Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 396 (TRI)

Sudipa Nath v. Union of India

2022-11-07

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J. - Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard all parties. 2. The above PIL petition is filed by practicing advocate in public interest with prayers to seek a direction restraining transfer and transportation of captive bred Elephants from Northeast India and in particular from the States of Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh to an Elephant Camp of respondent No.3 and the petitioner further seeks an order directing an inquiry into past transfers and transport of Elephants from North Eastern States. 3. In support of the prayers sought, the petitioner has relied upon a news report in the Hindu to show that there are several elephants in captivity in North East States of India particularly in Tripura, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner also relies upon a news article in www.nenow.in which refers to letters of wildlife organization. The petitioner submits relying on the article that many groups in these States are known to capture Elephants from the wild and force them into captivity for the purpose of selling them. The petitioner submits that the State of Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh propose to transfer around 30 Elephants between them to an Elephant Camp established by the respondent No.3 in Jamnagar, Gujarat. The petitioner submits that the Supreme Court by an interim order dtd. 4/5/2016 passed in Writ Petition No.743 of 2014 has restrained authorities from issuing certificate of ownership for captive Elephants and has further restrained their transfer outside their State. The petitioner submits that despite this order, transfers have been made in the past and in support of the said submission the petitioner relies upon a news report of eastmojo, a news website. The petitioner also submits that Elephants from the North East must not be transferred to a warmer climate in Gujarat. In this regard, the petitioner also relies upon an order dtd. 25/6/2019 passed by the Guwahati High Court in PIL No.39 of 2019 by which the authorities were directed to reconsider an order permitting transport of an Elephant for a religious procession. 4. The petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is a Trust with uncertain financial capacity. The petitioner further submits that he was unable to locate the Camp and find any setup or infrastructure to support large number of Elephants. 4. The petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is a Trust with uncertain financial capacity. The petitioner further submits that he was unable to locate the Camp and find any setup or infrastructure to support large number of Elephants. The petitioner submitted various different types of actions that according to him the respondent No.3 is doing at the Camp which amounts to subjecting the Elephants to cruelty. The petitioner has strenuously urged us to direct the authorities to reclaim the Elephants from the respondent No.3 to remove them from what according to the petitioner is a life of torture, suffering and cruelty. 5. On behalf of the respondent No.3, a written submission is tendered by Ld. Advocate. The respondent No.3 has relied upon permissions from authority with respect to establishment of its camp. The respondent No.3 submits that it is a no-profit organization. The respondent No.3 submits that it does not intend to convert the Camp into any sort of zoo or carry out any commercial activity whatsoever. The respondent No.3 has relied upon an order dtd. 6/6/2022 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.10688 of 2022 with respect to the respondent No.3's camp and transfers of Elephants to their camp. The respondent No.3 has relied upon an order of the Supreme Court dtd. 1/8/2022 by which the order dtd. 6/6/2022 of the Karnataka High Court is confirmed. While denying the petitioner's allegations regarding lack of facilities and subjecting the Elephants to torture or cruelty, the respondent No.3 has relied upon photographs annexed to the Counter of its camp to show the high scale and standards of facilities that is provided to Elephants at the camp. 6. The respondent No.3 has submitted that it has considered the request to receive at its camp, from respective private owners in Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh, 23 Elephants. It is submitted that the respondent No.3 only accepts Elephants after verification of their Certificate of Ownership and taking necessary permissions. It was further submitted that while the 23 Elephants have been considered by them for the Camp, in respect of some Elephants from Tripura the respondent No.3 is itself in the process of verification. It is submitted that the respective owners are unable to maintain these Elephants and, therefore, proposed to transfer them to the respondent No.3 for their lifelong care. It is submitted that the respective owners are unable to maintain these Elephants and, therefore, proposed to transfer them to the respondent No.3 for their lifelong care. The respondent No.3 has submitted that except receiving the Elephants there is no monetary element in the transaction. The respondent No.3 has also submitted that the petitioner has misunderstood the scope and purport of the order dtd. 4/5/2016 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.743 of 2014. 7. Rival contentions now fall for determination. We have gone through the record and the relevant legal provisions. 8. Before dealing with the rival contentions, we have considered for ourselves the issue whether the law permits transfer of captive Elephants from one person to another. In this regard, we found a complete answer in an order dtd. 6/6/2022 passed by the Division Bench of the Kanataka High Court in Writ Petition No.10688 of 2022 and in particular, the following portion:- '14. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3. 15. We have also perused the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (said Act). The Indian Elephant-Elephas Maximus stands at Sr. No.128 of Schedule I of the said Act. Sec. 40 of the said Act deals with Declarations to be made by persons in possession of animals or animal article. The portion of Sec. 40 relevant to us reads as under: '(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 skins of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, except with the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer. [(2A) No person other than a person having a certificate of ownership, shall, after the commencement of the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 (16 of 2003) 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-sec. (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 Secs. 41 and 42 shall apply as if the declaration had been made under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 40: Provided that nothing in sub- Secs. (2A) and (2B) shall apply to the live elephant.]' 16. Thus while no person other than one having a certificate of ownership can acquire, receive or keep any animal from Schedule I in his possession as per Sec. 40(2A), the proviso in the Sec. carves out exception in case of live Elephants. This permits private individuals to have ownership over live Elephants. Next Sec. 43 states that no person having in his possession any captive animal shall transfer the animal by way of sale or transaction of a commercial nature.' 17. The case of the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent should not have allowed transfer of the 4 Elephants from Karnataka is based on an article from a newspaper website. The article when read itself shows that the four female Elephants mentioned therein belonged to a private family. We find from the article itself that the private family had first acquired the Elephant in pursuance of their offer to take care of them as they were then circus Elephants. Since the handlers were unable to look after them they were sought to be returned. The Respondent No.3 appears to have given them refuge. We do not find any transaction of a commercial nature in this. Even otherwise it is not the case of the Petitioner that the transaction was of a commercial nature. 18. In such cases where the Elephants are or were privately owned, the question of involvement of Forest Authorities in minimal and limited only to the extent of granting a transfer permit in accordance with Rule 125-e of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. 18. In such cases where the Elephants are or were privately owned, the question of involvement of Forest Authorities in minimal and limited only to the extent of granting a transfer permit in accordance with Rule 125-e of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. We therefore find nothing wrong with the relocation of the Elephants to the Respondent No.3. We also do not see anything wrong in other instances of transfers private Elephants which are loosely stated in the Petition. In fact the only aspect relevant for relocation of an Elephant which is privately owned is the consent of the person in whose possession the Elephant is, such consent having been given without any element of commercial transaction. Once such consent is given it is incumbent on authorities to grant transfer permits in accordance with law.' 9. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. This view is confirmed by the Supreme Court vide its order dtd. 1/8/2022 in SLP No.12246 of 2022. We are satisfied that law permits a private owner of a captive Elephant to transfer the same as long as the transaction is not of a commercial nature. 10. We only add that we are also of the view that, not just should there be an absence of exchange of consideration in the transfer, but purpose of the eventual transfer should also, should not be of a commercial nature. That means the person or body to which the Elephant is being transferred should not put the Elephant to any commercial use. It has to be ensured that Elephants are not put to use or transferred out of the States for any commercial activity like doing labour, participating in parades, ceremonies, tourist safaris, rides, circus, begging etc. as these would be in the realm of commercial nature. 11. We now consider the case of the petitioner. 12. We would first consider whether the interim order dtd. 4/5/2016 bars authorities from issuing ownership certificates and transfer permissions. The part of the said order on which the petitioner relies is as under:- 'Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate that the submission raised in both the interlocutory applications shall be dealt with while dealing with the three submissions that have been raised by Mr. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Animal Welfare Board. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Animal Welfare Board. While we are of the view that the said issues raised shall be dealt with at the final stage of hearing, we think it apt to direct that the State Government shall not issue any ownership certificate to any of the persons in possession of elephants. That apart, the persons who are in possession of elephants shall not transfer the elephants outside the State nor shall they part with the elephants by way of transfer in any manner. If any ownership certificate has been issued in the meantime, the same shall be withdrawn subject to the final verdict of this Court.' 13. We have gone through the entire order dtd. 4/5/2016 and several orders prior and subsequent thereto which have been passed by the Supreme Court in the said Writ Petition No.743 of 2014 and Interim Applications filed therein. Having gone through the same, we are unable to agree with the contention of the petitioner that the interim order dtd. 4/5/2016 is a bar against the respondent authorities from issuing ownership certificates and transfer permissions. 14. It appears from the order dtd. 4/5/2016 itself that it was passed on Interim Applications No.25 and 27 taken out in Writ Petition No.743 of 2014. The relevant part is as under:- 'UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER I.A. Nos.25 and 27 In these two interlocutory applications, though numerous prayers have been made, the basic relief, as we perceive, relates to quashing of G.O. (Rt)No.84/2016/F&WLD dtd. 26/2/2016 issued by the Government of Kerala, Respondent No.9 and cancellation of any ownership certificate issued in pursuance of the said notification.' 15. The scope of the Interim Applications, therefore, was the Government order dtd. 26/2/2016 issued by the State of Kerala. The said Government order dtd. 26/2/2016 has been produced in the Written Submission filed by the respondent No.3. The said Government order appears to have permitted grant of Certificate of Ownerships for 289 captive Elephants in an amnesty scheme. The said Government order was assailed by virtue of the above two Interim Applications in Writ Petition No.743 of 2014 and in that context, the Supreme Court directed the State Government i.e. the State Government of Kerala not to issue any Certificate of Ownership with regard to the said Elephants. 16. The said Government order was assailed by virtue of the above two Interim Applications in Writ Petition No.743 of 2014 and in that context, the Supreme Court directed the State Government i.e. the State Government of Kerala not to issue any Certificate of Ownership with regard to the said Elephants. 16. In fact from several prior orders passed in Writ Petition No.743 of 2014, it appears that directions were issued by the Supreme Court to contain the meting out of cruelty to Elephants either in temples or tourist sites. In fact by a subsequent order dtd. 1/11/2018 the Supreme Court has directed issuing of provisional Certificate of Ownership to even those Elephants. 17. We are, therefore, of the clear and considered view that the order dtd. 4/5/2016 was passed only with respect to 289 captive Elephants in the State of Kerala. The said order dtd. 4/5/2016 passed in Writ Petition No.743 of 2014 would not apply to other captive Elephants or other States except the 289 captive Elephants in the State of Kerala. 18. The petitioner also submitted before us for various reasons that the Elephants at the respondent No.3's camp must be reclaimed and inquiry into transfers be ordered. We are afraid we cannot pass such an order as sought by the petitioner. This issue is final and settled by the judgement of the Karnataka High Court as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Those orders in fact this impose an obligation on the respondent No.3 to take care of Elephants, once accepted, for their lifetime. The Karnataka High Court in its order, at paragraph 26(i) of its order directed that 'The Elephants that are in the custody and care of the respondent No.3 Trust, shall till the end of their respective lives, be continued to be given the same care and facilities as specified in the Counter filed in these proceedings'. It is therefore not open for any Elephant under the custody of the respondent No.3 to be shifted out of the respondent No.3's camp. 19. This takes us to the petitioner's next contention that several groups in North East undertake the activity of capturing young Elephants and selling them. The petitioner expresses an apprehension that Elephants proposed to be transferred to respondent No.3 would or could be such Elephants. 19. This takes us to the petitioner's next contention that several groups in North East undertake the activity of capturing young Elephants and selling them. The petitioner expresses an apprehension that Elephants proposed to be transferred to respondent No.3 would or could be such Elephants. In the present case, the petitioner has not supplied material particulars with respect to the 30 Elephants cited in the Petition. The respondent No.3 has listed out the names and microchip numbers of 23 Elephants and stated that at present they are only considering these 23 Elephants of which ones from Tripura are being verified. 20. The respondent No.3 has strongly opposed the above contention of the petitioner and submitted that it has conveyed acceptance or is considering only those Elephants for which there exists a valid Certificate of Ownership and permissions from the relevant authorities. The respondent No.3 has also submitted that several Elephants are of older ages and even sub-adults are more than 5 years old, therefore, the respondent No.3 submits that the allegation of capturing the Elephants from the wild is a fanciful allegation made without any supporting material whatsoever. 21. We are broadly in agreement with the submissions of the respondent No.3 on this aspect. We also find such a contention of the petitioner to be totally speculative with no supporting material. The fact that the 23 Elephants are referred to with their microchip numbers would indicate that these are captive Elephants. Moreover, it is not disputed that Certificates of Ownership under Sec. 42 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are issued in respect of these Elephants by the competent authorities. Their ages also indicate to us that these are not young calves captured from the wild. The act of issuing such Certificate is an official act and no evidence or reason much less a convincing one is before us to not go by the statutory presumption under Sec. 114(e) of the Evidence Act,1872 that such official action has been regularly performed. 22. However, insofar as the petitioner's apprehension as a general concern that Elephants should not be captured from the wild, we are of the view that directions in this regard can certainly be given to a specialized statutory body viz. Project Elephant. 22. However, insofar as the petitioner's apprehension as a general concern that Elephants should not be captured from the wild, we are of the view that directions in this regard can certainly be given to a specialized statutory body viz. Project Elephant. Notably, Project Elephant was launched by the Government of India in 1992 as a centrally sponsored scheme with the objectives of protecting elephants, addressing man and animal conflicts and welfare of captive elephants. 23. The next set of submissions of the petitioner were allegations regarding cruelty and the incapacity, inexperience or so to say incompetence of the respondent No.3 to take proper care of the Elephants, lack of proper or enough food, lack of veterinarian care, proper staff and so on. Since no material whatsoever was placed before us in this regard we are unable to express any view on the allegations. The respondent No.3 strongly opposed this aspect of the petitioner's case. It was submitted before us that the respondent No.3 is carrying out the objective of welfare of Elephants in utmost good faith. 24. The respondent No.3 place strong reliance on the order dtd. 6/6/2022 passed by the Karnataka High Court to state that the Court found the Trust to be a bona fide Trust carrying out a laudable object. Respondent No.3 has specifically brought to our attention the following paragraph of the said order: '19. The Petitioner's case about preference being given to Respondent No.3 Trust and its capability required attention. We have gone through the Counter and the presentation submitted across the Bar. We have also perused photographs of the Elephants themselves and the facilities of the Respondent No.3 Trust. We are satisfied that the Respondent No.3 is a bonafide Trust which is carrying out a laudable object. To satisfy our conscience, we intend to bind the Respondent No.3 to its statements made in the Counter and also across the Bar and give directions in this regard at the end of our judgement.' 25. While we are broadly in agreement with the submissions of the respondent No.3 and find such allegations of the petitioner to be totally speculative and unsupported by any material, at the same time, we believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant and, therefore, we propose to pass certain directions in this regard which could very well clear the air either way. We are of the view that it would be in the interest of all concerned, especially the Elephants and perhaps even for the Trust if a detailed verification by a body of competent persons and experts is carried out as we propose to do by this order. 26. The last submission of the petitioner was that the captive Elephants must not be transferred from North East States to Jamnagar, Gujarat, which according to the petitioner is almost an arid desert and the climate there is more warmer. It was also submitted that the long journey would be torturous to the Elephants. The respondent No.3 has shown to us several aspects of its facility which is catering to about 172 Elephants at present to show that weather conditions are not adverse to the interests of the Elephants. The respondent No.3 has also relied upon past transfers from long distances and submitted that these transfers have taken place under expert and professional supervision with no harm to the Elephant. According to us the above and other rival contentions give rise to disputed questions of facts which as a writ court, we cannot determine. Despite this, we propose to take care of these contentions as well in our final directions. 27. To our minds, the following disputed questions arise from the petitioner's allegations, albeit, without material, but pertinent enough to us and allegations that must be ascertained by the authorities, if nothing then out of caution, before transfer of these 23 Elephants; a. Whether there exists any transaction of a commercial nature in the transfer of any of the 23 Elephants in question? b. Whether Elephants at the Elephant Camp of respondent No.3 are subjected to any form of cruelty? c. Whether permissions granted to the Elephant Camp of the respondent No.3 are in force and valid as on date? d. Whether the infrastructure and facilities of the Elephant Camp of the respondent No.3 are conducive to housing captive Elephants for lifelong care? e. What is the current status of housing, food and veterinary care being provided to the 23 Elephants by their respective owners? f. Whether there is sufficient veterinary care adhering to a standard of reasonable care available at the Elephant Camp of the respondent No.3? g. Whether the Elephant Camp of the respondent No.3 has sufficient infrastructure and space to accommodate the proposed 23 Elephants? f. Whether there is sufficient veterinary care adhering to a standard of reasonable care available at the Elephant Camp of the respondent No.3? g. Whether the Elephant Camp of the respondent No.3 has sufficient infrastructure and space to accommodate the proposed 23 Elephants? h. Whether the respondent No.3 has sufficient cash flow or financial capacity to manage existing and 23 additional proposed Elephants? i. Whether there exist sufficient, competent and qualified staff to manage the care of the existing and 23 additional proposed Elephants? j. Whether the Camp of the respondent No.3 is of a commercial nature and is operated for any commercial purpose? k. Whether there is any mechanism to ensure no cruelty is meted out or mismanagement occurs in relation to the Elephants at the camp of the respondent No.3? l. Whether climatic conditions at the Elephant Camp of the respondent No.3 are conducive to Elephants? m. Whether the Elephants at the camp of respondent No.3 are handled using humane and proper techniques? n. What are the causes of casualties, if any, at the Elephant Camp of the respondent No.3 and whether such causes are on account of any action, omission or breach of standard duty of care by the respondent No.3? o. Whether the transfer of the 23 Elephants to the Elephant Camp of the respondent No.3 will be in the interest of some or all of the said Elephants after conducting a comparative analysis of the existing status and quality of housing, food and veterinary care being provided by their respective owners and to be provided by the respondent No.3? p. As transfer of the proposed 23 Elephants would require their relocation to another place, whether on overall assessment of all factors, the transfer would be in the paramount interest of the Elephant? 28. As stated earlier, a writ court would be unequipped to determine disputed questions of facts. However, we propose to form a High Powered Committee (HPC) to be headed by retired Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma who himself is an avid animal lover and has dealt with several matters relating to animals. We further propose to appoint expert members to the said HPC to assist the Chairperson. However, we propose to form a High Powered Committee (HPC) to be headed by retired Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma who himself is an avid animal lover and has dealt with several matters relating to animals. We further propose to appoint expert members to the said HPC to assist the Chairperson. We propose to appoint, the Director General of Forests (Union of India), Head of Project Elephant Division (MoEF) and Member Secretary (Central Zoo Authority of India), the Chief Wild Life Warden (State of Gujarat), the Chief Wild Life Warden (State of Tripura) and the Chief Wild Life Warden (State of Arunachal Pradesh). We further propose that the Chairman of the said HPC shall co-opt an expert having experience about Elephants as a member of such HPC. The Chairman may also consider taking assistance from the Chairman of the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI). 29. The said HPC to be chaired by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma shall treat the questions framed by us in paragraph 27 above as "Terms of Reference' and carry out the necessary fact finding exercise. Thereafter the Chairperson of the HPC shall make his report and provide a copy to all concerned. The Chairperson of the HPC shall then send his recommendation Elephant wise to the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden of the concerned State either recommending or not recommending the completion of the transfers, as the case may be. 30. In case the Chairperson of the HPC recommends that an Elephant or Elephants should not be transferred, then the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden shall take steps to either confiscate the Elephant or take an undertaking from the concerned owner that the Elephant shall be taken care of without any cruelty. In case where such undertaking is taken, the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden shall be bound to monitor the Elephant concerned in regular intervals and take further steps, if necessary, accordingly. 31. In cases where the Chairperson of the HPC recommends that an Elephant or Elephants be transferred to the camp of the respondent No.3, the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden shall ensure that the transfer of the Elephant is undertaken in the most appropriate manner conducive to the Elephants and further the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden shall request the jurisdictional police to ensure smooth passage of the Elephant concerned. Such jurisdictional police shall be bound to render all assistance to ensure smooth passage of the Elephant concerned. 32. Before parting, we would like to record that despite our limited knowledge of the subject, we are conscious of the stark distinction between a Captive Elephant and an Elephant in the wild. In our reading and understanding of the subject, once an Elephant is bred in captivity or is in captivity for several years, the hope of their reintroduction in wild is bleak. A lifetime or even a reasonably long time in sheltered existence is sufficient to incapacitate an Elephant from surviving in the wild. They seldom learn crucial survival skills and are too habituated to human contact. Lacking a natural fear of humans, they are vulnerable to poachers and ill equipped for life in the wild. These creatures become so imprinted with humans and dependent on humans that their survival in the wild becomes next to impossible. In such a situation finding a safe, restful and tranquil home for them must be the paramount consideration of all concerned. If the HPC finds that the camp of the respondent No.3 is such safe, restful and tranquil home then we do not think the Court, authorities or any citizen can come in the way, but if it is not, then the authorities must take all steps to find a safe, restful and tranquil home for Elephants who are in captivity. 33. We are also conscious of the fact that it becomes difficult for private individuals or Forest and Wildlife Departments to take care of captive Elephants for reasons of lack of manpower, finances, space and infrastructure. There is nothing wrong in taking assistance of camps and facilities run by trusts and welfare organizations. However, in all cases the paramount consideration must be the welfare of the Elephants. 34. In view of the aforesaid, we pass the following order:- a. We direct the Project Elephant Division of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change to issue necessary directions to all Chief Wild Life Wardens to take all steps necessary to curb and put to an end, the capturing of wild Elephants, if any, from the wild including:- i. Directing a census of all Elephants in captivity of private persons or Government departments and creation of an inventory of the same with their name, details of ownership certificate, microchip number and photograph. ii. ii. Directing inspection and verification of Certificate of Ownerships of all Elephants in captivity and in case there is no Certificate of Ownership, to either issue a provisional Certificate of Ownership or confiscate the Elephant after carrying out necessary inspection and verification of the history and source of the Elephant. iii. Directing a proper DNA sequencing for new offspring to be conducted so as to identify and prevent capture of young Elephants from the wild. b. We do hereby appoint a High-Powered Committee (HPC) under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Verma (Former Judge, Supreme Court of India). We hereby appoint the following persons (by designation) as members of the said HPC: i. Director General of Forests (Union of India); ii. Head of Project Elephant Division (MoEF); iii. Member Secretary (Central Zoo Authority of India); iv. Chief Wild Life Warden (State of Tripura) for Elephants from State of Tripura; and v. Chief Wild Life Warden (State of Gujarat). c. The Chairman of the HPC shall co-opt an expert having experience of Elephants as a member of such HPC. The Chairman may also consider taking assistance of the Chairman, Animal Welfare Board of India for the purposes of the HPC. d. All other members of the HPC shall render all assistance and for that purpose shall use all powers vested in them including taking assistance of other officers of their respective departments as directed by the Chairman and also to take assistance of the local police as and when necessary, to enable the HPC to carry out the functions requisitioned by this order. e. The members of the HPC shall carry out a thorough and detailed physical inspection of the Trust. They shall be entitled to access and inspect all areas and facilities of the Trust. They shall be entitled to access and inspect all documents of the Trust. They shall also be entitled to interview and question the staff and officers of the Trust. The HPC is requested to carry out the inspection at the earliest and in any case within 10 days from the date of this order. f. The respondent No.3 is directed not to interfere with or restrict the members of the HPC from carrying out their inspection in any manner that they deem fit. The HPC is requested to carry out the inspection at the earliest and in any case within 10 days from the date of this order. f. The respondent No.3 is directed not to interfere with or restrict the members of the HPC from carrying out their inspection in any manner that they deem fit. The Chairman shall be entitled to take assistance of as many professionals, including photographers, videographers, vets, architects as he deems fit, for the purpose of the inspection. g. The respondent No.3 shall render all assistance and provide all necessary arrangements as requisitioned by the Chairman of the HPC for the purpose of the inspection. h. The Chairman of the HPC may direct formation of one or more groups consisting of at least 3 members (of which at least one should be from the HPC and other experts) to carry out a physical inspection at the current location of the 23 Elephants and submit factual findings on such questions as the Chairman may deem fit and proper including on the allegation that they are purported to be captured from the wild. Due regard would be had to the said factual findings in the report. i. The HPC shall in the first instance make a report on the questions in paragraph 27 of this order and it shall endeavour to do the same within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. j. The Chairman of the HPC shall make a report and provide a copy of the same to all concerned preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. k. The Chairman of the HPC shall then forward his recommendation Elephant-wise to the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden either recommending or not recommending the completion of the transfers, as the case may be. l. In case the Chairperson of the Committee recommends that an Elephant or Elephants should not be transferred, then the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden shall take steps to either confiscate the Elephant or take an undertaking from the concerned owner that the Elephant shall be taken care of without any cruelty. In case where such undertaking is taken, the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden shall be bound to monitor the Elephant concerned in regular intervals and take further steps if necessary accordingly. In case where such undertaking is taken, the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden shall be bound to monitor the Elephant concerned in regular intervals and take further steps if necessary accordingly. m. In cases where the Chairperson of the Committee recommends that an Elephant or Elephants be transferred to the camp of the respondent No.3, the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden shall ensure that the transfer of the Elephant is undertaken in the most appropriate manner conducive to the Elephants and further the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden shall request the jurisdictional police to ensure smooth passage of the Elephant concerned. Such jurisdictional police shall be bound to render all assistance to ensure smooth passage of the Elephant concerned. n. In case the Chairman of the HPC finds any other fault or discrepancy, he shall forward its report with necessary recommendation for taking necessary corrective steps or action to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Secretary, Forest Department of States of Gujarat, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh as necessary or deemed fit by the Chairman of the HPC. o. We direct that all police authorities, officers of forest and wild life departments, officers of the Central Zoo Authority, Project Elephant and officers of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, to whom a request for assistance is made by the Chairman of the HPC, shall be bound and liable to render all necessary assistance to the HPC and its members to carry out the functions of the HPC. p. We direct that in order to bring about checks and balances in transfer of Elephants, the HPC shall continue to exist beyond these 23 Elephants and shall be consulted by the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden as the case may be before granting any travel permit. No travel permit shall be granted without the recommendation of the HPC. For such purpose, the HPC shall carry out the exercise it deems fit bearing in mind the observations made and the purport of the present order. q. The costs of the HPC shall, insofar as the costs of the members are concerned, since their appointment is by designation, the costs shall be borne by their respective departments or employing authority. For such purpose, the HPC shall carry out the exercise it deems fit bearing in mind the observations made and the purport of the present order. q. The costs of the HPC shall, insofar as the costs of the members are concerned, since their appointment is by designation, the costs shall be borne by their respective departments or employing authority. r. The Chairman shall be entitled an honorarium of Rs.5,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Lakh Only) and costs of the Chairman shall be reimbursed to him by the respondent No.3 without demur against a Bill of Costs. Such honorarium and costs shall be paid in advance and in any case before the Chairman sends his recommendations to the concerned Chief Wild Life Warden. s. In case the Chairman of the HPC is required to carry out functions under this order beyond the afore-referred 23 Elephants, the Chairman shall convene the HPC with the same composition of respective designations and the HPC shall have the same functions as above and the HPC shall be provided with the same assistance as above. t. In case the Chairman of the HPC is required to carry out functions under this order beyond the afore-referred 23 Elephants, entitled to an honorarium of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees One Hundred Thousand Only) and reimbursement of costs in the same manner as above. Needless to mention that final report will be shared with petitioner and respondent No.3. It would be open for the petitioner as well as authorities to take proper action as per law if any discrepancy is discovered by the High Power Committee in its report. 35. A copy of this order shall forthwith be forwarded by the Registry to Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Verma (Former Judge, Supreme Court of India) and the following officers: i. Director General of Forests (Union of India); ii. Head of Project Elephant Division (MoEF); iii. Member Secretary (Central Zoo Authority of India); iv. Chief Wild Life Warden (State of Tripura) for Elephants from State of Tripura; and v. Chief Wild Life Warden (State of Gujarat). 36. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the directions contained hereinabove.