(2015) 401 KLW 058

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE 

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2015/10TH CHAITHRA, 1937 

W.A.Nos.1650, 1961, 1981 and 1995 of 2014 & W.P(C).No.34517 of 2014

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17848/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28-08-2014 

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WPC

1. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (THE CHIEF WILDLIFE WARDEN), FOREST HEADQUARTERS VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (BIO DIVERSITY CELL), FOREST HEADQUARTERS VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 

BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY 

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC

THE SECRETARY PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM, "GEETHANJALI" PARAMEKKAVU DEVASWOM BUILDING, ROUND EAST, THRISSUR. 

BY SRI.N.MAHESH

JUDGMENT 

Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 

These four Writ Appeals and one Writ Petition raise an important issue pertaining to transfer/sale/ transaction/transportation of elephants in the State of Kerala. The issue assumes more importance in view of the fact that the State of Kerala is known for its rich wealth of elephants and large number of traditions and rituals being associated with elephants in different ceremonies being performed in temples and other places. W.A.No.1650 of 2014 is being treated as the leading case, facts of which case are being noted in detail. 

W.A.No.1650 of 2014 

2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.8.2014 in W.P(C).No.17848 of 2014, by which judgment the Writ Petition filed by the Secretary, Paramekkavu Devaswom, has been disposed of holding that no permission is required from the Chief Forest Conservator to obtain an elephant from outside the State. The petitioner pleaded in the Writ Petition that a devotee Mrs.Vinitha Watson, native of Thrissur and settled in U.S.A, an ardent devotee of the Lord Bhagavathy of Paramekkavu, wants to offer an elephant to the Devaswom, for which she deposited 90,000/- US$ in the account of the Devaswom. The petitioner made an application to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests seeking permission for purchasing an elephant from Kerala itself. Copy of the said application dated 25.10.2012 has been produced as Exhibit P1. By Exhibit P2 letter dated 5.11.2012, the petitioner was asked by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) & Chief Wildlife Warden to submit an application in the prescribed form. The petitioner again submitted Exhibit P3 representation dated 20.1.2014 making a request to grant permission to procure male elephant from outside the State of Kerala. The request of the petitioner was rejected by Exhibit P4 order dated 31.1.2014 stating that "sale involving commercial nature for elephant is prohibited as per Section 43(1) of Wildlife (P) Act, 1972". The petitioner challenged the order dated 31.1.2014 in W.P(C).17848 of 2014 relying on the decision reported in Venkitachalam v. State of Kerala (2012(2) KHC 622) praying for the following reliefs: "i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to give prior permission to the petitioner to procure and transport to the petitioner Devaswom an elephant (tusker) from the state of Assam or Bihar." The learned Single Judge by judgment dated 28.8.2014 disposed of the Writ Petition, against which judgment the Writ Appeal has been filed. 

W.A.No.1961 of 2014 

3. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 23.10.2014 passed in W.P(C).No.27680 of 2014, by which judgment the learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment dated 28.8.2014 in W.P(C).No.17848 of 2014, disposed of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed by the Parkkadi Kshetra Kshema Samithi. The petitioner claimed to be running activities of the Anjur Sree Parakkadi Bhagavathi Kshethram. It was stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner is in need of an elephant for performing poojas and rituals in connection with the temple. The petitioner claimed to have approached the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests seeking permission to purchase an elephant from other State like Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. Copy of the said representation dated 25.1.2014 has been produced as Exhibit P1, by which necessary permission was sought for. By Exhibit P2 communication dated 4.2.2014 the petitioner was informed by the Additional Principal Chief Forest Conservator as follows: 

The petitioner in the Writ Petition has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to give prior permission to the petitioner to procure and transport to the petitioner Devaswom an elephant from the State of Assam or Arunachal Pradesh. Another prayer was also made to quash Exhibit P2 order. 

W.A.No.1981 of 2014 

4. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 17.11.2014 in W.P(C).No.30364 of 2014, which Writ Petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment dated 17.11.2014 observing that if the petitioner brings the elephant from outside the State, he has to intimate to the Chief Wild Life Warden or authorised officer within whose jurisdiction transfer or transport is effected in terms of Section 43(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The petitioner's case in the Writ Petition was that the petitioner is the owner of an elephant, who has a certificate of ownership dated 13.6.1997, which elephant was purchased from the State of U.P. The petitioner claims to have capacity to maintain an elephant. The petitioner stated in the Writ Petition that he intends to purchase an elephant from the State of Bihar, where an exhibition-cum-sale of elephants was coming in the next month. The petitioner stated that he needs only to inform the Chief Wildlife Warden, in the event he acquires an elephant from outside the State. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P (C).No.17848 of 2014 dated 28.8.2014. The petitioner in the Writ Petition prayed for the following reliefs: 

W.A.No.1995 of 2014 

5. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20.11.2014 in W.P(C).No.30872 of 2014, by which judgment the Writ Petition was disposed of observing that when the petitioner brings an elephant from outside the State, he shall inform the Chief Wildlife Warden, within whose jurisdiction the transfer or transport is effected. The petitioner's case in the Writ Petition was that the petitioner had acquired an elephant by name 'Bhola' in the State of Bihar. Certificate of ownership dated 6.12.2007 was filed as Exhibit P1. It was pleaded that the elephant was being looked after by one Sri.Ashok Singh, who is now unable to look after the elephant, hence the petitioner wanted to transfer the elephant to his native home. It is submitted that for transferring the said elephant, the petitioner approached the Chief Conservator of Forests for No Objection Certificate. Reference has been made to the representation dated 3.11.2014, Exhibit P2. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.8.2014 in W.P(C).No.17848 of 2014. The petitioner by the said Writ Petition prayed for a direction to the second respondent to issue No Objection Certificate to transfer his elephant to Kerala. The following reliefs were made by the petitioner in the said Writ Petition: 

W.P(C).No.34517 of 2014 

6. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to have submitted a representation to the second respondent for getting No Objection Certificate to procure a male elephant from outside the State of Kerala. Copy of the said representation dated 24.11.2014 has been annexed as Exhibit P2. It was pleaded in the Writ Petition that population of captive elephants in Kerala substantially came down from 2007 onwards. It was further pleaded that most of the temple authorities find it difficult to arrange elephants for performing temple rituals and ceremonies. The owners of the captive elephants in North-Eastern States such as Assam and Arunachal Pradesh find it difficult to maintain their elephants following a ban imposed with regard to the felling of trees. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment in Venkitachalam's case (supra) as well as the judgment in W.P(C).No.17848 of 2014. The following prayers have been made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition: 

7. We have heard Sri.M.P.Madhavankutty, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants in the Writ Appeals and respondents in the Writ Petition. We have also heard Sri.N.Mahesh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.34517 of 2014. We have also heard Sri.P.V.Kunjikrishnan and Sri.Millu Dandapani appearing for the respondents in the Writ Appeals. The parties shall be referred to as have been described in the respective Writ Petitions.

8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgments has not correctly interpreted 

Section 43 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1972'). It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has referred to only Section 43(2) of the Act, 1972, whereas the prohibitions as imposed in Section 43(1) have not been looked into. It is submitted that by virtue of the amendments made in Section 43 by Amendment Act 16 of 2003, there is total prohibition on transfer/sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature, and in all the Writ Petitions, except one Writ Petition, where only no objection for transportation is claimed, the petitioners are seeking permission for purchase of elephants from the State of Kerala or outside the State of Kerala. It is submitted that there being prohibition for sale or purchase of elephant, the applications submitted by the petitioners for seeking permission/no objection have rightly been rejected. It is submitted that the Division Bench judgment in Venkitachalam's case (supra) has also noted the prohibition on transfer of animals, which judgment was binding and no different view could have been taken. It is submitted that Section 43(2) of the Act, 1972 may be applicable with regard to permissible transfer or transport, but Section 43(2) can in no manner be read as wiping out of prohibition contained in Section 43(1) of the Act, 1972.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners, refuting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, contended that interpretation given by the State to S.43 of the Act, 1972 is not correct. He submitted that Section 43(2) clearly permits transfers or transport from the State or transfers or transport from outside the State any such animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy and the learned Single Judge rightly interpreted that the only requirement for such transfer or transport is to intimate the Chief Wild Life Warden, within whose jurisdiction the transfer or transport was effected. It is submitted that there is no total ban on the transfer of elephants and total ban was never intended by the Act, nor it shall serve object of the Act. It is submitted that a person having Ownership Certificate can very well transfer the elephant. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in all cases elephants are being sought to be acquired for the purpose of temple rituals, which is necessary and cannot be prohibited. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on various judgments of this Court and the Apex Court, which shall be referred while considering the submissions in detail.

10. From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings on record, following are the issues, which arise for consideration in this batch of cases: 

11. All the issues being interconnected are taken together. Before we consider the above issues, it is necessary to note the relevant provisions of the Act, 1972 and the statutory scheme, including various amendments made in the Act and their objects and purposes.

12. The Act, 1972 was enacted to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country. It is useful to note paragraph 1 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, 1972 which is to the following effect: 

13. By Act 28 of 1986, the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 1986 was enacted. Indian elephant is included in Schedule I as item No.12B. The amendment was enacted with an object and purpose that no one will be permitted to trade in wild animals specified in schedule I or Part II of Schedule II of the Act. It is useful to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 1986 Act, which is to the following effect: 

14. By Amendment Act, 1986, "Chapter V-A - prohibition of trade or commerce in trophies, animal articles, etc., derived from certain animals" was inserted. Sections 49A, 49B and 49C were inserted in the Act. Section 49B deals with prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles etc. The amendment clearly expressed its intention to prohibit trade or commerce in trophies, animal articles, etc.

15. There were further amendments by Act 44 of 1991 and Act 26 of 1993 and then came the next important amendment made in the Act by Act 16 of 2013. The statement and objects of which are stated as follows: 

16. Substantive amendments have been made by 2003 Amendment Act in Section 40. Section 43 was completely substituted by a new Section. Section 40A was also added by Amendment Act 16 of 2003. Rules were framed by the Central Government, namely, the Declaration of Wildlife Stock Rules, 2003 by notification dated 18.4.2003 to make declaration with regard to any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy derived from animals, which made it obligatory for submitting declaration. The Government of Kerala has framed another Rule, namely, the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2003.

17. The initial statutory scheme as disclosed by the Act, 1972 contained provisions in Chapter V (prohibition of trade or commerce in trophies, animal articles, etc.). Section 40 provides for 'declarations'. Section 42 provides for 'certificate of ownership' and Section 43 provides for 'regulation of transfer of animal etc.'. Sections 40, 42 and 43 are relevant, which are to the following effect: 

18. A perusal of the above provisions as it existed prior to 2003 Amendment Act indicate that a person, who does not possess a Certificate of Ownership could not have sold or offered for sale or transfer by way of sale, gift or otherwise any wild animal or any captive animal without previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer. Under Section 43(2), in case of transfer or transport from the State in which he resides to another State, he was required to report the transfer or transport to the Chief Wild Life Warden. However, under Section 43(3), no person who does not possess a certificate of ownership shall transfer or transport any such animal without previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer. Section 43 clearly contemplates that transfer by sale or by other modes was permissible by a person having ownership certificate as well as a person who does not have onwership certificate. Further, as per Section 44, a person with requisite licence could have carried on business in captive animals also. 

19. The Statement and Object of the Act, 2003 as quoted above indicated to create a ban of commercial sale or ban of sale of animals included in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II. Now the provisions of the Act as amended by the Act, 2003 are to be noted. Section 40 of the Act contemplates for declaration by every person having at the commencement of the Act the control, custody or possession of any captive animal. Further, there was restriction of acquiring, receiving or control of sale without permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden. Section 40(4) empowered by notification requiring any person to declare any animal article or trophy, which provision was amended by the 2003 Amendment Act and in place of words "animal article or trophy", the words "any animal or animal article or trophy" were substituted. The intention, thus, was clear that declaration under sub-section (2) to Section 40 could have been asked for any animal and such declaration was not confined to the declaration of animals at the commencement of the Act alone. Section 40A was inserted, which empowered the Central Government by notification requiring any person to declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden of any captive animal article, trophy or unsecured trophy derived from animals. Thus, the regulatory regime was brought into force by Act 16 of 2003 to regulate to seek declaration for insisting captive animals in possession or custody of a person. As noted above, the Rules have already been framed by the State Government. Thus, with effect from 2003 all declarations for animals which were not earlier made under Section 40 are required to be made to the Forest Officer. The most important changes which have been brought by substituting Section 43 by Act 16 of 2003 was that prohibition was imposed in transfer by way of sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature. Thus, Section 43(1) prohibited the following transfer by person having certificate of ownership: (1) by way of sale; or (2) offer for sale; or (3) by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature. Thus, the intendment is clear that sale and purchase of elephant was prohibited. Not only proper sale or offer for sale was prohibited, but any other mode of consideration of commercial nature was prohibited. The object was that elephant need not be subjected to commercial transaction. Sub-section (2) of Section 43, however, contemplates transfers or transportation by a person, who had a certificate of ownership, which obliged him to report within 30 days of the transfer or transport to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer within whose jurisdiction the transfer or transport is effected. Sections 43(1) and 43(2) have to be harmoniously construed, so that purpose and object of both these provisions be served. If it is held that for sale or transfer only, the person having ownership certificate has to report to the Chief Wild Life warden, as held by the learned Single Judge the whole purpose and object of regulation of transfer/restriction of restriction of transfer shall frustrate. Section 43(2) shall be applicable only with regard to those transfers, which are not covered by prohibition under Section 43(1). Thus, those transfers, which are not prohibited under the Act, for them alone report to the Chief Wild Life Warden is contemplated. For example, gift of captive animal is not prohibited by Section 43. Thus, in the event of a person makes a valid gift, he has to report under Section 43(2) to the Chief Wild Life Warden. We however have to sound a note of caution that even if in transfer by gift a commercial transaction is found, the same shall be covered by the provision under Section 43(1).

20. The purpose and object of the Act, 1972 came up for consideration before the Apex Court and this Court in several cases. In 

State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan and others [(1988)4 SCC 655) 

the following was laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment: 

In his foreward to 'International Wild Life Law", H.R.H. Prince Philip. The Duck of Edinburgh said : 

21. Again in 

Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India [(2003)7 SCC 589] 

the amendments made by Act 16 of 2003 and the object and purpose of the Act, 1972 came up for consideration. The following was laid down in paragraphs 27 and 53 of the judgment: 

22. A Division Bench of this Court in Venkitachalam's case (supra) had occasion to consider Sections 40 and 43 as amended by 2003 Amendment Act. The Writ Petition was filed before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to take all steps to see that no elephant was transferred to the State of Kerala in contravention of Section 43 of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court noticed the amendments brought to Sections 40 and 43 of the 2003 Amendment Act. The Division Bench held that for considering the question whether there is a total ban as to the transfer of captive elephant in any manner otherwise than by way of inheritance it is necessary to examine the provisions as it existed earlier. After noticing the provisions that existed prior to the 2003 Act the Division Bench made the following observations in paragraphs 17, 18 and 21: 

23. In this context, it is also relevant to note the provisions of Section 40. Section 40, wherein sub-sections (2)(A) and 2(B) were inserted by Act 16 of 2003, which contain a proviso that nothing in sub-sections (2A) and (2B) shall apply to the live elephant. Thus, the provisions brought statutory scheme by sub-sections (2A) and (2B) that a person having a certificate of ownership, shall, after commencement of the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, except by way of inheritance was made applicable for different various reasons and Section 43(1) prohibiting transfer by sale or any other mode of consideration of commercial nature as noted in Section 43 (1) was prohibited. Thus, the case of transfer regarding elephant is entirely different from the scheme, which was inserted by sub-section (2A) and (2B) of Section 40. Thus, sub-sections (2A) and (2B) of Section 40 have no bearing on the interpretation of transfer of a live elephant. Section 40(2), which provides that no person, after the commencement of the Act, acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession, sell, offer for sale or otherwise transfer or transport any animal, except with the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer, has to be read along with the provision contained in Section 43(1). In the event Section 40(2) is read to mean that only by having permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden sale is permissible, the same is directly in conflict with the purpose and object by which Section 43(1) was inserted by Amendment Act 16 of 2003. Section 40(2), thus, shall be applicable only in those transfers, which are not hit by Section 43(1). Thus, permission is required from the Chief Wild Life Warden for acquisition transfer or transport of any animal. The Chief Wild Life Warden, if he finds that permission is for sale or offer to sell or transaction of commercial nature, he has to reject the application in view of the law as inserted by Section 43 (1). But in cases where the transfer is not hit by Section 43(1), permission can be granted by the Chief Wild Life Warden.

24. Now coming to the facts in W.A.No.1650 of 2014. The writ petitioner came with the clear case that the petitioner sought permission for purchasing an elephant from Kerala. In paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition it has been stated that 

In W.A.No.1981 of 2014, the petitioner came with the case that "now the petitioner intends to purchase an elephant from the State of Bihar where an exhibition cum sale of elephants are coming in the next month." Further, in W.A.No.1961 of 2014, the petitioner approached the first respondent and sought permission for purchasing an elephant, which was specifically stated in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition. In W.P(C).No.34517 of 2014 the petitioner also came up with the case that he wanted to acquire an elephant and asked no objection certificate for procuring and transporting two male elephants from the State of Assam or Bihar. In the above cases the petitioners have come up with the request permitting purchase of elephants, which is clearly prohibited by Section 43(1) as amended by Act 16 of 2003, the Chief Wild Life Warden, thus, did not commit any error in refusing the above request. The view of the learned Single Judge that by virtue of Section 43(2), only after acquiring an elephant the report is submitted is not correct. Prior permission under Section 40(2) of the Chief Wild Life Warden is necessary for transfer, which is not hit by Section 43(1). Section 43(2) has to be held to be applicable only to those transfers or transport, which are not hit by Section 43(1) and for which prior permission has been obtained under Section 40(2).

25. Now we come to W.A.No.1995 of 2014, which was a case where the petitioner came up with the Writ Petition seeking a direction to the second respondent to issue no objection certificate to transfer his elephant to Kerala. In the said case the petitioner had Exhibit P1 ownership certificate from the Chief Wild Life Warden. He wants to procure a male elephant from outside the Kerala and he submitted Exhibit P2 representation before the Chief Wild Life Warden, Forest Head Quarter, Thiruvananthapuram for getting no objection certificate to transport an elephant to Thiruvananthapuram from the State of Bihar. The petitioner relied on the judgment dated 28.8.2014 in W.P(C).No.17848 of 2014 and submitted that he was only required to report the transfer or transport of the elephant to the Chief Wild Life Warden.

26. Transportation of an animal by a person having ownership certificate does not attract Section 43(1), but for transporting an elephant as per Section 40(2), previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden is necessary. The object and purpose of incorporating such provision of previous permission is that the Chief Wild Life Warden has to be aware that the animal like elephant is being transported from one State to another State. So that, in case of need, appropriate measures can be taken with regard to elephant inter-transfer. This is to give protection to the animal as well as to the public in general. If the submission made by learned counsel for the writ petitioner is accepted that only a report is sufficient under Section 40(2), the elephant as well as the public in general shall be exposed to great danger.

27. In any view of the matter, there being a specific and clear provision of Section 40(2), which also clearly encompasses transport of any animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, the said provision cannot be given a go by resorting to Section 43(2). We, thus, are of the view that prior permission from the Chief Wild Life Warden, Thiruvananthapuram is required for transferring an elephant from Bihar to Thiruvananthapuram as requested by the petitioner. Hence, Exhibit P2 application submitted by the petitioner has to be considered and appropriate decision is to be taken.

28. One more judgment, which was relied on by the petitioner, is 

Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri and others v. Union of India and others (2007(4) KHC 140)

where the provisions of Section 43 and the provision introduced against the captive animals were under challenge. Noticing the contentions of the Central Government Pleader that the Act needs amendment, the learned Single Judge held that until the Act is amended, there should be some regulation with regard to sale, transfer and other dealings involving changing of hands of captive elephants in accordance with the norms prescribed by the Chief Wild Life Warden. The observation made in the judgment has to be read in accordance with the statutory provisions of the Act. The judgment does not interpret the provisions of the Act, Section 40 or 43, nor can be held to be laying down anything else except the provisions as contemplated by Section 40(3). Thus, the said judgment does not help the writ petitioner in any manner.

29. Another judgment dated 5.4.2007 of the learned Single Judge in Crl.M.C.No.1477 of 2007 has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P(C).No.34517 of 2014. The said case arose out of a proceeding initiated for the offences under Sections 43 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. In the above case the learned Single Judge held that the offence under Section 43 of the Act is not made out, hence the proceedings initiated is quashed. In the said judgment the Court did not interpret any provision, the said case does not render any assistance to the writ petitioner in the present case.

30. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer the above issues in the following manner: 

31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P(C).No.17848 of 2014 dated 28.8.2014, which is the subject matter of challenge in W.A.No.1650 of 2014 is unsustainable. Further, the judgments of the learned Single Judge following the above judgment are also liable to be set aside accordingly.

32. In the result, W.A.Nos.1650, 1961 and 1981 of 2014 are allowed and the Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed. W.P(C).No.34517 of 2014 is dismissed. W.A.No.1995 of 2014 is disposed of directing the respondent in the Writ Petition Chief Conservator of Forests to consider Exhibit P2 application dated 3.10.2014 of the writ petitioner for transportation of the elephant from the State of Bihar to Thiruvananthapuram. The said application be disposed of within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment before the respondent. 

The parties shall bear their own costs.