Gujarat HC notice on concern over animals at RIL zoo

The bench reasoned that based on the petitioner’s arguments so far, the bench was of the view that at this stage issuance of notice to the state and central authorities would suffice.

The notice has been kept returnable for August 18 and the bench added that on the said date a statement be made by the authorities before the court with respect to the petitioner’s short apprehension that exotic and foreign animals, which are being acquired by the private zoo, will not be taken care of by the private entity.

“We will record it (statement of the authorities) and close the proceedings,” added the bench.

The petitioner trust, while arguing for their case on July 21 before the same division bench, had highlighted discrepancies with respect to the recognition of the Greens Zoo.

It was pointed out that the zoo was granted recognition by CZA on August 17, 2020 and was categorised as a “mini zoo” despite having an area of over 171 hectares and the Recognition of Zoo Rules specifying that mini zoo categorisation is for area less than 10 hectares.

The bench while hearing the matter on July 21, addressing the petitioner’s lawyer Aditya Choksi, had remarked, “…It will probably become the pride of Gujarat and you do not want Gujarat to develop ?”

To this, Choksi had responded, “My interest is very limited to the welfare and well being of animals. For example they’ve been acquired from a foreign land, will the atmosphere and food at Jamnagar be suitable to them?… Why are animals housed at central and state zoos being acquired by a private zoo and a question would arise that whether these central and state zoos are so inadequate as to provide adequate facility and protection to wild animals…”

Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox

The bench had insisted that the petitioner should instead pray for a writ  that once the zoo is established the private entity should ensure that everything is maintained properly and that the animals are taken care of.

“Then it’s your genuine cause. To say don’t open itself, is tainted. We will have to look into your conduct with coloured glass. Don’t do that,” Chief Justice Kumar had remarked.

Choksi had, however, clarified that the petitioner trust’s prayer is “very limited” whereby the trust is “not seeking quashing of the recognition granted,” but is only seeking that during pendency of the PIL, the court may direct that a committee of experts visit the said zoo and submit a detailed report on various aspects and condition of the centre.