Judgment :- Ramachandra Menon J. 1. Whether the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Nakeri Vasudevan Namboodiri and others versus Union of India,reported in 2007 (4) KHC 140requires reconsideration, with reference to the mandate of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, [as amended in the year 2003 by Act 16 of 2003] [hereinafter referred to as the Act] governing the transfer of captive animals, particularly captive elephants in the State of Kerala, is the basic question to be considered in these writ petitions filed as Public Interest Litigations by the very same petitioner. 2. In W.P.(C) 34618 of 2007, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to take all steps to see that no elephant is transferred to the State of Kerala, in contravention of Section 43 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and also to direct the second respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P4 representation ventilating the grievances. In the other writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate action as per Sections 50, 51, 53 etc. of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 against the possessors of captive elephants planted with micro chips and who do not have the ownership certificate as contemplated under Section 42 of the Act and further to direct the second respondent to strictly implement the provisions of the said Act and other laws intended for protection of the animals, by letter and spirit. 3. The matters were heard at length on different dates, lastly, on 24.02.2012. During the course of hearing, it was put across the Bar, why the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3049 of 2010 has not chosen to implead the necessary parties, who according to the petitioner have committed various acts/offences contrary to the provisions of law, against whom appropriate action is sought to be pursued under sections 50, 51 and 53 of the Act; simultaneously pointing out that the second relief prayed for in the said writ petition did not constitute any specific cause of action, as the same was only to implement the relevant provisions of the Statute, by letter and spirit. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. P.B. Sahasranaman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in both the cases, submitted that both the writ petitions have been filed in view of the 'public interest' involved and since the main issue/grievance has already been projected in W.P. (C) 34618 of 2007, the arguments would stand confined only to the said case and that W.P. (C) 3049 of 2010 need not be separately dealt with or considered. As such, reference is made to the pleadings/ proceedings and the parties and exhibits as arrayed in W.P. (C) 34618 of 2007. 5. The main prayer isto direct the respondents to see that no elephant is transferred to Kerala in contravention of Section 43 of the Act. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 23.11.2007, it was admitted, ordering urgent notice to the respondents, also directing the second respondent not to issue any 'Certificate of Ownership' to the persons who import captive elephants from outside the State of Kerala, until further orders. 6. On 27.10.2011, reference was made to the earlier round of litigation, which culminated in the decision in 2007 (4) KHC 140(cited supra), whereby the submission made by the Central Government Standing Counsel that Section 43 of the Act was proposed to be amended was recorded and the learned Judge permitted transfer of ownership of elephants, subject to the satisfaction of the requirements as mentioned therein. However, inspite of the lapse of nearly 4 years, the Central Government did nothing for amending Section 43 of the Act, as stated before the Court, under which circumstance, this Court considered the matter further and observed that, prima facie, there could not be any absolute prohibition against transfer of ownership of elephants, because nobody could maintain elephants if the owner ceased to have financial capacity. While giving proper regard to the anxiety of the petitioner for the welfare and maintenance of elephants and action against ill-treatment and cruelty to the captive elephants, the Court also observed that, most elephant owners were in fact 'elephant lovers' as well, who very much cared and nursed the elephants and hence it would be wrong to say that all captive elephants were being ill-treated or cruelly treated; more so, when the State of Kerala has already brought in Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules 2003, which was adequate/enough to meet the situation. 7. 7. During the course of hearing held on 27.10.2011, it was observed that, since Guruvayur Devaswom, Travancore Devaswom Board and so also, Kochi Devaswom Board did own and possess quite a number of captive elephants, being used in connection with the Temple rituals/festivals, it was necessary to have heard them as well, who, hence, were ordered to be impleaded and stand impleaded as Addl. Respondents 6 to 8. The Kerala Elephants owners' Federation was impleaded as Addl. respondent No.5, as per the earlier order passed on 03.02.2010 in I.A.No.4999 Of 2008. In spite of the serious concern expressed by this Court, alerting the concerned respondents including the Central Government and different Devaswoms to express their views as noted in the order dated 27.10.2011, no counter affidavit has been filed except by the first respondent/State. 8. According to the first respondent, the averment of the writ petitioner that the earlier round of litigations particularly W.P. (C) .No.24966 of 2006 and connected cases was challenging the validity of Sec. 43 of the Act, is not correct as such and that the main prayer in the said writ petitions was to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to the concerned petitioner, to purchase elephants from outside the State (presumably, for non availability in the State). The allegation as to the inaction on the part of the first respondent in not taking any action against the offenders was also specifically rebutted, pointing out that, strict instructions have already been given to all officers concerned, for effective implementation of the relevant provisions of the Act/Rules, including the provisions of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2003; with a warning to cancel the 'Ownership Certificate', if the rules were not adhered to, as borne by Ext.R1(a). It is also pointed out that a number of cases came to be booked against the concerned offenders, wherever infringement of statutory prescription was brought about. 9. It has been asserted in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the first respondent, that the allegation of smuggling of elephants from outside the State is not at all correct and that the Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) has issued Ext.R1(b) direction to meet the situation. 9. It has been asserted in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit of the first respondent, that the allegation of smuggling of elephants from outside the State is not at all correct and that the Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) has issued Ext.R1(b) direction to meet the situation. It is pointed out in paragraph 8, that smuggling of elephants was never noticed as alleged and necessary steps have been taken to see that no elephants are brought into the State of Kerala, from other States. But for the vague averments and allegations in the Writ Petition, no concrete material has been produced from the part of the petitioner, to substantiate the plea before this Court. 10. The grievance projected by the petitioner in Exts.P3 and P4 representations is stated as considered and an enquiry has been conducted, which revealed that the apprehension was rather unfounded, as explained in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the counter affidavit. In the course of hearing, it is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Government Pleader that, pursuant to the observations/ directions given by the learned Judge as per the decision reported in 2007(4) KHC 140(cited supra), necessary guidelines have been issued in respect of sale, transfer and other dealings involving changing of hands of captive elephants, until amendment is made by the Central Government to Sec.43 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, as proposed from their side in the earlier round of litigation and also as observed by this Court in the order dated 27.10.2011 in the present proceedings. As per Clause (3) of the said guidelines, no sale or transfer in respect of an elephant brought to the State from other States after 18.08.2007 will be permitted. Clause 4 points out the necessity for the seller for stating the compelling reason to sell the elephant, to the satisfaction of the Chief Wildlife Warden, that he cannot afford to maintain the elephant and the intending purchaser should present an application in the prescribed format for permission to purchase the elephant. Clause 5 specifically says that the intending seller should possess Ownership Certificate issued by the Chief Wildlife Warden of Kerala, as per Section 42 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 in respect of captive elephant and should be implanted with 'micro chip’ for identifying the pachederm. 11. Clause 5 specifically says that the intending seller should possess Ownership Certificate issued by the Chief Wildlife Warden of Kerala, as per Section 42 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 in respect of captive elephant and should be implanted with 'micro chip’ for identifying the pachederm. 11. Clause 6 deals with the capacity of the intending purchaser to have adequate facility for housing, maintenance and upkeeping of the elephants as stipulated under Section 42 of the Act and Rule 4 of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Maintenance and Management) Rules 2003. Clauses 7 and 8 insist the requirement for showing the purpose of purchase by the intending purchaser, to the satisfaction of the Chief Wildlife Warden, the availability of a trained mahout and an assistant mahout to look after the elephant in his control and also as to the adequate means to maintain the elephants and mahouts also by producing a copy of the income tax return or solvency certificate issued by the revenue authorities. The health of the elephant is to be certified by a competent Government Veterinarian in the locality as provided under clause 10 and under clause 12, the intending purchaser has to maintain all records stipulated under the Kerala Captive Elephants (Maintenance and Management) Rules, 2003 relating to vaccination, disease and treatment, movement, feeding and work, in the format attached to the said Rules. Under Clause 13, the intending purchaser has to furnish an undertaking that the provisions of the above rules will be strictly complied with in respect of : (i) housing of elephants, (ii) care of elephants, (iii) feeding of elephants, (iv) work load of elephants, (v) norms and standard of transportation, (vi) Retirement of elephants, (vii) Cutting of tusks ; and, (viii) prevention of cruelty to elephants. 12. As stipulated under clause 14, the application has to be recommended by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer. Even in respect of a 'Gift' by way of offering to a Temple, the application for purchase of the elephant is to be accompanied by an undertaking by the Devaswom or Temple authority, to the effect that they have adequate facility to maintain the elephant, including the availability of a trained mahout and facility for veterinary care as given under clause 17. 13. 13. In view of the above state of affairs, the main relief sought for by the petitioner, to direct the respondents, to see that no elephant is transferred to the State of Kerala, in contravention of Section 43 of the Act and the apprehension expressed in Exts.P3 and P4 do not factually survive for consideration as the same is already taken care of. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner asserted that there was a 'total ban' of transfer, otherwise than by way of inheritance, as given under Section 43 of the Act and hence the direction given by the learned Judge of this Court in 2007 (4) KHC 140(cited supra) being contrary to the mandate of Section 43, was liable to be reconsidered. The matter was heard accordingly, in detail. 14. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by Mr. P.B. Sahasranaman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that elephants in question are 'captive animals' as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, having been included in the I schedule at entry No.12B. By virtue of stipulation under Section 39, it shall be the property of the State Government and transfer by sale or otherwise of a 'captive animal’ is totally banned under Section 43 of the Act, which was brought into the Statute as per the amendment Act 16/2003 w.e.f. 01.04.2003, in substitution of the provision as it existed earlier. The learned Counsel also places reliance on the decision rendered by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s Ivory Traders and Manufacturers Association Versus Union of India (AIR 1997 Delhi 267)and the affirmation given by the Apex Court in Indian Handicrafts Emporium Versus Union of India [(2003) 7 SCC 589]. 15. Mr. James Kurian, the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no amendment to section 43 has been made by the Central Government so far, as proposed and pointed out in the statement filed in the earlier round of litigation and taken note of by this Court in the order dated 27.10.2011. The learned Central Government Counsel also submits that the scope of the enactment is discernible from the preamble of the 'Amending Act' of 2003 and also from the 'proviso' given under Sub Sections (2A) and (2B) of Section 40. 16. The learned Central Government Counsel also submits that the scope of the enactment is discernible from the preamble of the 'Amending Act' of 2003 and also from the 'proviso' given under Sub Sections (2A) and (2B) of Section 40. 16. Before proceeding further to the scope of Section 43, this Court would like to examine the reliance sought to be placed on Section 39 and Section 40 of the Act by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the case. Wild animals are, of course, not the properties of anybody but the Government. Section 39 speaks about the ownership of Government over wild animals. Section 40 of the Act deals with the 'Declaration' to be given by a person, who is having control, custody or possession of a captive animal, specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, which reads as follows: Section 40: "40. Declarations:- (1) 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 or animal article, trophy or uncured trophy derived from such animal or salted or dried skins of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn or a rhinoceros, shall, within thirty days from the commencement of this Act, declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer the number and description of the animal or article of the foregoing description under his control, custody or possession and the place where such animal or article is kept. (2) 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 skin 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 authorised officer. (2A) No person other than a person having a certificate of ownership, shall, after the commencement of the Wild Life (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. (2B) Every person inheriting any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy under sub-section (2A) shall, within ninety days of such inheritance make a declaration to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised 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. Provided that nothing in sub-sections (2A) and (2B) shall apply to the live elephant. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall apply to a recognised Zoo subject to the provisions of section 38-1 or to a public museum. (4) The State Government may, by notification, require any person to declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer any animal or animal article or trophy other than a musk of a musk deer or horn of a rhinoceros or salted or dried skins derived from an animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II in his control custody or possession in such form, in such manner and within such time, as may be prescribed." As per Section 42, it is for the Chief Wildlife Warden to issue the certificate of ownership in the manner specified therein with reference to Section 40. 17. 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 (by virtue of Section 2A to Section 40, w.e.f. 01.04.2003), it is necessary to examine the provision as it existed earlier. Unamended Section 43 of the Act (as it existed earlier, till the same was amended as per the Amendment 16/2003) reads as follows : 43. Unamended Section 43 of the Act (as it existed earlier, till the same was amended as per the Amendment 16/2003) reads as follows : 43. Regulation of transfer of animals etc.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), sub-section (3) and sub section (4), as person (other than a dealer) who does not possess a certificate of ownership shall not - (a) Sell or offer for sale or transfer whether by way of sale, gift or otherwise, any wild animal specified in Schedule 1 or Part II of Schedule II or any captive animal belonging to that category of any animal article trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived therefrom; (b) make animal articles containing part of whole of such animal (c) put under a process of taxidermy an uncured trophy of such animal, except with the previous permission in writing of the Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer. Section 43 of the Act as it exists now, after amendment as per the Amendment 16/2003 reads as follows : 43. Regulation of transfer of animal etc.-(1) No person having in his possession captive animal, animal articles, trophy or uncured trophy in respect of which he has a certificate of ownership shall transfer by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature, such animal or article or trophy of uncured trophy. (2) Where a person transfers or transports from the State in which he resides to another State or acquires by transfer from outside the State, any such animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy in respect of which he has a certificate of ownership, he shall within thirty days of the transfer or transport, report the transfer or transport to the Chief Wildlife Warden or the authorised officer within whose jurisdiction the transfer of transport is effected. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply - (a) to tail feather of peacock and the animal article or trophies made therefrom. (b) to transfer of captive animals between recognised zoos subject to the provisions of Section 38-1 and transfer amongst zoos and public museums. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply - (a) to tail feather of peacock and the animal article or trophies made therefrom. (b) to transfer of captive animals between recognised zoos subject to the provisions of Section 38-1 and transfer amongst zoos and public museums. On a reading of sub section 1 (a) of Section 43 as it existed earlier, and comparing the same with sub Section (1) of Section 43 as it now exists, it is crystal-clear that the restriction on transfer as on date is only by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature. In other words, the transfer prohibited even by way of 'Gift', as it included in the earlier provision was deleted,by virtue of a conscious exercise, which shows that the Parliament, while bringing out the amendment, felt the need to have the transfer sustained by way of Gift, even after the amendment and as such, the contention of the petitioner that all types of transfers after the introduction of the new provision, Section 43 w.e.f. 01.04.2003, provides for a 'total ban' is not correct or sustainable and what is prohibited, can only be a transfer where 'commercial interest' is involved and not otherwise. 18. Coming to the scope of transfers involving sale or commercial interest which is sought to be banned by virtue of amended Section 43, it has to be examined with reference to the other provisions of the Statute as well. This is, more so, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others Versus Union of India and others [(2003) 7 SCC 589],holding that, for the purpose of interpretation of a Statute, the Statute has to be read in full, giving effect to the purport and object of the Act, and that the principle of 'purposive construction' must come into play. Sub section (2) of Section 40 extracted hereinbefore has not suffered any amendment, even, after the commencement of the amended Act i.e. Act 16 of 2003 w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The said provision stipulates that nobody, after the commencement of the Act, shall acquire, receive, keep in control, custody or possession, sell, offer for sale or otherwise transfer or transport the animal/article as specified except with the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wildlife Warden or the authorised officer. The said provision stipulates that nobody, after the commencement of the Act, shall acquire, receive, keep in control, custody or possession, sell, offer for sale or otherwise transfer or transport the animal/article as specified except with the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wildlife Warden or the authorised officer. In other words, if previous permission in writing of the Chief Wildlife warden or authorized officer is obtained, the transfer by way of sale is stated as possible. Inconsistency, if any, between sub section (2) of Section and sub section (1) of Section 43 may be due to casual drafting. 19. Section 44 of the Act deals with the prohibition in dealing with trophy and animal articles without licence, wherein licence to commence or carry on the business as a 'dealer in captive animal' is also referred to, under Sub Section 1 (a) (iv). On going through the entire provision and on examining the same in the light of or with reference to 49 (A) (b), it seems that, there is some contradiction between Section 44 (1) (c) and Section 49A (b). More so, when both these amendments were brought about, by the Amendment Act of 44 of 1991, which again reflects the casual drafting. Various other provisions also still exist, as to the granting/renewal of licence, suspension/cancellation of the licence and also as to the appeal to be preferred against an order of refusal to grant or renew the licence under Section 44 or an order suspending or cancelling the licence under Section 45. If the moto of total ban, as mooted by the petitioner, is to be upheld, amendment is necessary in respect of various other provisions as well, as it now exist. 20. Yet another contradiction/inconsistency is discernible from Section 49, which deals with purchase of captive animal by a person other than a licencee. The said provision reads as follows : 49. Purchase of captive animal, etc. by a person other than a licence - No person shall purchase, receive or acquire any captive animal, wild animal, other than vermin, or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or from a person authorised to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this Act. Purchase of captive animal, etc. by a person other than a licence - No person shall purchase, receive or acquire any captive animal, wild animal, other than vermin, or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or from a person authorised to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this Act. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a recognized zoo subject to the provisions of Section 38 - 1 or to a public museum. Readingof the above provision gives an idea that the Statute still contemplates purchase (which inevitably involves consideration or reflects commercial interest) by a person who is duly licensed. The said provision does not reconcile with the contents of Section 43, as amended. That apart, proviso to Section 49 provides for an exception to a recognized zoo, as specified or to a 'public museum'. While recognized zoos are defined under Section 25A of the Act, the term 'public museum' is still to be defined, which may lead to further controversy. 21. Chapter V (A) dealing with prohibition of trade or commerce in trophies, animal articles etc. derived from certain animals was introduced in the Statute by virtue of Act 28 of 1986 w.e.f. 25.11.1986 i.e. in addition to or supplemental to Chapter (V) dealing with trade or commerce in wild animals, animal articles and trophies. Section 49C refers to declaration by dealers. Sub section (3) enables a person making the declaration to retain the article, if he so desires for bonafide use and the proviso thereunder stipulates that no such item shall be kept in commercial premises. Sub section (7) deals with the restraint to any person other than those who have obtained a certificate of ownership under sub Section (3), to retain the possession or as to the rights to sell or transfer any scheduled animal/scheduled animal article or ivory imported to India or any article made therefrom. The scope of the said provision i.e. sub section 7 of 47C has been considered and explained by the Apex Court in 2003 (7) SCC 589(cited supra) holding that the trader, in terms of the Statute, is prohibited from carrying on trade and cannot remain in control over the animal article, highlighting the Scheme of the Statute. The scope of the said provision i.e. sub section 7 of 47C has been considered and explained by the Apex Court in 2003 (7) SCC 589(cited supra) holding that the trader, in terms of the Statute, is prohibited from carrying on trade and cannot remain in control over the animal article, highlighting the Scheme of the Statute. But, when apparent conflict/inconsistency is there, particularly, as it now exists between sub Section (2) of Section 40 and sub Section (1) of Section 43, and more so, when the transfer by way of Gift, which was prohibited under the earlier Statute (unamended Section 43), was made permissible by deletion of the word ‘Gift’, as per Act 16/2003 w.e.f. 01.04.2003, the contention of the petitioner that there is a total ban of any mode of transfer after amendment of the Statute w.e.f 01.04.2003 by virtue of Section 43 becomes difficult to be digested. 22. It is also relevant to note in this context that live elephants were being treated as an integral part of administration by erstwhile local Rulers/Kings and there were 'Elephant Regiments' as well. Elephants were being trained in the Government sector as well (in 'Konni' and 'Kodanadu' in Kerala) and used for various purposes, including for removal of timber in forests and in various timber depots of the State and so also in several saw mills in the private sector. Apart from this, in most of the Temples in Kerala, caparisoned elephants are part of rituals of Temple festivals, which attract quite a lot of tourists as well, as noted in the interim order dated 27.10.2011 passed by this Court in the above case. The regulation imposed on the transfer of captive animals and the interpretation/understanding of the provision in the case of live elephants caused much hardships to the genuine owners of elephants. When the Parliament amended the Statute, by incorporating Section (2A) and (2B), by imposing a ban on acquisition of any captive animal as specified, except by way of inheritance, the Parliament was also conscious enough, to add a ‘proviso’ thereunder, making it clear that, nothing in sub sections (2A) and (2B) shall apply to live elephant. When the Parliament amended the Statute, by incorporating Section (2A) and (2B), by imposing a ban on acquisition of any captive animal as specified, except by way of inheritance, the Parliament was also conscious enough, to add a ‘proviso’ thereunder, making it clear that, nothing in sub sections (2A) and (2B) shall apply to live elephant. By virtue of the above 'proviso', the restriction on acquisition, otherwise than by way of inheritance, which is rather a general provision incorporated under Section (2A) brought into force w.e.f. 01.04.2003, has been made inapplicable in the case of acquisition of a 'live elephant'. This being the position, Sub Section (2) of Section 40, enabling transfer of such animal with previous permission in writing of the Chief Wildlife Warden or the authorised officer, has necessarily to be given effect to, notwithstanding the general ban as provided under sub section (1) of Section 43 or such other provision. To put it more clear, since the case of live elephant' is separately dealt with, under the 'proviso' to Sub section (2A) and (2B) of Section 40, it has to prevail over the general stipulation or at least till the relevant provisions in the Statute are suitably amended by the Parliament. Presumably, it was in the said circumstances, that a statement was filed before this Court from the part of the Central Government in the previous round of litigation, as referred to in 2007 (4) KHC 140(cited supra) to the effect that the Central Government proposed to bring about suitable/ appropriate amendment so as to meet the situation, particularly, in view of the difficulty/ hardships expressed by the owners of the captive elephants in the country. 23. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge, as reported in 2007 (4) KHC 140(cited supra) does not require any reconsideration. More so, in view of the effective safeguards provided by the State, by way of amendment to The Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules and also the Guidelines formulated, pursuant to the judgment in 2007 (4) KHC 140(cited supra), regarding the conditions to be satisfied for effecting the transfer. In the above circumstances, no interference is warranted in both these writ petitions and they are dismissed accordingly.