JUDGMENT : Anant S. Dave, J. 1. In this Writ Petition (PIL) the petitioner has prayed as under: "12. (a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent No. 1 for declaring the Ambardi Reserved Forest Area more particularly area of 400 hectares as protected area under Chapter IV of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 in the interest of justice; (b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to have a uniform policy/guidelines for protection/conservation of reserved forests in area considered as Asiatic Lion Landscape by the Gujarat Forest Department; (c) Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents more particularly respondent No. 6 from proceeding ahead in any manner like fencing, permanent construction or altering the natural habitat of the Ambardi reserved forest area i.e., Survey Nos. 114 and 301 for the purposes of the large zoo/lion Safari Park - Ambardi; (d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other and further order in the interest of justice that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the above prayers whereby challenge is to the creation of safari park of 400 hectares over reserved forest in eco-sensitive zone of Gir National Park and Sanctuary and such Safari Park/Large Zoo would house captive lions which would eventually prove detrimental to the existing free ranging wild population of 35 - 40 lions in the said Ambardi area of Gir National Park and Sanctuary. The petitioner has placed reliance on May, 2015 census carried out of Asiatic Lions in the region. It is further the say of the petitioner that Article 48-A read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India under which duty is cast upon the State authority to take care of environmental aspects and right to life has also been construed as right to life of animals and birds. It is further the say of the petitioner that Article 48-A read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India under which duty is cast upon the State authority to take care of environmental aspects and right to life has also been construed as right to life of animals and birds. 1.1 In the backdrop of the above main grounds and the factual scenario Shri Navin Pahwa, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that action of the respondent-State authority of creating safari park/large zoo would create a situation by which neither Asiatic lions nor population in the surrounding villages will be benefited. The area of safari park earmarked as can be visualized through map produced from google reveals that safari park area is surrounded by green forest and river which are eco-sensitive zones and would create a kind of impasse for lions residing out of the range of safari area and therefore, intervention of this Court is called for seeking issuance of appropriate order or direction against the respondent-authority. It is also submitted that pursuant to oral directions issued earlier by this Court affidavit in reply is filed by respondent No. 6 (sic, respondent No. 5) - Deputy Conservator of Forests (Gir East), Dhari, whereby proposal for establishment of safari park at Ambardi-Dhari in an area of about 400 hectares was scrutinized by Central Zoo Authority ('CZA' for brevity) and CZA has provided approval. Such letter of approval dated 21.5.2008 issued by CZA is produced on record. Apropos to that the learned Government Pleader would contend that the competent authority empowered under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 has granted approval upon fulfillment of certain conditions as enumerated in the order of approval itself. Such conditions are based on orders that may be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in pending cases. One of such conditions, namely, Condition (xii) reads as under: "(xii) Once the Safari Park is ready for operation, it shall be opened to visitors only after getting prior recognition from the Central Zoo Authority under section 38-H of the Wild Life (Protection) Act." The letter of approval dated 21.5.2008 further stipulates that, "Recognition to Safari Park as a 'zoo' under section 38-H(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 shall be considered only after compliance of the above said conditions and physical evaluation of the Safari at that point of time." 2. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, at this stage, it cannot be said that action taken by the respondent-Government of creating Safari Park/Large Zoo is in any manner contrary to law. 3. Having regard to contentions raised above and on perusal of the record, especially letter of approval granted by Central Zoo Authority dated 21.5.2008 and subsequent correspondence by the very authority it reveals that permission to create Safari Park in Ambardi-Dhari of Gir Reserved Forest is conditional and upon fulfillment of about 12 conditions enumerated therein. The apprehension on the part of the learned Counsel Shri Navin Pahwa for the petitioner, about consequences of creation of Safari Park in Ambardi area on Asiatic lions and breach or violation of any provisions of Environmental Laws, etc. can be considered by Central Zoo Authority in case the petitioner raises such issues/objections before the said Authority. In addition to the above, as stated in the letter of approval, the State Government is duty bound to fulfill conditions No. (i) to (xi); before Safari Park is ready for operation and opened to visitors, prior recognition from Central Zoo Authority under section 38-H of the Wilde Life (Protection) Act, 1972 can also be looked into. Considering the overall aspects as above at this stage, we are not inclined to accept the prayer in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is rejected.