The Manipur High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Vasochan Ragui, seeking directions to the Union of India and the State of Manipur to enforce the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended.
The petitioner sought a ban on the ownership and possession of exotic animals in the state.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui observed that the petitioner had not made out a cogent case for the broad directions sought in the PIL.
The court noted that the petitioner had not approached the competent authorities with a representation on the issues raised in the PIL before seeking directions from the court.
The court relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Bhupesh Charan vs. Union of India, which held that benefits conferred under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme cannot be revoked to the detriment of the beneficiaries.
The court agreed with the Rajasthan High Court’s view that a declaration made under the Scheme constitutes sufficient evidence of acquisition and that an individual should not be compelled to provide additional proof.
The court dismissed the PIL, holding that it was devoid of merit.
The court observed that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for the directions sought, and that the PIL was not maintainable in the absence of a representation to the competent authorities.
The post appeared first on .
The petitioner sought a ban on the ownership and possession of exotic animals in the state.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui observed that the petitioner had not made out a cogent case for the broad directions sought in the PIL.
The court noted that the petitioner had not approached the competent authorities with a representation on the issues raised in the PIL before seeking directions from the court.
The court relied on the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Bhupesh Charan vs. Union of India, which held that benefits conferred under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme cannot be revoked to the detriment of the beneficiaries.
The court agreed with the Rajasthan High Court’s view that a declaration made under the Scheme constitutes sufficient evidence of acquisition and that an individual should not be compelled to provide additional proof.
The court dismissed the PIL, holding that it was devoid of merit.
The court observed that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for the directions sought, and that the PIL was not maintainable in the absence of a representation to the competent authorities.
The post appeared first on .