GUWAHATI, May 27 ? The ghost of a ?Barking deer?, a protected species under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1986, may sound the political death knell of Mizoram Excise Minister, Pu K Vanlalauva. The Gauhati High Court disposed of a PIL, yesterday and directed the Mizoram Chief Secretary to take appropriate action within a month, as the Division Bench opined that prima facie offences have been committed under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and the rules.
The Chief Justice, P P Naolekar and Justice I A Ansari were hearing a PIL field by C Thangmura and supported by P Vanlalthlana of the PUCL, (Mizoram branch), who sought the High Court?s intervention in the matter. It was argued by K N Choudhury, Hrishikesh Roy, N Singha and K Goswami, advocates, that a ?Barking deer? was entrusted to the Excise Minister by one Up. Hranghleikapa of Samphai on June 14, 2000, for holding over to the Mini Zoo at Aizawl. The minister carried the deer in his government vehicle (MZ-01-2082) to Aizawl but didn?t hand over the animal to the zoo.Later on, it was found that the deer was killed and cooked for dinner in the residence of the minister. The issue was widely raised in the Mizoram media and eventually an enquiry into the incident was conducted. Thereafter, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Mizoram sent a report on July 7, 2000 to the Chief Secretary mentioning that offences under Section 39(3)(a) and 48(A) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 have been committed by K Vanlalauva, the Excise Minister and Pu Hranglkikapa of Champai, for acquiring, possessing and transporting the deer without authority and sought permission from the Chief Secretary for dealing with the offences committed. It was alleged by the petitioners that because of support to the minister by the Mizoram Chief Minister, no proceeding could be taken against the offenders.
Because of the failure of the Government to proceed against the minister, the petitioners approached the High Court in a PIL seeking the Court?s intervention for taking action against the offences under the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1986. The Division Bench of the High Court after hearing the advocates for the petitioner and A Dasgupta, Mizoram government advocate, opined that the offences appear to have been committed under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and declared that the Chief Secretary is bound to follow the law in the matter and cannot refuse to perform his duties on extraneous guidance and directions. Accordingly, the High Court directed the Mizoram chief Secretary to take appropriate steps within a month by acting on the report of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Mizoram, who sought Government?s permission for dealing with the offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.