The Supreme Court has dismissed a PIL opposing the permission granted by the Central Zoo Authority to the zoo being set up by Reliance Industries Ltd in Gujarat’s Jamnagar, and permitting it to acquire animals from other zoos in India or abroad, saying it is “unable to find any logic or basis in” the “petition”. Rejecting objections raised by petitioner Kanhaiya Kumar, a Delhi-based advocate, a bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari said: “We are unable to find any legal infirmity in grant of recognition to the Zoo and the Rescue Centre of the respondent No. 2 (Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre) by the respondent No. 1 (Central Zoo Authority)." The court added that “it does not appear that the petitioner has carried out the requisite research before moving this Court in PIL jurisdiction” and that “the petitioner himself is not an expert in the field and has based the petition merely on news reports which, too, do not appear to have been made by the expert”. Kumar had questioned the permission granted to the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, a private entity, to establish the zoo. He also sought an SIT probe into the management of the centre. Turning down the petitioner’s arguments, the bench said “taking note of the submissions made in the counter affidavit with the accompanying documents, we are satisfied that the permission granted to “establish the zoo” and the consequential activities of the centre “cannot be said to be illegal or unauthorised”. Kumar, who described himself as a “public spirited citizen. compassionate towards protection and improvement of wildlife,” had approached the court citing reports of the zoo getting animals from Mexico besides Assam, Chennai and Madhya Pradesh. Kumar contended that “it is a private zoo for which master layout plan… was approved in February 2019, but it is not clear as to how it is qualified to take the animals from abroad or from a public zoo”. The petitioner added that the Centre is planning to have the largest number of species and animals in the zoo to make business, which remains entirely impermissible, and that in the garb of making rescue centre for animals, the zoo is seeking to carry out commercial activity. In its counter-affidavit, the Centre denied all the allegations and asserted that the plea “is entirely misconceived, being based on incorrect and incomplete news reports”. It informed the bench that the Central Zoo Authority “granted due recognition to the centre. after due inspection and evaluation”. The counter-affidavit also gave details of various aspects of the zoo’s functioning, including the Leopard Rescue Centre and the Crocodile Rescue Centre, while maintaining that Vets, Curators, Biologists, Zoologists and other experts are engaged to carry out the activities strictly in terms of the stipulations of recognition and the provisions of law applicable, including the Act of 1972 as also Recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009. Taking exception to allegations of commercialisation, the authorities said the zoo has been operating as a non-profit organisation for the welfare of animals. Except the zoological park, no other area would be open to the public and would be maintained only as rescue centre, zoo officials said, adding the zoological park itself would be operated essentially for educational purposes and creating awareness for promoting welfare of animals. It said “.even if any revenue is generated from the park, it shall be, after payment of taxes, used only towards rescue, relief and rehabilitation operations”.
