JUDGMENT Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. and Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. 1. The petitioner was initially granted a licence in 1986 for a period of one year for dealing in captive bred birds. According to the petitioner, the licence was renewed until 31 December, 1991. On 4 November, 1991, the petitioner was informed that the licence would stand cancelled with effect from 31 December, 1991 and the petitioner was called upon to surrender the licence. The petitioner has averred that the licence was surrendered. The case of the petitioner is that it was in possession of captive bred birds, which were in its stock and continued to be in stock. The petitioner moved an earlier writ proceeding before this Court, Writ Petition No. 6062 (M/B) of 2011, for setting aside a communication dated 14 May, 2011 of the Chief Wild Life Warden, Lucknow and for a mandamus to the authorities to grant permission/licence to the petitioner for dealing with his stock of captive bred birds. The petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 2 May, 2014. The Division Bench directed the Chief Wild Life Warden to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 4 June, 2011 within a stipulated time. Thereupon, an order was passed by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected. By the impugned order of 4 August, 2014, the Chief Wild Life Warden has held that in view of the provisions of section 43 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Act of 1972), the grant of any licence to the petitioner, as sought, would be contrary to law. The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 defines the expression 'captive animal' under section 2(5), as follows: "2. (5). "captive animal" means any animal, specified in Schedule I, Schedule II, Schedule III or Schedule IV, which is captured or kept or bred in captivity." Among the species which are mentioned in Schedule IV, those at entries 44, 45 and 50 respectively are Munias (Estrildinae), Mynas (Sturnidae), Parakeets (Psittacidae). 2. Section 43 of the Act of 1972 was substituted by the Wild Life (Protection) (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003), which was brought into force with effect from 1 April, 2003. Section 43 provides as follows: "43. 2. Section 43 of the Act of 1972 was substituted by the Wild Life (Protection) (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003), which was brought into force with effect from 1 April, 2003. Section 43 provides as follows: "43. Regulation of transfer of animal, etc.--(1) No person having in his possession captive animal, animal article, 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 an other mode of consideration of commercial nature, such animal or article or trophy or 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 Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer within whose jurisdiction the transfer or 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. Consequently, with effect from 1 April, 2003 when the substituted provision was brought into force, there is a prohibition on every person having in his possession, inter alia, a captive animal from transferring by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature such an animal. 4. But, according to the petitioner, in the submission as urged by the learned Counsel, section 44 of the Act of 1972 specifically contemplates the grant of a licence to a dealer in captive animals. Hence, it is urged that if a licence were not to be granted to the petitioner by virtue of the provisions of section 43 of the Act of 1972, the licence under section 44 would have no meaning. Moreover, it was sought to be submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner had a stock of captive bred animals prior to 1991, there could be no prohibition on it in dealing with such animals. 5. Moreover, it was sought to be submitted that inasmuch as the petitioner had a stock of captive bred animals prior to 1991, there could be no prohibition on it in dealing with such animals. 5. Now, as we deal with the submissions, it must be noted that section 44(1) of the Act of 1972 stipulates that subject to the provisions of Chapter V-A, no person shall, except under and in accordance with a licence granted under sub-section (4), commence or carry on the business as, inter alia, a manufacturer of or dealer in any animal article; a taxidermist; a dealer in trophy or uncured trophy; a dealer in captive animals or a dealer in meat. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 44 saves a situation where a person who immediately before the commencement of the Act was carrying on the business or occupation specified in sub-section (1) for a period of thirty days from the commencement of the Act or where he has made an application for the grant of a licence, until the licence is granted or he is informed in writing that the licence cannot be granted to him. Section 44 of the Act of 1972 is an enabling provision and does not confer a vested right. In fact, section 44 of the Act of 1972 contains a prohibition in the absence of a licence in dealing, inter alia, in captive animals. Subsequently, section 43 of the Act of 1972 was substituted with effect from 1 April, 2003. The substituted provision contains a specific prohibition on a person who has in his possession a captive animal from transferring by way of sale or offer for sale such an animal. 6. In view of the specific mandate of section 43 of the Act of 1972, the Chief Wild Life Warden cannot be held as being in error in coming to the conclusion that the licence could not be granted in view of the prohibition. 7. The Supreme Court had considered the provisions of section 44 of the Act of 1972 in the Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) v. Nisar Khan (2003) 4 SCC 595 . 7. The Supreme Court had considered the provisions of section 44 of the Act of 1972 in the Chief Forest Conservator (Wildlife) v. Nisar Khan (2003) 4 SCC 595 . The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the High Court restraining the Chief Forest Conservator and other authorities from interfering with the business of the respondent in dealing with birds in Schedule IV of the Act of 1972, which were bred in captivity either by the person concerned or which were procured from other breeders. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a manifest error in directing the appellants to grant a licence in favour of the respondent. The Supreme Court observed that the licencing authority was required to satisfy himself that in the event any licence is granted in favour of the applicant, he would be capable of strictly complying with the provisions of the Act, the Rules as also the terms and conditions of the licence laid down. Moreover, the Supreme Court observed that it was only in the event of the licencing authority being satisfied upon considering the objective criteria laid down in the statute, that he may issue a licence and it was not within the domain of the High Court to issue the impugned direction. 8. The judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered on 18 February, 2003. The substituted provisions of section 43 of the Act of 1972 were brought into force with effect from 1 April, 2003. However, in any event, the judgment of the Supreme Court lays down that it is for the authority concerned to be satisfied on whether the objective criteria could be fulfilled by the applicant. 9. In the present case, the Chief Wild Life Warden has, in our view, correctly, had due regard to the provisions of section 43 of the Act of 1972, which prohibit any person from transferring by way of sale or offer for sale any captive animal. It is, admittedly, not in dispute before the Court that the petitioner claims to deal in captive animals as specified in Schedule IV and more particularly, those in entries 44, 45 and 50. Admittedly, these animals have been captured or kept or bred in captivity. Any disclosure made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot override a specific mandate of the statute. Admittedly, these animals have been captured or kept or bred in captivity. Any disclosure made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot override a specific mandate of the statute. The petition, therefore, does not merit interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.