Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Supreme Court Holds Time Limit for Filing Ownership Certificate Application Under Wild Life Act is Mandatory

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has held that the time limit prescribed for filing an application/declaration for ownership certificate under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is mandatory and cannot be extended. The Court emphasized that adhering to the prescribed period is crucial to fulfill the purpose and object of the Act and associated rules.

The bench, comprising of Justices M.R. Shah and Manoj Misra, stated, "The time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 for filing the application/declaration is mandatory and cannot be relaxed." The Court further explained that the Chief Wild Life Warden has a duty to give wide publicity to the notification and assist individuals in making the declaration within the specified timeframe. Failure to file the declaration/application within the prescribed time will result in the ownership of the wildlife article vesting with the Government or forest department.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely compliance and rejects the argument that ignorance or lack of knowledge can be used as a defense. Referring to Rule 3 of the Rules, the Court stated that the Chief Wild Life Warden is obligated to provide wide publicity and assistance, leaving no room for ignorance regarding the filing requirements.

This ruling by the Supreme Court will have significant implications for individuals in control, custody, or possession of wildlife animals or wildlife articles covered under the Act. The judgment reiterates the necessity of strict adherence to the prescribed time limits, reinforcing the objectives of wildlife protection laws.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2023]

 Vishalakshi Amma   vs State of Kerala & Ors.               

Latest Legal News