ORDER 1. The petitioner Jehanuma Palace Hotel Pvt. Ltd. has filed this writ petition assailing the issuance of an order (P-4) dated 19.11.1997 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division (General), Bhopal on the ground that in the commercial premises of Hotel a Trophy of Tiger was displayed which was in contravention to the provision of section 49-C (3) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1972). Petitioner was informed to stop the display in commercial premises and in case permission was not obtained, the Trophy shall be seized. 2. Petitioner has submitted that petitioner Hotel is a heritage hotel. It was established in the year 1983. The palace where the Hotel is established, is about 70 years old. In the entrance lobby of the Jehanuma Palace Hotel, Trophy of Indian Tiger has been kept properly encased. This trophy has been in the lobby for the last 54 years. It is a part of the palace heritage. The Act of 1972 enjoins every person at the commencement of this Act, having control, custody or possession of any captive animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II to declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer. Declaration under section 40 of the Act of 1972 was accordingly submitted. Section 41 contains provision for inquiry and preparation of inventories. Section 42 deals with the certificate of ownership. Certificate (P-3) was issued after due verification. No further action was required. Unfortunately the Forest authorities on a misreading of section 49-C of the Act of 1972, issued the impugned order (P-4). Section 49-C (3) has to be read along with section 49-B and A of the Act of 1972. At several other heritage hotels such trophies have been displayed. Forest Authorities are illegally insisting to take penal action. The dispute has become public issue as apparent from newspapers (P-6) and communication (P-5) dated 26.11.1997. It is submitted by the petitioner that provision of section 49-C (3) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. Petitioner is not dealer and not having any relationship with a dealer dealing in trophies, animals, hides, meats, etc. as provided in section 49-B, hence the provision is not applicable, thus the action of the respondents compelling the petitioner to remove the Tiger Trophy from the premises of the Hotel is per-se illegal. 3. Petitioner is not dealer and not having any relationship with a dealer dealing in trophies, animals, hides, meats, etc. as provided in section 49-B, hence the provision is not applicable, thus the action of the respondents compelling the petitioner to remove the Tiger Trophy from the premises of the Hotel is per-se illegal. 3. A return has been filed by the respondents contending that certificate of ownership has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner has no locus-standi to file the petition. Certificate has been issued in favour of Begum Suraiya Rashid wife of Late Rasheed Ul Jafar Khan for the purpose of personal possession as a trophy in her residence i.e. Shymla Kothi, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal as apparent from certificate of ownership (R-l). Certificate has been issued for a particular purpose. Trophy cannot be displayed at any public place or at any other place except mentioned in certificate (R-l). There were certain conditions (R-2) subject to which certificate of ownership was issued or. 13.9.1995. Conditions of certificate of ownership have been violated. Begum Suraiya Rasheed can keep the trophy at her residence at Shyamla Hills. It is further contended that petitioner has displayed the tiger trophy inspite of the fact that he did not possess any certificate of ownership in respect of the same nor he is dealer in Wild Life Trophy, thus action is legal and as per the mandate of S. 49-C. displaying the trophy in the lobby of the hotel in violation of the Act, it encourages the people to indulge in poaching and illicit trade of tiger trophy etc., which is against the intendment of the Act of 1972. 4. After going through the various documents on record and certificate (R-l), it is clear that certificate was issued to Begum Suraiya Rasheed to keep trophy in her residence, permission was not given for the public display, as apparent from communication (R-2) dated 13.9.1995. Section 49A defines scheduled animal, scheduled animal article and specified date. There is no dispute with respect to the applicability of the provision of the Act. Section 49B deals with the prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles etc. derived from scheduled animals. After the specified date, no person shall commence or carry on the business as a manufacturer of, or dealer in scheduled animal articles. There is no dispute with respect to the applicability of the provision of the Act. Section 49B deals with the prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles etc. derived from scheduled animals. After the specified date, no person shall commence or carry on the business as a manufacturer of, or dealer in scheduled animal articles. Sub-section (2) of section 49B provides that dealing of scheduled animal articles without licence is prohibited. Section 42 deals with the certificate of ownership. The Chief Wild Life Warden may, for the purposes of section 40, issue a certificate of ownership in such form, as may be prescribed. Section 40 deals with the declaration to be furnished by the person. It is provided that every person having at the commencement of this Act the control, custody or possession of any captive animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, has to furnish the details. Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act of 1972 provides that no person shall, after the commencement of this Act, acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession, sell, offer for sale or otherwise transfer or transport any animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or any uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal, or the salted or dried skins of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, except with the previous permission in writing of the Chief wild Life Warden or the authorized officer. Sub-section (2B) of section 40 requires every person inheriting any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy under sub-section (2A) of section 40 shall, within ninety days of such inheritance make a declaration to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer and the provisions of section 41 and 42 shall apply as if the declaration had been made under sub-section (1) of section 40. 5. It is clear from the permission (R-2) dated 13.9.1995 which was granted that public display was not allowed. Until and unless public display was allowed, it was not permissible to make public display. The petitioner has not assailed the order (R-2) which was passed. 5. It is clear from the permission (R-2) dated 13.9.1995 which was granted that public display was not allowed. Until and unless public display was allowed, it was not permissible to make public display. The petitioner has not assailed the order (R-2) which was passed. It may also be mentioned that proviso to section 49-C (3) that no such item shall be kept in any covered place, intendment is with respect to dealers but the intention of the Act is writ large that public display is not to be allowed ordinarily. There is certificate of ownership, which was issued on certain conditions, in the instant case. Public display was not permitted, trophy was to be kept in residence, in the opinion of this Court as the Act is for the purpose of preventing poaching, it is permissible to impose the condition of not making public display. Since public display was not allowed respondents were right in issuing directives to the petitioner to remove the article from public display. It is also apparent that certificate was not in favour of the petitioner, it was in favour of Begum Suraiya Rasheed. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I find no ground to interfere in this petition. Respondents are free to take action in accordance with law in case articles are not removed forthwith within 7 days from today. Writ petition is dismissed.