   intent   of   this   notification   in   the
regional language through electronic or print media or
such other means.
(2)   The   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden   or   the   officer
authorised   by   the   State   Government   in   this   regard
shall   take   necessary   action   to   assist   the   local
communities   and   individuals   especially   the   poor   and
illiterate   in   the   declaration   of   their   possession,   filling
up the specified form and any other matter connected
therewith and shall make every attempt to ensure that
no individual or community associated with animals is
deprived of this opportunity.
4.   Procedure   for   filing   applications .—(1)   An
application to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer
authorised   by   the   State   Government   in   this   regard
shall be presented in the Form annexed to these rules
by the applicant either in person or by an agent or by
duly authorised legal practitioner or sent by registered
post   addressed   to   the   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden   or   the
officer   authorised   by   the   State   Government   in   this
regard of the concerned State or the Union Territory.
(2)   The   application   under   sub­rule   (1)   shall   be
presented in four complete sets within a period of one
hundred  and  eighty   days  from   the  date  of   publication
of these rules.
(3) The applicant may attach to and present with
his application an acknowledgement slip as is given in
the Form which shall be signed by the official receiving
the application on behalf of the Chief Wild Life Warden
or   the   officer   authorised   by   the   State   Government   in
this   regard   in   acknowledgement   of   the   receipt   of   the
application.
5.   Presentation   and   scrutiny   of   applications .
—(1)   The   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden   or   the   officer
authorised   by   the   State   Government   in   this   regard
shall endorse on every application the date on which it
4

is  presented  or  deemed  to  have  been  presented  under
that rule and shall sign the endorsement.
(2)   If  on  scrutiny,  the  application   is  found   to  be
in   order,   it   shall   be   duly   registered   and   given   serial
number.
(3) If the application, on scrutiny, is found to be
defective,   the   same   shall   be   returned   to   the   applicant
within   fifteen   days   for   rectifying   the   defects   and
resubmitting   the   corrected   application   within   fifteen
days from the date of its receipt.
(4)   If   the   applicant   fails   to   rectify   the   defect
within   the   time   allowed   under   sub­rule   (3),   the   Chief
Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by the State
Government   in   this   regard   may,   by   order   and   for   the
reasons   to   be   recorded   in   writing,   decline   to   register
the application.
6.   Place   of   filing   application .—The   applicant
shall   file   application   with   the   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden
or   the   officer   authorised   by   the   State   Government   in
this regard.
7. Date and place of hearing to be notified .—
The Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by
the State Government in this regard shall notify to the
parties   the   date,   place   and   time   of   hearing   of   each
application, if required.
8.   Decision   on   applications .—(1)   The   Chief
Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by the State
Government   in   this   regard   shall   verify   the   facts
mentioned   in   the   application   and   make   such   inquiry
as may be required.
(2)   The   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden   shall,   as   far   as
possible,   decide   the   application   within   six   months   of
the   date   of   its   presentation   and   communicate   the
same   to   the   applicant   in   writing   under   his   own
signature by registered post.
9. Hearing on application   ex parte .—Where on
the date fixed for hearing the application, the applicant
fails   to   appear   without   intimation,   the   Chief   Wild   Life
Warden   or   the   officer   authorised   by   the   State
Government   in   this   regard   may   at   their   discretion
adjourn or decide the application   ex parte .
10.   Inquiry   by   the   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden   or
Authorised   Officer .—(1)   The   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden
5

or   the   officer   authorised   by   the   State   Government   in
this   regard   shall   conduct   a   detailed   inquiry   and   take
all actions as provided in Section 41 of the Act.
(2) A copy of the report pertaining to sub­rule (1)
of this rule, shall be provided to the applicant.
11.   Certificate   of   ownership .—(1)   The   Chief
Wild   Life   Warden   shall   provide   a   certificate   of
ownership to the applicant whose claim is found valid.
(2) The certificate of ownership shall be provided
as per the provisions of Section 42 of the Act.
(3) The certificate of ownership shall contain the
facsimile  of  the identification  mark  and in  case  of  live
animals   the   identification   number   of   the   transponder
(microchip)   implanted   shall   be   mentioned   in   the
certificate.
12.   Dealing   with   declared   objects .—Any
captive   animal,   animal   article,   trophy   or   uncured
trophy   declared   under   sub­section   (1)   of   Section   40­A
and   in   respect   of   which   certificate   of   ownership   has
not   been   granted   or   obtained,   shall   be   treated   as
government property.
13.   Order   to   be   signed   and   dated .—Every
order of the Chief Wild Life Warden shall be in writing
and   shall   be   signed   and   dated   by   the   Chief   Wild   Life
Warden.
14.   Communication   of   order   to   parties .—
Every   order   passed   on   the   application   shall   be
communicated   to   the   applicant   either   in  person   or   by
registered post free of cost.”
Therefore, as per Rule 4(2), the application to the Chief
Wild   Life   Warden   for   such   declaration,   shall   have   to   be
presented   in   the  prescribed   format   within   a   period   of  180
days from the date of publication of these rules. 
2.3 In the present case, the aforesaid Rules, 2003 came to be
published   on   18.04.2003.   Therefore,   180   days   to   file   the
6

application/declaration   expired   on   18.10.2003.   The
appellant   herein   filed   the   application/declaration   on
25.05.2011   that   was   beyond   the   prescribed   period
provided   under   Rule   4(2)   of   the   Rules,   2003.   The
authorised authority refused to issue ownership certificate
in   respect   of   the   deer   horn   found   from   her   house   and
which   was   in   custody   and   possession   of   the   appellant   on
the   ground   that   the   application/declaration   was   made
beyond   the   prescribed   period   provided   under   Rule   4(2)   of
the   Rules,   2003.   The   appellant   herein   preferred   writ
petition   before   the   learned   Single   Judge.   The   learned
Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition by directing
the   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden   to   consider   whether   time   has
been   relaxed   in   any   case   for   the   purpose   of   granting   the
certificate   of   ownership   and   if   so,   under   what
circumstances,   and   if   it   is   found   that   time   has   been
relaxed   in   any   case,   consider   the   representation   made   on
behalf of the appellant also in that background. The order
passed by the learned Single Judge was the subject matter
of the present writ appeal before the Division Bench of the
High Court. 
7

2.4 By   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the   Division   Bench
of the High Court has allowed the said appeal by observing
that the time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Rules,
2003   cannot   be   relaxed   and/or   the   period   cannot   be
extended.   Consequently,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court has set aside the order passed by the learned Single
Judge which has given rise to the present appeal.  
3. Shri   Lakshmeesh   S.   Kamath,   learned   counsel   appearing
on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has   vehemently   submitted   that
the   time   prescribed   under   Rule   4(2)   of   the   Rules,   2003   is
not   mandatory   and   can   be   relaxed   in   a   given   case.   It   is
submitted   that   in   the   present   case,   the   deer   horn   was
found   from   the   first   floor   of   the   house   which   is   an   old
house   and   the   appellant   came   to   know   about   that   in   the
year 2011.
3.1 It  is  submitted  that   even  after   the  application   is  made  for
ownership   certificate/declaration,   the   appropriate
authority/Chief   Wild   Life   Warden   is   required   to   hold   an
enquiry   and   only   thereafter,   the   ownership   certificate   can
be issued. It is submitted that therefore, no prejudice shall
8

be   caused   if   the   application   for   ownership
certificate/declaration   is   made   beyond   the   prescribed
period provided under Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003. 
3.2 Learned   counsel   appearing  on   behalf   of   the   appellant   has
vehemently   relied   upon   the   decision   of   the   Madras   High
Court   in   the   case   of   C.D.   Gopinath   Vs.   State   of   Tamil
Nadu and Ors. (2010 SCC Online Mad 2851). 
4. Shri   Abraham   C.   Mathew,   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the respondent(s) while taking us to the relevant
provisions   of   the   Act,   1972   and   Rules,   2003   has
vehemently submitted that the time limit prescribed under
Rule 4(2) is mandatory. It is submitted that as per Section
40A   under   which   the   Rules   are   framed   under   which   a
person   in   control,   custody   or   possession   of   the   wildlife
animal   or   wildlife   article   etc.,   can   apply   for   ownership
certificate   by   making   a   declaration.   It   is   submitted   that
looking   to   the   object   and   purpose   of   Section   40   and   40A
and   the  Rules,  2003  and   when  the  specific  time  limit  has
been   prescribed   to   submit   an   application   for   ownership
certification/declaration, the same has to be adhered to as
observed   and   held   by   the   High   Court   by   the   impugned
9

judgment   and   order.   It   is   submitted   that   any   other   view
shall   frustrate   the   object   and   purpose   of   Section   40   and
40A   and   the   Rules   framed   in   exercise   of   powers   under
Section 40A of the Act, 1972. 
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective   parties   at   length   and   have   gone   through   the
relevant   provisions   of   the   Act,   1972   and   Rules,   2003.   On
and   after   coming   into   force   of   the   Act,   1972,   there   is
bar/restriction   on   keeping   in   custody   or   in   possession   of
the   captive   animal   specified   in   Schedule   I   or   Part   II   of
Schedule II or animal article etc., including the musk of a
musk   deer   or   the   horn   of   a   rhinoceros.   However,   Section
40A grants immunity in certain cases. As per Section 40A,
notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   sub­sections   (2)
and   (4)   of   Section   40   of   the   Act,   1972,   the   Central
Government   may,   by   notification,   require   any   person   to
declare   to   the   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden   or   the   authorised
officer,   any   captive   animal,   animal   article,   etc.,   in   his
control,   custody   or   possession,   in   respect   of   which   no
declaration   had   been   made   under   sub­section   (1)   or   sub­
section   (4)   of   Section   40   and   in   exercise   of   powers
10

conferred under Section 40A, the Central Government has
framed   the   Rules,   2003.   As   per   Rule   4(2),
application/declaration   under   sub­rule   (1)   of   Rule   4   for
ownership certificate has to be made within a period of 180
days   from   the   date   of   commencement   of   the   Rules,   2003.
Looking to the object and purpose of Sections 40 and 40A
and   the   object   and   purpose   for   which   Rules,   2003   has
been enacted the period of 180 days prescribed under Rule
4(2)   has   to   be   construed   and   considered   as   mandatory,
otherwise the object and purpose of the Act, 1972 and the
Rules, 2003 shall be frustrated. 
5.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Rule 3
of   the   Rules,   2003,   the   Chief   Wild   Life   Warden   or   the
officer   authorised   by   the   State   Government   was   duty
bound   to   give   wide   publicity   to   the   intent   of   this
notification   in   the  regional   language   through   electronic  or
print media or such other means. The sub­rule (2) of Rule
3   cast   duty   upon   such   officer   to   take   necessary   action   to
assist the local communities and individuals especially the
poor   and   illiterate   in   the   declaration   of   their   possession,
filling   up   the   specified   form   and   any   other   requirement
11

prescribed   under   Rule   4(1).   Thus,   nobody   can   plead   any
ignorance   and/or   nobody   can   plead   that   he   had   no
knowledge to make such declaration and/or application for
ownership   certificate   and   that   too,   within   a   period   of   180
days as per Rule 4(2) of the Rules, 2003. Therefore, once a
person   in   control,   custody   or   possession   of   any   wildlife
animal   or   wildlife   animal   article,   fails   to   file   such
declaration and/or fails to make any application within the
stipulated time mentioned in Rule 4(2) then the bar/rigour
under Section 40 shall be applicable and the ownership of
such wildlife animal article of which the declaration is not
made shall vest in the Government/forest department. 
   
6. In   view   of   the   aforesaid   facts   and   circumstances,   the
Division Bench of the High Court has rightly observed that
the   application   submitted   by   the   appellant   herein   which
was   made   beyond   the   period   prescribed   under   Rule   4(2)
was   liable   to   be   rejected   and   was   rightly   rejected   by   the
appropriate   authority/Chief   Wild   Life   Warden.   We   are   in
complete   agreement   with   the   view   taken   by   the   Division
Bench of the High Court. 
12

6.1 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the
Madras   High   Court   in   the   case   of   C.D.   Gopinath   (supra)
relied upon by  learned counsel appearing  on behalf of the
appellant is concerned, as such on facts the said decision
shall   not   be   applicable   to   the   facts   of   the   case   on   hand.
Even otherwise, in view of the discussions hereinabove, we
are   not   in   agreement   with   the   view   taken   by   the   learned
Single Judge that the period prescribed under Rule 4(2) of
the Rules, 2003 is directory. 
7. In  view  of  the  above  and  for  the  reasons  stated  above,  we
see   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the   impugned   judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court.   Consequently,   the
present appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed
and is accordingly dismissed.   
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
MARCH 17, 2023 [MANOJ MISRA]
13