JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The above two writ petitions, being in the nature of public interest litigations, were initially posted before the bench of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, who by his order on the administrative side thought it apposite to post these matters before this bench. It is thus that these matters were taken up by us for consideration and disposal on merits. Brief Facts: 2. The petitioners before us are essentially aggrieved by the action of the respondent State Government in issuing notifications in terms of Section 40 (4) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as the “1972 Act”] that permitted a celebrated film actor from the State to declare two pairs of Ivory Tusks and 13 Ivory artifacts before the Chief Wild Life Warden of the State, and the subsequent action of the State Government in issuing ownership certificates to the said person in respect of the same Ivory items in terms of Section 42 of the 1972 Act. It would appear that criminal proceedings had already been initiated against the respondent actor, at the instance of certain complainants, and those proceedings were pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, when the State Government exercised its power under Section 40 (4) of the 1972 Act in favour of the respondent actor. Although in these writ petitions, there is a prayer seeking a direction to the official respondents of the State to expedite the said criminal proceedings, we find that those proceedings are well underway and there are presently a Criminal Revision Petition and Criminal Miscellaneous Cases, that arose therefrom, that are pending consideration before this Court. We do not, therefore, propose to consider the said prayer in these proceedings and the said prayer is accordingly rejected. 3. We do not, therefore, propose to consider the said prayer in these proceedings and the said prayer is accordingly rejected. 3. The challenge to the permission granted under Section 40 (4), and to the ownership certificate granted in terms of Section 42 of the 1972 Act, is premised on two contentions, namely (a) that the power under Section 40 (4) of the 1972 Act was not exercised in the manner prescribed under the Statute since the notifications in question were not published in the official gazette; and (b) that even if the notification granting permission to declare the items was valid, there was no proper enquiry as to whether the possession of the Ivory articles by the respondent actor was lawful in terms of the 1972 Act. It was in respect of the above two issues that we heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either side. The submissions made before us: 4. The submissions of Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the writ petitions, briefly stated, are as follows: - The notifications issued by the State Government that permitted the respondent actor to submit declarations as mandated under Section 40 (1) of the 1972 Act in respect of the Ivory tusks and artifacts in his possession were not published in the official gazette as mandated under Section 40 (4) of the 1972 Act. Therefore, the notifications cannot be seen as resulting from a valid exercise of the State Government’s power under the statutory provision and are hence illegal and unenforceable in law. Consequently, the respondent actor could not have obtained any benefit such as immunity from prosecution or an entitlement to ownership certificates in respect of the Ivory tusks and artifacts in his possession. Consequently, the respondent actor could not have obtained any benefit such as immunity from prosecution or an entitlement to ownership certificates in respect of the Ivory tusks and artifacts in his possession. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Rajendra Agricultural University v. Ashok Kumar Prasad and Others – [ (2010) 1 SCC 730 ] ; Sammbhu Nath Jha v. Kedar Prasad Sinha and Others – [ (1972) 1 SCC 573 ]; Poonam Verma and Others v. Delhi Development Authority – [ (2007) 13 SCC 154 ]; I.T.C Bhadrachalam Paperboards and Another v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. and Others – [ (1996) 6 SCC 634 ] - Alternatively, even if the notifications in question are seen as valid and enforceable, the authorities under the 1972 Act could not have issued a valid ownership certificate in respect of the Ivory tusks and artifacts to the respondent actor, because the enquiry contemplated under Sections 41 and 42 of the 1972 Act read with Rules 35 to 37 of the Kerala Wild Life (Protection) Rules, 1978 would have rendered it impossible to grant the said ownership certificates to the respondent actor who could not have demonstrated that his possession of the Ivory tusks and artifacts was lawful in nature. This was more so because criminal cases had already been registered against the respondent actor for the unlawful possession of the said artifacts. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Pyarelal v. The State (Delhi Administration) – [AIR 1995 SC 1159]; Wildlife Warden v. Komarrikkal Elias – [(2018) 8 SCC 114]; Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Thiruvananthapuram and Another v. Secretary, Paramekkavu Devaswom – [ 2015 (3) KHC 351 (DB)]; Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others v. Union of India and Others – [(2003) 7 SCC 589]; Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala and Others – [2023 (4) SCALE 442]. 5. Per Contra, the submissions of the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution Sri.Grashious Kuriakose appearing for the State, and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar, assisted by Adv.Sri.K.R. Radhakrishnan Nair appearing for the respondent actor, briefly stated, are as follows: - That merely because the notifications issued in terms of Section 40 (4) of the 1972 Act were not notified in the official gazette, the said notifications would not be illegal or unenforceable. This was more so because the notifications were given due publicity by circulating it among all those mentioned in the notification itself as also to the press. That apart, since there was no scope for anyone to object to the declaration being made by an individual person, the absence of publication in the gazette could not be seen as causing prejudice to any person or to the general public. For the same reason, the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain public interest litigations is also questionable. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. Ltd v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore – [AIR 1962 SC 562]; Municipal Board, Sitapur v. Prayag Narain Saigal and Firm Moosaram Bhagwandas – [ (1969) 1 SCC 399 ]; B. K. Srinivasan and Another v. State of Karnataka and Others – [ (1987) 1 SCC 658 ]; Collector of Central Excise v. New Tobacco Co. – [(1998) 8 SCC 50]. - In the alternative, it is submitted that the term “official gazette” is not defined under the 1972 Act and hence going by the definition of the phrase under the General Clauses Act, 1897 that defines “official gazette” as meaning the Gazette of India or the Official Gazette of a State, the notifications in the instant cases have to be seen as published in a gazette of the State of Kerala. It is pointed out that a “gazette” is defined to mean an official newspaper in which acts of State, appointments, notices of bankruptcy and other legal matters are reported and hence the notifications in the present case, which were published in the website of the State Government must be seen as satisfying the requirement of publication in the official gazette. It is further pointed out that by a Government order dated 18.06.2021 in the State Higher Education Department, the State Government has notified its proposal to effect future gazette publications through the e-gazette portal of the State and therefore the publication of the notification through electronic media should be seen as satisfying the requirements of the 1972 Act. Discussions and Findings: 6. Before we proceed to analyse the arguments of the learned counsel referred to above, we might notice the statutory provisions against the backdrop of which that analysis has to be undertaken. Discussions and Findings: 6. Before we proceed to analyse the arguments of the learned counsel referred to above, we might notice the statutory provisions against the backdrop of which that analysis has to be undertaken. Sections 39 , 40, 40A, 41 and 42 of the 1972 Act read as follows: Section 39 : 39. Wild animals, etc., to be Government property.— (1) Every— (a) wild animal, other than vermin, which is hunted under section 11 or sub-section (1) of section 29 or sub-section (6) of section 35 or kept or bred in captivity or hunted in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder or found dead, or killed by mistake; and (b) animal article, trophy or uncured trophy or meat derived from any wild animal referred to in clause (a) in respect of which any offence against this Act or any rule or order made thereunder has been committed, (c) ivory imported into India and an article made from such ivory in respect of which any offence against this Act or any rule or order made thereunder has been committed; (d) vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool that has been used for committing an offence and has been seized under the provisions of this Act, shall be the property of the State Government, and, where such animal is hunted in a sanctuary or National Park declared by the Central Government, such animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal or any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool used in such hunting shall be the property of the Central Government. (2) Any person who obtains, by any means, the possession of Government property, shall, within forty-eight hours from obtaining such possession, make a report as to the obtaining of such possession to the nearest police station or the authorised officer and shall, if so required, hand over such property to the officer-in-charge of such police station or such authorised officer, as the case may be. (3) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer— (a) acquire or keep in his possession, custody or control, or (b) transfer to any person, whether by way of gift, sale or otherwise, or (c) destroy or damage, such Government property. Section 40 : 40. (3) No person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer— (a) acquire or keep in his possession, custody or control, or (b) transfer to any person, whether by way of gift, sale or otherwise, or (c) destroy or damage, such Government property. Section 40 : 40. Declarations.— (1) Every person having at the commencement of this Act the control, custody or possession of any captive animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, or animal article, trophy or uncured trophy derived from such animal or salted or dried skins of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, shall, within thirty days from the commencement of this Act, declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer the number and description of the animal, or article of the foregoing description under his control, custody or possession and the place where such animal or article is kept. (2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession, sell, offer for sale or otherwise transfer or transport any animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or any uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal, or the salted or dried 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 authorised officer. (2A) No person other than a person having a certificate of ownership, shall, after the commencement of the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, except by way of inheritance. (2B) Every person inheriting any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy under sub-section (2A) shall, within ninety days of such inheritance make a declaration to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer and the provisions of sections 41 and 42 shall apply as if the declaration had been made under sub-section (1) of section 40: Provided that nothing in sub-sections (2A) and (2B) shall apply to the live elephant. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall apply to a recognised zoo subject to the provisions of section 38-I or to a public museum. (4) The State Government may, by notification, require any person to declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer any animal or animal article or trophy (other than a musk of a musk deer or horn of a rhinoceros) or salted or dried skins derived from an animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II in his control, custody or possession in such form, in such manner, and within such time, as may be prescribed. Section 40 A: 40A. Immunity in certain cases.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 40 of this Act, the Central Government may, by notification, require any person to declare to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer, any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy derived from animals specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II in his control, custody or possession, in respect of which no declaration had been made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 40, in such form, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed. (2) Any action taken or purported to be taken for violation of section 40 of this Act at any time before the commencement of the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 shall not be proceeded with and all pending proceedings shall stand abated. (3) Any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy declared under sub-section (1), shall be dealt with in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. Section 41 : 41. Inquiry and preparation of inventories .— (1) On receipt of a declaration made under section 40, the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer may, after such notice, in such manner and at such time, as may be prescribed,— (a) enter upon the premises of a person referred to in section 40; (b) make inquiries and prepare inventories of animal articles, trophies, uncured trophies, salted and dried skins and captive animals specified in Schedule I and Part II of Schedule II and found thereon; and (c) affix upon the animals, animal articles, trophies or uncured trophies identification marks in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) No person shall obliterate or counterfeit any identification mark referred to in this Chapter. Section 42 : 42. Certificate of ownership.— The Chief Wild Life Warden may, for the purposes of section 40, issue a certificate of ownership in such form, as may be prescribed to any person who, in his opinion, is in lawful possession of any wild animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy and may, where possible, mark, in the prescribed manner, such animal article, trophy or uncured trophy for purposes of identification: Provided that before issuing the certificate of ownership in respect of any captive animal, the Chief Wild Life Warden shall ensure that the applicant has adequate facilities for housing, maintenance and upkeep of the animal. Rules 35 to 37 of the Kerala Wild Life (Protection) Rules, 1978 that were promulgated by the State Government in exercise of its rule making powers under Section 64 of the 1972 Act, read as follows: Rule 35: 35. Declarations.- Notwithstanding any declaration that a person may have made under subsection (1) of section 40, any person who has in his control, custody or possession, any animal, animal article or trophy (other than the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros or salted or dried skins derived from an animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II to the Act shall, make a declaration on or before 30 th day of September 1991 in Form No.13 to the Chief Wild Life Warden or an Officer authorised by him in this behalf (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer. Rule 36: 36. Enquiry and preparation of inventories.- (1) On receipt of declaration under rule 35 or under subsection (1) of section 40, the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer shall give a notice within a period of 30 days in Form No.14 and such notice shall be served on the person making the declaration or sent to him by Registered Post. (2) The Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer shall make an inventory in Form No.15 of such animals or objects found upon the premises. (3) The Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer shall affix upon the objects referred to in sub-rule (2), identification marks in indelible ink or paint. Rule 37: 37. (2) The Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer shall make an inventory in Form No.15 of such animals or objects found upon the premises. (3) The Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer shall affix upon the objects referred to in sub-rule (2), identification marks in indelible ink or paint. Rule 37: 37. Certificate of Ownership.- The Chief Wild Life Warden may, for the purposes of section 40, issue a certificate of ownership in Form No. 16 to a person who, in his opinion is in lawful possession of any animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy. 7. The Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 was promulgated by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 40A(1) and (3) read with Section 63 of the 1972 Act. Since in these proceedings, we are not dealing with the legality of the exercise of power by the Central Government under Section 40A of the 1972 Act, we do not deem it apposite to extract the provisions of the 2003 Rules. The reference to the 2003 Rules is made merely to indicate the similarity in the nature of proceedings envisaged under the Act to regularise an irregularity noticed in any person’s possession of an animal article or trophy. 8. What is apparent from a reading of the statutory provisions extracted above is that the wildlife protection laws in our country mandate that there shall be no trade or commerce of wild animals, animal articles or trophies. Such animals, animal articles and trophies are to be seen as the property of the State Governments concerned with effect from the date of commencement of the 1972 Act and no person shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer, either acquire or keep in his possession, custody or control, or transfer to any person, whether by way of gift, sale or otherwise, or destroy or damage such government property. Section 40 of the 1972 Act obliges a person having control, custody or possession of such government property at the commencement of the Act to declare the same within the prescribed time limit of 30 days from the commencement of the Act. If no such declaration is made by such persons, their continued control, custody or possession of the animal, animal article or trophy has to be seen as unlawful. If no such declaration is made by such persons, their continued control, custody or possession of the animal, animal article or trophy has to be seen as unlawful. In the State of Kerala, since the Kerala Wild Life (Protection) Rules were promulgated only in 1976, and it was through the said Rules that the procedure for making the declarations in terms of Section 40 of the 1972 Act was prescribed, the period for making such declarations stood extended up to 30.09.1991 through Rule 35 of the 1976 Rules. It is not in dispute in these proceedings that the respondent actor did not make any declaration in respect of the artifacts in his possession within the time permitted under the 1972 Act or the 1976 Rules. 9. Sub-sections (2), (2A) and (2B) of Section 40 of the 1972 Act deal with the prohibition against acquisition, receipt, keeping in control, custody or possession and commercial alienation or transportation of animals, animal articles and trophies by any person, except by way of inheritance, after the commencement of the 1972 Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 40 is a provision designed to empower a State Government to grant immunity in certain cases, akin to the power granted to the Central Government under Section 40 A of the 1972 Act. Accordingly, if the State Government intends to grant an immunity from proceedings under the Act, to any person or class of persons who have not made a declaration in terms of the 1972 Act, it can require such person(s) to make the declaration by issuing a ‘notification’ containing that requisition. The term ‘notification’ is defined in Section 2(22) of the 1972 Act as meaning a notification published in the Official Gazette. Thus, the statutory scheme mandates that if the State Government intends to permit persons, who have not made any declaration within the period mandated under the 1972 Act or the 1976 Rules, to make such a declaration at a subsequent stage, then it must publish a notification in the official gazette calling upon such person(s) to make such declaration in such manner and within such time as prescribed in the notification. On such persons making the necessary declaration, to the satisfaction of the State Government, and on the State Government accepting the said declaration, the continued control, custody or possession of the animal, animal article or trophy by the declarant becomes lawful for the purposes of the 1972 Act and 1976 Rules. It would then be open to the State Government to grant an ownership certificate in respect of the animal, animal article or trophy to the declarant in terms of Section 42 of the 1972 Act. 10. In these proceedings, while it appears that notifications were issued by the State Government requiring the respondent actor to declare the Ivory tusks and artifacts before it within a stipulated time period, and the respondent actor had complied with the terms of those notifications and obtained ownership certificates in respect of the Ivory tusks and artifacts, the issue that arises is whether the notifications issued by the State Government satisfied the requirements of the 1972 Act ? It is significant in this regard to notice that the State admits that the notifications in question were not published in the official gazette. Their justification, however, is that since adequate publicity was given to the notifications, there was no prejudice caused to any person and hence the non-publication of the notification in the official gazette can only be viewed as a technical irregularity with no legal consequence. 11. We are afraid, we cannot accept the said contention of the State Government. The provisions of Section 40 (4) of the 1972 Act are special provisions that empower a State Government to confer immunity on person(s) who are otherwise to be seen as having breached the provisions of the Act and thereby in unlawful control, custody or possession of an animal, animal article or trophy. The power granted to the State Government under the 1972 Act has therefore to be exercised strictly in the manner prescribed under the Act, and cautiously, keeping in mind the objectives of the Act. If a statutory power is not exercised in the manner prescribed under the Act, then that power cannot be seen as having been exercised at all [ Nazir Ahmad v. The King-Emperor – [ AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)] ] . If a statutory power is not exercised in the manner prescribed under the Act, then that power cannot be seen as having been exercised at all [ Nazir Ahmad v. The King-Emperor – [ AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)] ] . That apart, as noticed by the Supreme Court in B.K.Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka – [ (1987) 1 SCC 658 ] , when a Statute requires Rules to be published in the official gazette, such publication is a mandatory condition for the Rules to become operational. Highlighting the rationale for such action it was observed that ‘unlike parliamentary legislation which is publicly made, delegated or subordinate legislation is often made unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister, a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary. It is, therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to take effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not……. [W]here the parent statute prescribes the mode of publication or promulgation that mode must be followed.’ In the same vein, in I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. and Others – [ (1996) 6 SCC 634 ] where the issue that arose for consideration was whether the government order which did not comply with the mandatory requirement of publication in the gazette could be relied upon by a person who acted upon it, to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel against the Government and claim the benefit under the government order on the ground that it contained a representation held out by the Government to the members of the public, it was observed that the statutory requirement relating to publication of the government order in the gazette was mandatory, and that where an enactment requires an act (making a government order) to be done by the Government only in the manner prescribed therein, then non- compliance with the mandatory statutory requirement will make the act (making of a government order) invalid and consequently, the government order cannot be considered a valid and binding one, nor as a representation held out by the Government, creating any right to seek the benefit of that government order by invoking the principle of promissory estoppel against the Government. 12. 12. We have chosen to rely on the judgment in I.T.C. Bhadrachalam (supra) solely to repel the argument of the State Government that the lapse on its part, in not publishing the notifications in the official gazette, was a mere technical irregularity with no legal consequence. The judgments relied upon by the State Government, as noticed above, are clearly distinguishable on facts. The said judgments were rendered in particular contexts where it was found, as a matter of fact, that there was no prejudice caused to the general public on account of the non-publication in the gazette. The aspect of improper exercise of power and consequent legal invalidity of the notifications was not gone into in the said judgments. We are also not impressed with the contention raised on behalf of the respondent actor that the publication of the notifications in the electronic media would tantamount to sufficient compliance with the requirements of the 1972 Act. In our view, when the statutory provisions clearly state that the publication of the notification must be in the official gazette, the publication has to be in the official gazette of the State either in print format or in the electronic format. In the light of the clear provisions of the Statute, we cannot venture to provide any alternate meaning to the term “gazette” as contended by the respondents. The effect of not exercising a statutory power (of issuing a notification) strictly in the manner prescribed under the statute is that the notifications in question will have to be seen as ‘stillborn’ and unenforceable. For the same reason, a publication of the notifications in the official gazette at this belated stage will not have the effect of legitimising the actions taken by the respondent actor or the State Government, pursuant to the said notifications since the de facto doctrine cannot be invoked in respect of notifications that are declared as illegal and unenforceable from the very inception. 13. As regards the objections regarding locus standi of the petitioners to maintain these public interest litigations, we might only refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. v. Federation of NOIDA Residents Welfare Association & Ors. 13. As regards the objections regarding locus standi of the petitioners to maintain these public interest litigations, we might only refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd. v. Federation of NOIDA Residents Welfare Association & Ors. – [ (2025) 6 SCC 717 ] where the Court observed that the rules of standing are essentially designed to weed out frivolous litigation from courts and to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of the court. While public interest litigations serve as effective tools for addressing the grievances of the public, it must be carefully scrutinised to prevent misuse or abuse by those with ulterior motives. The courts must look beyond the surface to assess whether the litigation has been genuinely initiated in the interest of the public or as a result of mischief. This is because the essence of PIL lies in its aim to remedy genuine public wrongs or injuries rather than being driven by personal vendetta or malice. On the facts of the instant cases, we find that the petitioners were essentially aggrieved by the legal mala fides occasioned by the State in exercising a power that they have in favour of the respondent actor without following the mandatory procedure that was a pre-requisite for the exercise of the power. Under such circumstances, the object of the writ petitions was essentially to remedy a genuine public wrong or injury and we do not see the writ petitions as being driven by personal vendetta or malice. 14. We therefore conclude by holding that the Government orders dated 16.12.2015 and 17.02.2016 are void ab initio and legally unenforceable. However, while striking down the said Government orders, as also the ownership certificates dated 16.01.2016 and 06.04.2016 issued to the respondent actor pursuant thereto, as illegal and unenforceable, we refrain from dealing with the arguments advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners as regards the manner in which the power to issue the ownership certificates in question were exercised. We feel that any finding on the said issues might prejudice the respondent actor in the criminal proceedings that are pending against him. We feel that any finding on the said issues might prejudice the respondent actor in the criminal proceedings that are pending against him. We would only observe that the State Government is at liberty to issue a fresh notification, in terms of Section 40 (4) of the 1972 Act, for conferring the immunity envisaged under the said provision, to persons or class of persons envisaged under the statutory provision. The Writ petitions are allowed as above. No Costs.