IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

Samir Mathur Vs. State of A.P. and Ors: Decided On: 03.02.2003
Hon’ble Judges:
V.V.S. Rao, J.
An interesting question as to the power of the Chief Wild Life Warden to seize wild life trophies declared by a person arises for consideration in this writ petition.

The petitioner herein filed a declaration as required under Section 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, the Act), and Rule 34 of Wild Life (Protection) (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 1974 (for short, the Rules) stating that his father late R.R. Mathur, IAS acquired tiger skin in early 1960′s and same came into possession of the petitioner. There after respondents 2 and 3 came to petitioner’s house on 4.9.1993 and confiscated the tiger skin in a box. Therefore, the writ petition is filed contending that the search and seizure is illegal since the procedure required for confiscating required under Section 40(1) of the Act and Rule 35 of the Rules has not been complied with.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Wild Life Investigation, it was contended that there was long delay on the part of the petitioner in filing declaration under the Act and the Rules and the authorities entertained a doubt as to genuineness of the tiger’s skin and therefore the same was seized.

The court after looking into the Act and Rules observed that, ‘After declaration the authorized officer has to give notice to the declarant as to the date and time on which the officer shall enter upon the premises. After giving such notice, the Warden or authorised officer has to conduct enquiry and come to a conclusion as to whether such trophy is kept illegal. The court in the present case however found that no such notice has been given to the petitioner in the present case. Therefore, the seizure is illegal and cannot be sustained.