The Supreme Court this week stated in an order that there is no doubt that Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre in Jamnagar, Gujarat, is a zoo and registered protection centre while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against it.
The petitioner, advocate Kanhaiya Kumar, had argued that in the interest of the public, the wildlife, and animals, Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre (GZRRC) should be banned from acquiring animals from any person, government department, or zoo in India and abroad. Further, he said, a detailed inquiry should be directed to be conducted by forming an SIT into the management of the centre.
GZRRC has been given permission by the Central Zoo Authority to import several endangered, vulnerable and threatened animals from abroad and also domestically.
The Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre said in its affidavit filed in opposition to the PIL that the appellant had filed this petition on the basis of what he had heard and that the Central Zoo Authority had given permission only after considering all the facts. Elaborate arrangements have been made for the treatment of all the animals, it stated.
The court noted GZRRC’s submissions about its infrastructure, functioning, the vets, curators, biologists, zoologists and other experts engaged by it and that it was carrying out its activities strictly in terms of law.
The Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre clarified before the Court that it would be establishing a zoological park which would be open for public display essentially for educational purposes while the rest of its facilities would operate as rescue centres for the welfare of animals in need of rescue not just from India but all over the world with the objective of welfare of animals, rescue and rehabilitation and conservation.
The SC recorded its satisfaction at the response filed by GZRRC and observed that it was convinced that the permission granted for operations and transfer of animals to it and its consequential activities are legal and authorised.
It was further observed that there “appears no infirmity” on part of the authorities granting permissions and approvals to GZRRC.
The court also noted with approval GZRRC’s submission that its a non-profit organisation with the main objective of the welfare of animals and revenue if any generated would be used by it only for carrying out rescue work.
The SC said that it did not find “any logic or basis” concerning the allegations made, there was “hardly any scope” to dispute Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre’s functioning, and it was “unable to find any legal infirmity” with GZRRC.
The Supreme Court in its remarks said, “It does not appear that the petitioner has done sufficient research before filing this PIL.”
Reprimanding the petitioner, the top court said that he himself is not an expert in this field and filed the petition only on the basis of news reports that have also not been prepared by any expert. Looking at all the facts, it cannot be said that any kind of illegal work has been done in this and there is no ground for the court to interfere in this matter, said the SC while dismissing the matter.
Read the Latest News and Breaking News here
Comments
0 comment