Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1751 (GUJ)

Biren Rameshchandra Padhya v. Union of India

2017-10-11

R.SUBHASH REDDY, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2017
JUDGMENT : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. This writ petition, by way of Public Interest Litigation, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed with the prayers, which read as under: “(a). This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the permission under Section 38 H (1) granted by Respondent no.6 to the Ambardi Safari Park vide order dated 05.06.2017; (aa). This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the decision dated 19.6.2017 purportedly made by the Central Zoo Authority granting recognition to set up Ambardi Zoo, as being illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary, in violation of the principles of natural justice, in violation of the directions contained in the order dated 16.2.2016 made in writ petition (PIL) No.261 of 2015. (b). Pending hearing and final disposal of the Petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay further execution, operation or implementation of the permission under Section 38 H (1) granted by Respondent no.6 to the Ambardi Safari Park vide order dated 05.06.2017; (bb). Pending hearing and final disposal of the Petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the decision dated 19.6.2017 granted by the Respondent No.6 to set up Ambardi Zoo; (c). Pending hearing and final disposal of the Petition, Your Lordships be pleased to appoint a fit and proper person as Court Commissioner to verify presence of free ranging wild animals inside the fenced Ambardi Safari Park on terms and conditions, as may deem fit, in the interest of justice; (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 and in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. As early as in the year 2005, a proposal for establishment of Safari Park at Ambardi, Dhari, District Amreli, was made to Central Zoo Authority constituted under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The constitution of Central Zoo Authority, prior approval for establishment and recognition of zoo are covered under Chapter IVA of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The constitution of Central Zoo Authority is under Section 38A(1) of the Act and approval for establishment and recognition of zoo is under section 38H of the Act. The constitution of Central Zoo Authority, prior approval for establishment and recognition of zoo are covered under Chapter IVA of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The constitution of Central Zoo Authority is under Section 38A(1) of the Act and approval for establishment and recognition of zoo is under section 38H of the Act. There were certain amendments in the Principal Act by Act 16 of 2003, with effect from 1.4.2003 by which, section 38H(1A) was inserted. By virtue of the amendment, a zoo shall not be established without obtaining the prior approval of the authority. After establishment of the zoo, there is a requirement of recognition to such zoo by Zoo Authority under section 38H(4) of the Act. 3. Pursuant to proposal sent by the Government of Gujarat through the Office of the Conservator of Forests and Chief Wild Life Warden, Central Zoo Authority, has conveyed its approval on 21.5.2008 for establishment of Safari Park at Ambardi, Dhari, District Amreli, subject to permission in the pending Writ Petition from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and on fulfillment of certain conditions. Such approval was granted vide Proceedings F.No.22-2/ 2007-CZA( M) dated 21.5.2008 by Central Zoo Authority. The said approval dated 21.5.2008 reads as under: “Reference is invited to the aforesaid correspondence. The proposal for establishment of a Safari Park at Ambardi Dhari, Distt. Amreli in Gujarat on an area of about 400 hectares was scrutinized in the Central Zoo Authority. The Central Zoo Authority convey the approval under section 38H(1A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to establish the Safari Park at AmbardiDhari, Distt. Amreli in Gujarat subject to the orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the fulfillment of the following conditions: (i) The State Government of Gujarat shall sanction the requisite number of personnel to operate the Safari Park. The State Government shall also give an undertaking that requisite number of experts of various disciplines including a competent project leader, Curators, Biologist, Veterinary Officer and Education Officer would be hired for the execution of the project. (ii) All the zoos operated by the State Government of Gujarat that have been refused recognition have stopped their operations and the animals housed therein have been rehabilitated appropriately. (ii) All the zoos operated by the State Government of Gujarat that have been refused recognition have stopped their operations and the animals housed therein have been rehabilitated appropriately. (iii) The State Government of Gujarat shall make necessary provisions in its budget to meet the operational costs of the Safari Park being operated by it as well as for the future maintenance of the establishment on professional grounds, including the salary of the Safari Park personnel as per standards and norms prescribed under “Recognition of Zoo Rules”. (iv) No resources and professional experts from existing zoos are being re appropriated to the proposed Safari Park. (v) Frequent transfers of the Director, Curator, Veterinary Officer, Biologists and supervisory level staff shall not be made. They shall be allowed to continue in the Safari Park for longer tenures. (vi) The State Government of Gujarat should not acquire any animals from the wild for display purposes. (vii) The State Government of Gujarat shall house only 1:2 Asiatic lions from the Sakkarbaug Zoo for display at Safari Park. (viii) The State Government of Gujarat should ensure that while establishing the Safari Park, the guidelines issued by Central Zoo Authority for creation of Safari Parks are strictly followed. (ix) The animal enclosure design and feeding/retiring cubicle should be made available as per the prescribed standard and norms under Recognition of Zoo Rules, 1992 and guidelines of the Central Zoo Authority. (x) The State Government should ensure 24 hours supply of potable water and the disposal of garbage from the Safari Park at an appropriate place without affecting the hygiene of the area. (xi) The proposed Safari Park should support the in situ conservation efforts by doing intensive ex situ conservation work and should establish a centre for excellence for capacity building among zoo personnel's, wildlife biologist and all experts in the field in the country by providing appropriate training in various fields, which shall be major strength of the project. (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 38H of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. 1972. Recognition to Safari Park as a 'Zoo' under section 38H(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.” 4. 1972. Recognition to Safari Park as a 'Zoo' under section 38H(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.” 4. It is not in dispute that consequent to prior approval for establishment of zoo by Central Zoo Authority on 21.5.2008, in the entire area of about 400 hectares, fencing was erected by spending approximately an amount of Rs.1235.06 lakhs. 5. Though the approval for establishment for Safari Park was granted by the Competent Authority under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 on 21.5.2008, the petitioner herein, in the year 2015 filed Writ Petition (PIL) No.261 of 2015 with the following prayers: “(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.” 6. The above said writ petition was rejected vide order dated 16.2.2016 by observing that, apprehension of the petitioner, about the consequences of creation of Safari Park in Amreli area, on Asiatic lions and breach or violation of the provisions of Environmental Laws, can be considered by Central Zoo Authority. It was also observed that the State Government is duty bound to fulfil the condition Nos.(i) to (xi), imposed in the approval, order dated 21.5.2008. It was also observed that the State Government is duty bound to fulfil the condition Nos.(i) to (xi), imposed in the approval, order dated 21.5.2008. Subsequent to rejection of the Writ Petition (PIL) No.261 of 2015, in view of the observations made, the petitioner herein made representation to the Central Zoo Authority and on such representation, after calling for the remarks from the State Authorities, the Technical Committee of Zoo Authority has considered and granted conditional recognition vide proceedings dated 5.6.2017. Further, Central Zoo Authority also granted post-facto approval for the recognition in the meeting of Zoo Authority held on 19.6.2017. In this writ petition, originally, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.6.2017, but in view of the post-facto approval for conditional recognition of the zoo on 19.6.2017, such decision also came to be challenged. 7. In this petition, it is the case of the petitioner that though prior approval for establishment of Safari Park was granted in the year 2006, thereafter the order of recognition as required under section 38H(4) of the Act was not granted, but all of a sudden, after reconstitution of the Zoo Authority on 18.5.2017, the Central Zoo Authority, without making required inspections, has issued proceedings dated 5.6.2017 under Section 38H(4) of the Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that the proposed large zoo in the reserved forest land would be in violation of the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act and if the said park is established, it would eventually wipe out the free ranging wild lion population in and around the vicinity of Ambardi area and it would choke riverine corridors of Asiatic lions. By referring to the earlier petition filed by him by way of Public Interest Litigation, it is stated that the petitioner, being an active member of Animal Welfare Board of India, has filed this petition as much as Central Zoo Authority has ignored relevant factors namely, death of three human beings due to the fencing of Ambardi Safari Park and not examined compliance of conditions imposed in the order dated 21.5.2008 issued by the authority. It is pleaded that there was a report prepared by two serving Deputy Conservators of Forests and same was not taken into account while granting recognition. It is pleaded that there was a report prepared by two serving Deputy Conservators of Forests and same was not taken into account while granting recognition. It is pleaded that after about 8 years of the prior approval for establishment of zoo, impugned proceedings are issued illegally and arbitrarily, without making prior inspection. It is also pleaded that Shetrunji river is 20 meters away from the fence of the proposed Safari Park, as such, river falls in the proposed eco-sensitive zone of the Gir Sanctuary, thus, the impugned proceedings are illegal. It is pleaded that by establishing such a Safari Park, it would damage the habitat of 35-40 free ranging wild Asiatic lions and other species like chinkara, chital, blue bull, sambar, leopard, Indian fox, hyena etc. 8. The Chief Conservator of Forests has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.4 in this petition. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is the case of the 4th respondent that in view of the rejection of the earlier petition filed in Writ Petition (PIL) No.261 of 2015, the present petition on the very same subject is not maintainable. Referring to the various provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as well as the National Zoo Policy of 1998, it is stated that, with an object to compliment and strengthen the national efforts in conservation of the rich biodiversity of the country, particularly the wild fauna, the Government of India framed the National Zoo Policy in the year 1998 and the primary objective of the policy is conservation of endangered wild life and the growing need of conservation of Asiatic lions and in view of such policy only, the respondent authorities are taking steps to develop Ambardi Safari Park. It is stated that the proposal for establishment of zoo was submitted by the authorities to the 6th respondent, the Competent Authority, way back on 28.12.2005 and in principle approval was granted on 21.5.2008. Thereafter, the officials of the 6th respondent have visited Ambardi Safari Park on numerous occasions. As such, the allegation of the petitioner that permissions are granted in violation of the principles of natural justice is illfounded and baseless. Dates and events given in tabular form in the reply affidavit read as under: “Sr. Thereafter, the officials of the 6th respondent have visited Ambardi Safari Park on numerous occasions. As such, the allegation of the petitioner that permissions are granted in violation of the principles of natural justice is illfounded and baseless. Dates and events given in tabular form in the reply affidavit read as under: “Sr. No. Date Particulars 1 28-12-2005 Conservator of Forests, Wildlife circle, Junagadh submitted proposal to Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority for establishment of Safari Park for grant of permission under Section 38(H) of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 2 21-05-2008 In-principle approval granted by Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority 3 24-11-2013 Field visit of team of Central Zoo Authority 4 05-12-13 Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority writes to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife and Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat State for making necessary amendments in the Safari Park as per observation of Central Zoo Authority team. 5 05-08-14 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife, Gujarat State submit compliance report to Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority 6 26-02-2015 Proposal placed before Expert Group on Zoo Designing of Central Zoo Authority. 7 13-03-2015 Deputy Inspector General (Head Quarter) writes to Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gir (East) Division to comply with points raised in the meeting held on 26-02-2015. 8 25-03-2015 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife submit compliance to points raised by Central Zoo Authority vide letter dated 13-03-2015. 9 28-04-2015 Communication by Deputy Inspector General(Head Quarter) informing regarding proposed meeting of Expert Group on Zoo Designing of Central Zoo Authority on 01-05-2015. 10 01-07-15 Deputy Inspector General(Head Quarter) informs regarding State Governments preparedness for field visit of team of Central Zoo Authority. 12 17-08-2015 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife submit compliance to queries raised by Central Zoo Authority vide letter dated 18-05-2015/ 04-06-2015, 01-07-2015. 13 20-08-2015 Central Zoo Authority team visits Ambardi Safari Park for appraisal. 14 03-09-15 Deputy Inspector General(Head Quarter) informs regarding proposed meeting of Expert Group on Zoo Designing of Central Zoo Authority on 08-09-2015. 15 24-09-2015 Minutes of meeting of Expert Group on Zoo Designing of Central Zoo Authority sent by Deputy Inspector General(Head Quarter). 16 27-09-2015 Compliance sent by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife to Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority on issue raised in the meeting held on 08-09-2015. 15 24-09-2015 Minutes of meeting of Expert Group on Zoo Designing of Central Zoo Authority sent by Deputy Inspector General(Head Quarter). 16 27-09-2015 Compliance sent by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife to Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority on issue raised in the meeting held on 08-09-2015. 17 19-10-2015 Observation of meeting of Expert Group on Zoo Designing of Central Zoo Authority held on 30-09-2015 sent by Deputy Inspector General(Head Quarter) to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife. 18 18-11-2015 Approved Revised Master (Layout) Plan of Ambardi Safari Park sent by Deputy Inspector General (Head Quarter) to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife. 19 11-01-16 Shri Biren R. Pandya submits representation to Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority regarding establishment of Ambardi Safari Park 20 27-05-2016 Action Taken Report submitted by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife to Central Zoo Authority on points raised by Central Zoo Authority in its letter dated 24-09-2015. 21 16-02-2016 Judgment by this Hon'ble Court in PIL No.261 of 2015 filed by Shri Biren R.Pandya rejecting the contentions of petition. 22 07-10-16 Application form along with requisite fee submitted by Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gir(East) Division to Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority. 23 23-02-2017 Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority writes to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife to furnish remarks on representation by Shri Biren R. Pandya dated 29-02-2016 24 06-03-17 Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority writes to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife to furnish remarks on representation dated 22-02-2017 by Shri Biren R. Pandya. 25 20-03-2017 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife submit compliance to Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority with respect to its letter dated 23-02-2017. 26 22-03-2017 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife submitted compliance to Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority with respect to its letter dated 03-03-2017. 27 05-06-17 Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority grants final permission for establishment of Ambardi Safari Park.” 9. 26 22-03-2017 Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife submitted compliance to Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority with respect to its letter dated 03-03-2017. 27 05-06-17 Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority grants final permission for establishment of Ambardi Safari Park.” 9. By referring to above dates and events, it is stated that the present petitioner has made detailed representation to respondent No.6 on the alleged violations of the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the disturbance to the lion habitat and on such representation, the respondent No.6 has addressed a communication dated 23.02.2017 to the respondent authorities and has sought clarification/explanation on the issues raised by the petitioner and the 4th respondent by letter dated 21.22/03/2017 has submitted a detailed reply to the letter dated 23.02.2017, wherein it was categorically stated by the authorities that by establishment of Ambardi Safari Park, riverine corridors of Asiatic lions are not disturbed. Moreover, it was stated that the objective of the respondent authorities for establishment of Ambardi Safari Park was to reduce the tourist pressure in the western Gir region, which is the only recognized tourism zone at Sasangir. In the reply, reference is made to the proceedings of Technical Committee of Zoo Authority in its 83rd meeting. Referring to the details of Gir, which is one of the oldest sanctuaries in India, it is stated that development of Ambardi Safari Park has been going on since the year 2009-2010 and the respondents have spent almost Rs.1235.06 lakhs. On the development of the park, it is stated that huge public money has been spent for the park to reduce the pressure on the western part of Sasangir. Further, it is stated that by opening of Safari Park, which is in accordance with the National Zoo Policy of 1998, it will confer the following benefits. “A. The opening of Ambardi Safari Park will be in consonance with the National Zoo Policy of 1998. B. That it will create awareness about protection of wild animals, wild life, flora and fauna. C. At present the only place to visit lions in State of Gujarat is Gir Sanctuary located on the western side of Sasangir and Devaliya Safari Park. Every year around 5 lacs tourists and wild life animal lovers visit these places. B. That it will create awareness about protection of wild animals, wild life, flora and fauna. C. At present the only place to visit lions in State of Gujarat is Gir Sanctuary located on the western side of Sasangir and Devaliya Safari Park. Every year around 5 lacs tourists and wild life animal lovers visit these places. D. The above places have so much of rush of tourists that it is necessary to reduce the flow of tourists so that pressure on infrastructure in an around Gir Sanctuary and Devalaya Safari Park is reduced. E. That this Ambardi Safari Park is situated near the famous religious places and hence the tourism industry is expected to flourish with the establishment of Ambardi Safari Park. F. That this area has 386 hectors which is fully covered and fenced. The atmosphere in the fenced area will be conducive for the habitat of Asiatic lions. G. It is pertinent to mention here that in Sakkarbaug Zoo located within the local limits of Junagadh city there are about 58 lions and lionesses which are kept in the zoo. Out of these lions and lionesses, 2 lions and 1 lioness will be brought into this Ambardi Safari Park. As these lions are brought up in zoo since their birth, they do not have that hunting instinct which normally a lion living in a forest normally possess. These lions would be brought into this Ambardi Safari Park and would be allowed to roam freely till sunset. As these lions are unaware about hunting skills and are practically alien to hunting habitat of wild animals, the zoo administration will look after their food and other needs. They would provide food according to the necessity and on scientific basis. During the day time the lions will be permitted to move in the safari and the tourist will have the opportunity to see the lions. In evening they would be placed in the cage after providing them supper by zookeeper.The movement and well being will be constantly monitored and watched closely by staff and forest officials. Lions will not be disturbed in any manner or will not be put to any inconvenience by the tourists. H. To tourists will be permitted to move around in the safari park on a prescribe route only. Strict vigilance will be maintained by the officials. Lions will not be disturbed in any manner or will not be put to any inconvenience by the tourists. H. To tourists will be permitted to move around in the safari park on a prescribe route only. Strict vigilance will be maintained by the officials. I. It is submitted that aforesaid will maintain a fine balance of maintaining wild life, educating people about taking care of wild life which will entail in the development of the entire area of safari park. The respondent authorities are confident that the Safari Park will be a heaven for wild life as well as tourist and will be in a position to cater needs and habitats of both. J. It is submitted that Ambardi Safari Park is identical to Devaliya Safari Park. The advantages of Ambardi Safari Park far outweigh any so called damage. It is submitted that there is no damage in any manner to environment, wild life and to the Asiatic lions. K. It is submitted that the State Government is wedded to maintain and preserve the Asiatic pride and the efforts of State Government indicate that population of lions has grown with every passing year. L. The petitioner acting as a pro bono publico may also appreciate that those who have resorts and hotel facilities in surrounding area of Gir Sanctuary may not like that other lion safari is opened up. M. It is submitted that the process of starting Ambardi Safari park had commenced way back in the year 2005. More than 12 years have passed since then. Even experts on this subject of national and international repute have extensively studied the pros and cons of establishment of a new Safari Park. There have been detailed correspondences, site visits, study reports, discussion, exchange of ideas and meetings over a period of time. The Communication dated 05.06.2017 whereby the permission for establishment of zoo has been granted by respondent no. 6 is culmination of such detailed exercise undertaken during the period of time. It is not a decision taken on the spur of moment or without any basis or logic. Extensive studies have taken place and thereafter an expert body has granted the permission. It is submitted that as against this the petitioner who has the larger interest may appreciate that the decision is taken after due deliberation by experts in the field. It is not a decision taken on the spur of moment or without any basis or logic. Extensive studies have taken place and thereafter an expert body has granted the permission. It is submitted that as against this the petitioner who has the larger interest may appreciate that the decision is taken after due deliberation by experts in the field. N. The anxiety and apprehension of the petitioner, who claims to be nature lover and environmentalist, is without any basis and is surprisingly contrary to the views expressed by the experts of the field. It is respectfully submitted by the respondent authorities that there is no error in decision making process in any manner whatsoever. O. It is respectfully submitted that the foundation of the present petition is that the representation of the petitioner forwarded to Central Government has not been considered by the authorities. In this regard it is submitted that the facts are contrary to the averments raised by the petitioner. The petitioner's representation is forwarded to Central Government. In turn the central government forwarded the same to the state authorities on 23.02.2017. The State Government has responded to the representation of the petitioner and forwarded comments to Central Government on 21.22/03/2017, which it appears to have been accepted by them. Therefore it is not as if the petitioner's representation has remained unattended for which a second PIL is necessitated. The larger interest of society requires that the State Government should be allowed to proceed with the permission granted by respondent no. 6 dated 05.06.2017.” 10. In the reply affidavit, it is further stated that Ambardi reserve forest area is admeasuring 1735.93 hectares, whereas the area of Ambardi Wildlife Interpretation Zone is admeasuring 386.00 hectares only. Therefore, the remaining area admeasuring 1349.93 hectares is very much available for migration of wild Asiatic lions. Referring to the incident of human deaths, it is stated that Ambardi Wildlife Interpretation Zone was already completed in 2014 whereas the deaths of humans were caused in the years 2015 and 2016. While denying the various allegations, it is pleaded that the present petition filed by way of Public Interest Litigation is a sponsored litigation by the hotel industries around Sasangir, apprehending that they will be adversely affected by the establishment of new Safari Park, as such, at their instance, the litigation is initiated. While denying the various allegations, it is pleaded that the present petition filed by way of Public Interest Litigation is a sponsored litigation by the hotel industries around Sasangir, apprehending that they will be adversely affected by the establishment of new Safari Park, as such, at their instance, the litigation is initiated. With regard to the allegation of capturing of lions, it is stated that some lions were captured and kept inside temporarily. It is pleaded that whenever a man-animal conflict is reported, the Forest Department has to control the situation and in such circumstances, the Forest Department has to cage the wild animals temporarily and release in some other area, so that these animals may be settled there. It is stated that lions, which were temporarily caged, were released in other suitable areas. Specific denial is made to the allegation that free ranging wild animals belonging to Schedule1 are detained inside the park. 11. The Member Secretary has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the 6th respondent, the Competent Authority i.e. Central Zoo Authority. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that Central Zoo Authority, on receipt of the complaint of the petitioner, has forwarded it to the Chief Wildlife Warden of Gujarat to offer his comments. Thereafter, another representation dated 22.2.2017 was also forwarded to Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat vide letter dated 6.3.2017. The Chief Wildlife Warden, Gujarat vide letters dated 20.3.2017 and 22.03.2017 offered his comments. Thereafter, matter was placed before the Technical Committee of Central Zoo Authority in its 83rd meeting, which has considered the comments. Thereafter, the Technical Committee in its meeting dated 19.5.2017 decided to grant recognition to the Ambardi Wildlife Interpretation Zone (Ambardi Safari Park) under section 38H(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for a period upto 18.5.2019, based on the compliance report received from the State authorities and said decision was taken as per the recognition of Zoo Rules, 2009. It is stated that as much as the Technical Committee has considered the points raised by the present petitioner and further, Central Zoo Authority in its 29th meeting held on 19.6.2017 has granted post-facto approval of the recognition, no case is made out for grant of relief as sought for. It is stated that as much as the Technical Committee has considered the points raised by the present petitioner and further, Central Zoo Authority in its 29th meeting held on 19.6.2017 has granted post-facto approval of the recognition, no case is made out for grant of relief as sought for. It was pleaded that the initial permission by Zoo Authority dated 21.5.2008 was subject to certain conditions and also subject to obtaining orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 9.1.2009. 12. Affidavits-in-rejoinder were filed to the reply affidavits filed by the 4th respondent and 6th respondent. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated his plea that Central Zoo Authority has not inspected the site to verify the presence of free ranging wild animals before granting final approval to Ambardi Safari Park. It is stated that Central Zoo Authority generally inspects the sites before granting final approval. However, based on the inspection made on 20.8.2015, around two years prior to grant of final approval, permission is granted to Ambardi Safari Park. It is further stated that many herbivorous animals covered under Schedule1 of the Act have been detained by constructing chain link fencing around their natural habitat. It is stated that though several objections were raised and representations made, same were not considered. 13. In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is pleaded that decision of Central Zoo Authority is contrary to section 38H of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and same runs contrary to the Zoo Policy of the Government of India. It is stated that several objections raised by the petitioner were not considered and there was no physical evaluation of Safari Park and site inspection before grant of recognition and certain relevant reports were not considered by the authority before granting final approval. 14. Further affidavit sworn on 3.8.2017 by the Member Secretary of the Central Zoo Authority was filed on behalf of respondent No.6. 14. Further affidavit sworn on 3.8.2017 by the Member Secretary of the Central Zoo Authority was filed on behalf of respondent No.6. In the further affidavit, on the allegation of the petitioner that two independent members of the Technical Committee namely, Shri Vivek Menon and Mr.Kartick Satyanarayan have informed the petitioner that the objections of the petitioner were not considered, it is stated the matter of Ambardi Safari Park was firstly placed in the 44th meeting of the Technical Committee of CZA held on 23.1.2017, wherein it was decided that a team of some members of the Technical Committee may visit the site of the proposed Safari Park for making final decision on the proposal. Accordingly, a team consisting of Shri S.K.Patnaik, Member of Technical Committee, CZO, Shri S.C.Sharma, Former Member Secretary, CZO and Dr.Rommel Mehta, Professor, Department of Landscape Architecture, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi visited the site on 24.11.2013. At that point of time, Shri Kartick Satyanarayan and Shri Vivek Menon were not even members of the Technical Committee of Central Zoo Authority. It is stated that the issue of establishment of Ambardi Safari Park was taken up in the 47th meeting of the Technical Committee held on 18.2.2008, wherein Shri Kartick Satyanarayan was present as one of members of the Technical Committee. The Technical Committee members approved inprinciple permission for establishment of Safari Park at Ambardi and in the 74th meeting of the Technical Committee held on 22.5.2015, the Master (Layout) Plan of Ambardi Safari Park was approved by the Technical Committee in presence of Shri Kartick Satyanarayan and Shri Vivek Menon as members of the Technical Committee. Though the said two persons were present in the meeting, they did not express their desire or intention to visit the park and as per the decision of the Technical Committee, the Member Secretary has constituted a team for field appraisal comprising of Shri S.K.Patnaik, Member, Technical Committee and Shri S.C.Sharma, Former Member Secretary, Central Zoo Authority and the team visited the site on 20.8.2015 again. By referring to the representation of the complaint of the petitioner, it is stated that same was placed before the Technical Committee, which has unanimously decided to grant recognition to Ambardi Safari Park and the minutes of the meeting were circulated to all the members of the Committee. At this stage also, two members have not expressed any reservation. By referring to the representation of the complaint of the petitioner, it is stated that same was placed before the Technical Committee, which has unanimously decided to grant recognition to Ambardi Safari Park and the minutes of the meeting were circulated to all the members of the Committee. At this stage also, two members have not expressed any reservation. It is reiterated that the representation of the petitioner was considered after receipt of the comments from the 4th respondent and ultimately prayed for dismissal of the petition. 15. Heard Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Nandish Thackar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel and Advocate General assisted by Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader as well as Mr. Prakash Jani, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate General with Ms.Manisha Lavkumar Shah, Senior Counsel and Government Pleader assisted by Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents Nos.2 to 5 and also Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents Nos.1 and 6. 16. Mr. Navin Pahwa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to various provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, submitted that the impugned order of recognition is passed contrary to section 38H(4) of the Act and the guidelines issued by the Government of India. He submitted that though the respondents have not complied with the conditions imposed in the order of approval dated 21.5.2008, the impugned recognition order is passed, without considering valid and tenable objections raised by the petitioner. He further contended that there is no recording of satisfaction by the Competent Authority, as required under section 38H(4) of the Act. He submitted that if Ambardi Safari Park is established, it will eventually wipe out free ranging wild lion population in and around the vicinity of Ambardi area and it would choke the riverine corridors of Asiatic lions. He further submitted that though the authorities ought to have made an inspection before issuing the recognition order, no such inspection was made prior to issuing the recognition order. He further submitted that though the authorities ought to have made an inspection before issuing the recognition order, no such inspection was made prior to issuing the recognition order. He further submitted that Shetrunji river is 20 meters away from the fence of the proposed Safari Park and the river falls in the proposed eco-sensitive zone of the Gir Sanctuary and if Safari Park is established, it would lead to large scale ecological imbalance and would cause irreparable damage to free ranging wild Asiatic lions. In support of his argument that no reasons are recorded for rejection of objections raised by the petitioner in the impugned order, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 . 17. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr. Devang Vyas appearing for the respondents Nos.1 and 6, submitted that impugned order is in conformity with the policy of Government of India, which is aimed at conservation of the rich biodiversity of the country, particularly the wild fauna and conservation of endangered wild life and there is no illegality in issuing the impugned order by the Competent Authority under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. He submitted that after making necessary inspection and after calling the remarks from the competent authorities, on representation filed by the petitioner, impugned order is issued. 18. Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel and Advocate General assisted by Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Mr. Prakash Jani, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents Nos.2 to 5, submitted that there is no diversion of forest land for any other purpose. The proposed Safari Park, is in conformity with the National Zoo Policy. Learned Advocate General submitted that even while granting approval for establishment of Safari Park vide proceeding dated 21.5.2008, certain conditions were imposed and only after complying with necessary inspections and conducting inquiry, recognition is granted. He submitted that after approval granted by the Competent Authority, entire area was fenced by spending huge sums of money. Learned Advocate General submitted that even while granting approval for establishment of Safari Park vide proceeding dated 21.5.2008, certain conditions were imposed and only after complying with necessary inspections and conducting inquiry, recognition is granted. He submitted that after approval granted by the Competent Authority, entire area was fenced by spending huge sums of money. Learned Advocate General further submitted that order impugned is an administrative order by the Competent Authority, which is issued after deliberations on the issue by the members of the Technical Committee and as such, it cannot be faulted, only on the ground that detailed reasons are not recorded in the order. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment in the case of M/s Mahavir Jute Mills Ltd., Gorakhpore, Vs. Shri Shibban Lal Saxena and Others reported in (1975)2 Supreme Court Cases page 818 and also in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Saleena reported in (2016)3 Supreme Court Cases page 437. He submitted that establishment of Ambardi Wildlife Interpretation Zone does not attract the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the State Government and its authorities are not acquiring any wild animal for display purpose and only zoo bred Asiatic lions will be displayed in the Interpretation Zone. He further submitted that ecotourism is not categorized under restricted category in eco-sensitive zone. 19. Before we consider various contentions advanced by learned counsels appearing on both sides, we deem it appropriate to refer to the requirements of law for establishment of zoo under section 38H of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. In view of the provisions under section 38H(1A) of the Act, prior approval from the Competent Authority is required before establishing a zoo. After establishment of zoo, there is a provision for grant of recognition under section 38H(4) of the Act. 20. In this case, it is not in dispute that at the first instance, proposals were sent by the State authorities to the Competent Authority as early as on 28.12.2005, proposing to establish Safari Park in Ambardi, Dhari, District Amreli. Pursuant to such proposals, prior approval for establishment of Safari Park was granted vide proceeding dated 21.5.2008 by imposing certain conditions. Though such approval proceeding was challenged before this Court by the petitioner earlier by way of Public Interest Litigation, same was not interfered with and the petition was rejected. Pursuant to such proposals, prior approval for establishment of Safari Park was granted vide proceeding dated 21.5.2008 by imposing certain conditions. Though such approval proceeding was challenged before this Court by the petitioner earlier by way of Public Interest Litigation, same was not interfered with and the petition was rejected. This Court has observed that if any objections are there, such objections can be considered by the Central Zoo Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his representation to Zoo Authorities placing various objections. On such representations filed before the Central Zoo Authority, remarks were called for from the 4th respondent and 4th respondent has replied by commenting on the objections raised. Thereafter, entire material was placed before the Central Zoo Authority. Said authority after considering the material placed before it has issued the impugned order. The impugned order is only a recognition order, as contemplated under section 38H(4) of the Act. The word 'recognition' used under section 38H(4) of the Act means only to take cognizance of existing fact. On a holistic view of the provisions of section 38H of the Act, it is clear that one has to take prior approval before establishing Safari Park and once the approval is granted for establishing Safari Park with certain conditions, its second stage is recognition, as contemplated under section 38H(4) of the Act. The limited scope of inquiry at the stage of section 38H(4) of the Act appears to be compliance of conditions and other requirements, before it is allowed to start. 21. It is the case of the petitioner that after reconstitution of Central Zoo Authority, without making an inspection, impugned recognition order is issued. At this stage, it is to be noted that reconstitution of Zoo Authority is not the subject matter of this petition. After reconstitution, the Central Zoo Authority has considered the entire material placed before it and passed the impugned recognition order. At first instance, the Technical Committee of the authority has looked into the matter and on satisfaction of the compliance of conditions imposed in the approval order passed under section 38H(1) of the Act, recognition order was issued. After the Technical Committee's approval, post-facto approval is also granted by the Central Zoo Authority. The recognition is a consequential step on satisfaction of fulfilling the conditions imposed under section 38H(1) of the Act and the scope of inquiry is also limited. After the Technical Committee's approval, post-facto approval is also granted by the Central Zoo Authority. The recognition is a consequential step on satisfaction of fulfilling the conditions imposed under section 38H(1) of the Act and the scope of inquiry is also limited. It is true that the petitioner has raised objections, but on the representations filed by the petitioner, the Central Zoo Authority has called for the remarks from the 4th respondent and only after remarks were submitted by the 4th respondent, matter was placed before the Competent Authority, which has issued the impugned recognition order. As rightly contended by learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State that, the fact that no detailed reasons are recorded in the order itself is no ground to invalidate the order. In view of the limited scope of inquiry in the impugned proceeding, at the stage of recognition, when entire material was placed before the Competent Authority, the order cannot be invalidated only on the ground that objections of the petitioner were not reflected in detail in the order. 22. In the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 , it is a case where license to construct cinema hall by the Commissioner of Police was cancelled without recording reasons. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the order passed by the Statutory Authority cannot be considered in the light of the explanation subsequently given by the officer making the order on what he meant, or what was in his mind or what he intended to do. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. It is the case of cancellation of license. When the authorities are empowered to cancel the license already granted with certain conditions, no reasons are required to be recorded while cancelling the same and in that context, such observations were made. Having regard to the nature of issue which falls for consideration in this Public Interest Litigation, we are of the considered view that said ratio cannot be applied to the facts of this case. Having regard to the nature of issue which falls for consideration in this Public Interest Litigation, we are of the considered view that said ratio cannot be applied to the facts of this case. In the case on hand, it is to be noted that prior approval for establishment of Safari Park was granted in the year 2008 subject to certain conditions and the limited scope of inquiry for recognition is for the satisfaction of the authority on the compliance of conditions and other requirements contemplated under the law. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that above judgment would not render any assistance in support of the case of the petitioner. 23.On the other hand, in the judgment in the case of M/s Mahavir Jute Mills Ltd., Gorakhpore, Vs. Shri Shibban Lal Saxena and Others reported in (1975)2 Supreme Court Cases page 818, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that administrative decisions are not generally required to be accompanied by statement of reasons. On the perusal of the file, which is produced on record, we are satisfied that the entire material was placed before the Zoo Authority and it appears that only after considering relevant aspects, Central Zoo Authority has issued the impugned order of recognition. 24. The apprehension of the petitioner that establishment of Ambardi Wildlife Interpretation Zone would affect eco-sensitiveness of zone also cannot be accepted for the reason that, no material is placed before this Court to accept said contention. Further, Government of India, in its letter dated 31.5.2006, has also clarified that establishment of Ambardi Safari Park does not attract the provisions of Forest Conversation Act, 1980. From the material placed before this Court and the averments made in the reply affidavits also, it is clear that on several occasions, the team constituted for the purpose has visited the site and also submitted its report. Considering the entire material on record and taking a holistic view, we are of the view that any interference would not be in the public interest at this stage. It is also to be noticed that huge public money has been spent for fencing and other required infrastructure, for starting the Safari Park. In that view of the matter, any interference at this stage would not be in public interest, so as to grant the relief as prayed for in this petition. It is also to be noticed that huge public money has been spent for fencing and other required infrastructure, for starting the Safari Park. In that view of the matter, any interference at this stage would not be in public interest, so as to grant the relief as prayed for in this petition. We are also satisfied from the record that wild animals are not acquired for display purpose and zoobred Asiatic lions will be displayed in the Ambardi Wildlife Interpretation Zone. It is also clear from the proceeding dated 20.3.2017 issued by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Gujarat State that ecotourism is not categorized under restricted category in eco-sensitive zone. 25. Further, as per the conditions in the order dated 21.5.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also granted permission in I.A. No.10 of 2008 in Writ Petition (C) No.47 of 1998 vide order dated 9.1.2009. 26. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that no case is made out for grant of relief as prayed for in this petition. This Writ petition(PIL) is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.