Facts in Brief

In the initial proceedings, the respondents had approached the High Court of Allahabad through a writ petition, seeking, among other things, the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants to grant a licence for carrying on business as a dealer in birds bred in captivity. The High Court allowed the petition. The decision was then challenged before the Supreme Court.

Arguments

The respondent’s contention — both before the High Court and before the Supreme Court — was that he had been dealing in birds of several varieties specified in Schedule IV appended to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for which he had applied for and been granted a licence. However, his application for renewal of that licence had been rejected. Since there had been no change in the fact situation, he claimed he was entitled to the renewal.

The appellants, on the other hand, argued that in view of the amendment made to Section 9 of the Act, whereby “hunting” included “trapping” of birds specified in Schedule IV of the Act, no licence for dealing in them could lawfully be granted. The appellants further stated that although dealing in birds in captivity was not as such prohibited, no licence could be granted under Section 44 of the Act if, by reason of it, the licensee would violate any of the provisions of the Act.

Judgment

The Apex Court, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, observed that when the hunting of birds was prohibited, there remained no doubt that no person could be granted a licence to deal in birds in captivity which were procured by hunting — a term that also included trapping. Distinguishing the two situations, the Court observed:

“It is one thing to say that by reason of breeding of birds in captivity their population increases, but it is another thing to say that birds are trapped before they are made captive so as to enable the licence to deal in them.”

The Court thus concluded that if a finding of fact, having regard to the past transactions of the licensee, showed that the purpose of breeding captive birds was necessarily for hunting, it justified the refusal of a licence.

For the Common Man

Through this judgment, the Court declared that the “trapping” of birds is an offence. If anyone does it, it is against the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and he can be sent to jail. Also, before granting a licence for dealing in birds, the licensing authority will have regard to the source and manner in which supplies are made, the implications of the licence on hunting and trade, and the past transactions of the licensee.