The Uttarakhand High Court, while noting that the situation is emergent, expected that the Chief Wildlife Warden, in coordination with the team, would take a concrete rationale decision to identify the man-eater.
The Division Bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma and Justice Pankaj Purohit took a suo motu cognizance on the issue of the incident, which has chanced, in the village areas adjoining to Bhowali, where a man-eater tiger was said to have killed three ladies, as of now.
The Court is conscious of the fact, that in such type of the contingencies where arises a situation where in a human and animal conflict, an animal is required to be eradicated from its existence in order to preserve and secure a human life, the law in itself is contained under section 11 (1) (a) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which is quite specific from the prospective, that the sole responsibility of undertaking the exercise, and taking the decision necessitating to hunt an animal, who has been declared as to be a man-eater, has to be undertaken by the Chief Wildlife Warden.
It is observed by the Bench that the prime ingredients required under law, therein, is that he is the Officer identified in personam by law, who has to record his satisfaction to justify for taking of such type of an extreme action, except when the actions provided under the first proviso to clause (a) sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, is literally complied with.
When on the previous date, the Chief Wildlife Warden was called upon by the High Court , he was directed to supply the material as to on what basis the decision, was being taken or was taken to hunt the alleged man-eater tiger, without the same being identified by the experts, which were available with the office of the Chief Wildlife Warden.
In fact, under the affidavit filed by the Doctor , there are various inter se communications made between the office of the DFO, and the office of the Chief Wildlife Warden, though it doesn’t actually reflect by pleadings the positive action taken by either of the authorities to assign any plausible reason, for taking of the action of hunting the animal as provided under section 11 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, without resorting to the process of the first proviso to section 11 (1) (a) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
On December 21 , when the documents have been filed by the respondent in response affidavit, he has contended that the DFO has constituted the team, and the two teams have been specified in the response, who had been shouldered with the responsibility of identification of the man-eater, and then, the consequential decision was required to be taken for an action contemplated under the proviso to section 11 (1) (a) or section 11 (1) (a) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 itself.
“Constituting of a team by DFO in itself will not be amounting to be a positive measure taken by the Chief Wildlife Warden under section 11 (1) (a) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, until and unless, there are documents and material on record to identify the man-eater, who is required to be dealt with in accordance with section 11 (1) (a) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, held by the High Court.
The Court was not satisfied with the response given by the Chief Wildlife Warden, except for the fact, that it could be culled out that they are only communications, but not an actual action taken on the ground level to identify the actual man-eater tiger, who is said to have been allegedly killing the females of the area in question. Thus response lacks satisfaction of Chief Wildlife Warden prior to the required decision under section 11 (1) (a) of the Act.
The residents of the affected village have put an appearance to assist the Court, and they have submitted, that in accordance with the material, which they have collected, there are various processes for identification of the man-eater tiger, which would be depending upon the saliva or other material, which is left at the time when the tiger attacks a human being, which could be very well collected for the purposes of identification.
But still there is no such document on record, except for the lab analysis report, which has been submitted by the Chief Standing Counsel, but then too, this document cannot be read, that it is an exact identification of the animal, which is required to be tranquilized first, and then killed if at all extreme exigency calls for.
A suggestion has come forward from the residents of the village that Doctor, who is presently functioning as a Scientist in the Wildlife Institute of India, at Dehradun. His services are directed to be availed by the Chief Wildlife Warden, for the purposes of specifically identifying the animal, who would be first declared as to be a man-eater, and thereafter only when the said satisfaction is arrived at by the Chief Wildlife Warden, based on the opinion expressed by Doctor , then only the first effort, which would be made by the team, thus, to be constituted by the Chief Wildlife Warden, would be to tranquilize the identified animal, and then, if at all a situation raises to such an extent that the animal is required to be killed, it’s the Chief Wildlife Warden, who is present in person, who would be responsible to assign reasons in writing prior to issuing any directions to kill the man-eater tiger, which is thus to be identified by the experts referred to above.
Since the situation is emergent, it is expected that the Chief Wildlife Warden, in coordination with the team constituted by the DFO, and after soliciting the expert opinion of Doctor , will take a concrete rationale decision, with logical reasons, to be resorted by him based on the scientific measures to identify the man-eater, then only, the action would be taken under section 11 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 , the Bench directed posting the matter on 28th December, 2023.