V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in the writ petition is Visakha Society for Prevention of cruelty to Animals, Which according to the petitioner is a registered Society. They approached this Court and prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Conservator of forests and District Forest Officer, visakhapatnam to take steps to close down the third respondent-Circus. They alleged that the third respondent is running the circus show/s in violation of the Government of India Notification dated 14-10-1998 and the letter of the Hon ble Minister for Social Justice and empowerment dated 11-12-1998. ( 2 ) THE Notification issued in exercise of powers under Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (the Act, for brevity) prohibits the exhibition or training of wild animals including lions. The said Notification was published in Part It section 3 of the Gazette of India. By the letter dated 11-12-1998, the Hon ble Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment had exhorted all Animal Welfare Organisations and Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to animals to take appropriate action by inspecting the circus and see that the Circular of Government of India vide Notification dated 16-11-1998 which forbids any circus from exhibiting any animals mentioned therein is implemented properly. While admitting the writ petition, this Court on 31-12-1999 passed an interim order directing the respondents to implement the Notification issued by the Government of India on 14-10-1998 and also further directed the commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam to ensure that the Court orders are properly implemented. ( 3 ) THE third respondent has now come forward with WV MP No. 26 of 2000 praying to vacate the interim order dated 31-12-1999 granted by this Court, While tracing the history of the circus, the managing Partner of the third respondent states that the Notification issued 14-10-1998 in GSR No. 619 (E) was challenged by the Indian Circus Employees union before the High Court of Karnataka by filing WP No. 41074 of 1999 and that the operation of the Notification dated 14-10-1998 was stayed by the Karnataka high Court. It is also stated that the High court of Kerala as well as High Court of madras also stayed the Notification. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, for it seeks to implement the Government of India notification. It is also stated that the High court of Kerala as well as High Court of madras also stayed the Notification. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, for it seeks to implement the Government of India notification. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the High Court of Karnataka, High court of Kerala and High Court of Madras cannot take away the effect of the notification dated 14-10-1998 and that they are enforceable only within the territorial jurisdictions of the respective high Courts. Alternatively, it is submitted that under Section 22 (i) of the Act, the third respondent shall not exhibit or train any performing animal unless the third respondent is registered in accordance with the provisions of Chapter V of the act. ( 5 ) REFUTING these submissions, the learned Counsel for the third respondent, mr. Ghanta Rama Rao, submits that in view of the orders of the three High Courts referred to herein above, the Notification dated 14-10-1998 in GSR No. 619 (E) is no more in force and, therefore, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Further he submits that if the petitioners are so concerned, they can bring the matter to the notice of the appropriate authority who can take necessary action against the third respondent if cruelty is meted out to the trained lions and other animals. ( 6 ) THERE are two orders, which requires reference once again. The notification dated 14-10-1998 purportedly issued under Section 22 of the Act is issued by the Government of India specifying bears, monkeys, panthers and lions as the animals which shall not be exhibited or trained for the purpose of Section 22 (ii) of the Act. The second document is the letter dated 11-12-1998 written by the hon ble Minister for Social Justice and empowerment addressed to all organisations and societies like the petitioner. The said letter refers to a circular dated 16-11-1998 by which the Central Government issued a notification forbidding any circus from exhibiting any animals listed in the said notification and as noticed earlier exhorts the Societies like the petitioner to take appropriate steps for implementing the Circular Notification dated 16-11-1998. The said letter refers to a circular dated 16-11-1998 by which the Central Government issued a notification forbidding any circus from exhibiting any animals listed in the said notification and as noticed earlier exhorts the Societies like the petitioner to take appropriate steps for implementing the Circular Notification dated 16-11-1998. The third aspect of the matter is section 22 (i) of the Act, which says that no person shall exhibit or train any performing animal unless he is registered in accordance with the provisions of chapter V of the Act ( 7 ) IN view of the reasons to follow, i do not feel it proper to express any opinion as to the effect of the interim orders passed by the High Courts of karnataka, Kerala and Madras. Even if it is assumed that in view of the stay orders of these High Courts, the Notification dated 14-10-1998 does not exist, still it is to be seen that there is another Notification issued by the Central Government dated 16-11-1998, which specifically forbids the circus authorities from exhibiting the animals listed therein. The Notification issued under section 22 of the Act, which is the subject matter of challenge before the three high Courts is the general Notification specifying the animals for the purpose of section 22 (ii) of the Act. Whereas the notification dated 16-11-1998 appears to be a special Notification forbidding any circus from exhibiting the animals mentioned therein. This has to be enforced in letter and spirit. ( 8 ) FURTHER, the learned Counsel for the third respondent has not been able to show any document evidencing registration of any performing animal in which event section 22 (i) is attracted and the third respondent cannot and shall not be permitted to exhibit or train the lions. ( 9 ) THOUGH a lengthy counter-affidavit is filed stating that the circus which was put up in Railway grounds in Visakhapatnam metropolis is likely to go on till the end of february, 2000, the affidavit is conspicuous by absence of any averment as to the balance of convenience in favour of the third respondent It is not the case of the third respondent that by preventing exhibition/ training of the lions owned by the third respondent, any circus employee is deprived of a job or any other detriment has resulted to the circus or its partners. Having regard to the spirit behind the Wild Life (Protection) act, 1972 as well as the Prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960,i do not think it proper to vacate the interim order granted on 31-12-1999. ( 10 ) FOR the above reasons, the interim order granted on 31-12-1999 is made absolute and the WV MP No. 26 of 2000 is dismissed. No costs.