IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITON (C ) No. of 2012

In the Matter of :

Naresh Kadyan …Petitioner

Versus
UOI & Ors …Respondents
INDEX
S.No. Particulars Court Page
Fees no.
1. Opening sheet

2. Notice of Motion

3 Urgent Application 3.00

4. List of dates and events
5. Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules,
2003
6 RTI Petition before CBSE 50.00

7 Online Petition duly supported by the

International communities.
8. Notice under section 55 of the Wild Life
Protection Act, 1972.
9. Pharmacy Council of India letter to use
alternatives.
10. CPCSEA letter
11.
12.
13.
14 Vakalatnama
Through
New Delhi Counsel for Petitioner
Dt. 23.04.2012 Rajender Yadav, Advocate,
rajallb@gmail.com
09213366970
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITON (C ) No. of 2012

In the Matter of :

Sh. Naresh Kadyan …Petitioner

Versus

UOI & Ors …Respondents

List of Dates and Events

17.04.2012, The PFA along with the Chandigarh Police visited at

Sacred Heart School, sector-26, Chandigarh and found many
endangered scheduled wild animal specimens like cobra snake and
reptile etc; the Respondent No. 8 made complaint, which was
converted to DDR No. 38 dated April 17, 2012 with the sector-26,
Police Station, Chandigarh.
18.04.2012, The UN affiliated the International Organisation for
Animal Protection – OIPA chapter in India moved a petition under
RTI Act, 2005 before the Central Board of Secondary Education –
CBSE through the petitioner.
19.04.2012, The UN affiliated the International Organisation for
Animal Protection – OIPA chapter in India moved a notice under
section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 to the Chandigarh
Police and the Chief Wild Life Warden of UT, Chandigarh through
the petitioner.
20.04.2012, Matter returned back to the UT Police by the Chief Wild
Life Warden of UT, Chandigarh with out taking any legal action
against the offenders.
21.04.2012 The petitioner moved a complaint before the SHO,
sector-26, Police Station, Chandigarh.
22.04.2012 The Chief Wild Life Warden of UT, Chandigarh
confirmed that they have returned back the matter to the
Chandigarh Police on April 20, 2012 for further legal action, as they
are also empowered to take action.

23.04.2012, Hence the present Writ Petition filed.

Through

New Delhi Counsel for Petitioner

Dt.23.04.2012.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITON (C ) No. of 2012

In the Matter of :

Naresh Kadyan …Petitioner

Versus
UOI & Ors …Respondents
MEMO OF PARTIES

Naresh Kadyan,
C-38, Rose Apartment,
Prashant Vihar,
Sector -14, Rohini,
New Delhi ….Petitioner
Vs
1. Union of India,
Through Chief Secretary,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi

2. Ministry of Environment and Forest,

Through its Secretary,
Paryvaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-03

3. Central Board of Secondary Education,

Through Chairman,
"Shiksha Kendra", 2, Community Centre,
Preet Vihar, Delhi - 110 092.

4. Chairman,
University Grant Commission (U G C)
Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi
Pin:110 002
India

5. The Chief Wild Life Warden of UT, sector-19,

Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

6. The Senior Superintendent of UT Police,

Police Head Quarter, sector-9, Chandigarh
Through SHO, sector-26 Police Station.

7. Principal,
Sacred Heart School,
 Sector 26, Chandigarh.

8. The People for Animals, 14, Ashoka Road, New Delhi

Through Smt. Maneka Gandhi.

…Respondents

Through

New Delhi Counsel for Petitioner

Dt.23.04.2012
Rajender Yadav, Advocate,
rajallb@gmail.com
09213366970
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
(CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION)
WRIT PETITON (C ) No. of 2012

In the Matter of :

Naresh Kadyan …Petitioner

Versus

UOI & Ors …Respondents

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA TO AMENDMENT IN THE GUIDELINES OF CBSE & UGC
REGARDING THE SPECIMENS OF ANIMALS IN SCHOOL/COLLEGE
LABS

To,s
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and
His companion justice of the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi.

The humble petition of the

petitioners above named;
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That, the Petitioner is a citizen and inhabitant of India,

representative of OIPA (International Organization for Animal

Protection, Affiliated with the United Nation (Department of

Information) in India / Founder Chairman of the People for

Animals (PFA) Haryana, which is duly recognized by the Animal

Welfare Board of India and Campaigning on Internet via online

petitions to get administrative orders from concerned authorities /

Sharing knowledge / motivating and awaking public towards

animal abuse and all campaign’s were duly appreciated,

 supported and followed by the International communities

Worldwide.

2. That the Petitioner is also compiled a book on animal related laws

in Hindi & its next version in English is under print, running

ambulance & shelter for animals in distress, as many as 40 PIL's

like opposition of Elephant polo, wild life trophies, misuse of

oxytocin injections on milking animals, cruel illegal animal

transportation, misuse of langur, infirmaries, appointment of

Lokpal in Haryana, Human Rights Commission for Haryana,

Unbranded eatables, Satluz Yamuna Link canal etc.

3. Petitioner is the founder chairman of People for Animals Haryana,

(Registered with Haryana Government and recognized by the

Animal Welfare Board of India - AWBI) and also Convener of the

Rastriya Pashu Pakshi Raksha Adhikar Samiti, which is set up

with in Sarvdeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (World Council of Arya

Samaj). The Complainant/ Petitioner is working for the animal’s

welfare for last one and half decades and also having the national

records of FIR of cruelty against the animals. The Complainant/

Petitioner also Endeavour to remove the social ills and inequality

which have creped into the Indian Society and its fabric in the

course of the long periods of subjugation by alien and

unsympathetic rulers and again raise their religion to the pristine

glory which it owned had. The Complainant/ Petitioner submit that

in so doing they are also performing their fundamental duties

imposed upon them by the Constitution. He has lodged two FIRS’

against cattle (cow) transportation through special trains: on 10-

 12-2000 with GRP, Faridabad and on 28-12-2000 with GRP,

Ghaziabad, introduced rehabilitation of kalanders along with their

performing animals scheme, raised his voice against cruel camel

transportation by the BSF to take part in the Republic day parade

in Delhi, moved campaign against insult of the State Emblem of

India along with the National Flag of India, moved first application

under RTI Act, 2005 on October 19, 2005. Working hard to get

replacement of the toothless legislation PCA Act, 1960 with strong

legislation in India, moved PIL against elephant abuse as well

during elephant polo in Jaipur in 2006. He has moved campaign

against blind male Hippo performance in Jumbo circus besides it

successfully opposed lifting ban on beef export from India as

recommended by the Working Group to the Planning Commission

of India.

4. That the Respondent no. 1 is the Union of India and responsible

for all acts of Respondents no 2 to 6.

5. That the Respondent no 2 is environment ministry and

responsible to make rules and implement the rules in India.

6. That the Respondents no. 3 and 4 issues the guidelines for

schools, colleges and educational Institutions in India.

7. That the Respondent no. 5 is the UT Chief wild life warden, the

Respondent no. 7 have to declared their wild animal specimens

cum scheduled wild animal trophies to the Respondent no. 5 to

comply with the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules,

2003.
8. That Respondent no. 6 is the Superintendent of Police of the City

and responsible to issue directions to lodge FIR under his

jurisdiction like Sector 26 Police Station, Chandigarh.

9. That the Respondent no. 7 is private school, where the PFA i.e.

Respondent no. 8 and Chandigarh Police found the endangered

scheduled specimens of animals in laboratory.

10. That the Respondent no. 8 was performed visit at the place of the

Respondent no 7 along with Chandigarh Police.

11. That on Tuesday dated 17.04.2012, the PFA along with

Chandigarh Police visited in the school and found the specimens

of animals in laboratory of Respondent no. 7, which were not

declared as per the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003

before the Chief Wild Life Warden of UT, Chandigarh.

12. That the Principal of the said school, made a statement that our

laboratory is according to the CBSE syllabus and guidelines.

13. That the Respondent no. 3 & 4 is disobeying the section of 17(d)

of the PCA Act, there is binding on all academic institutions that

they use the alternatives methods for the teaching. The Central

government is duly bound to take all such measures as may be

necessary to ensure that the animals are not subject to

unnecessary pain or suffering during or after the performance on

experiment. Now days use the alternatives of CDs etc. the copy of

guidelines issued by the pharmacy council is annexed herewith as

annexure P/1 along with the CPCSEA letter.

14. That the no body is authorized to hunt wild animals nor to keep

their trophies in their custody, as according the Act.

15. That the guidelines issued by the Respondent no. 3 is against the

Act and liable to be amend about animal specimens.

16. That the Respondent no. 5 and 6 both are also not taking any

legal action against the Respondent no. 7, after recovering the

specimen of the scheduled wild animals.

17. That the Respondent no. 8 was performed visit at the place of the

Respondent no 7 and then on their complaint DDR No. 38 was

recorded with the sector-26, Police Station, Chandigarh.

18. That the Petitioner filed application under RTI Act to the CBSE,

the copy is annexed herewith as annexure P/2.

19. That the Petitioner also sent the notice u/s 55 of Wild Life

Protection Act, 1972 to the Chief Wild Life Warden of UT

Chandigarh. The copy is annexed here with as annexure P/3.

20. That the Petitioner has also started a campaigning online petition

on internet addressing the Respondents and the copy of said

petition is annexed herewith as annexure P/4.

21. That the copy of CPCSEA letter is also annexed herewith as

annexure P/5.

22. That the Hon’ble High Court have the jurisdiction as the

Respondents no. 1 to 4 having their head office at New Delhi and

these respondents are responsible to make the guidelines and

rules to the animals and school labs.

23. That this Writ Petition is made bona fide and in the interest of

justice, it is a fundamental duties of every citizen of India as

defined under article 51 A (g) of the Constitution of India.

24. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the inaction on the part

of the Respondent no. 5 and 6, the petitioner begs to move this

petition before this Hon’ble Court because Chandigarh Police

moved the matter for further legal action against the Respondent

no. 7 to the Chief Wild Life Warden of UT, Chandigarh but he also

failed to perform his official duties like UT Police and returned the

matter back to UT Chandigarh Police, where as matter is

unattended and the Respondent no. 7 may got opportunity to

replace the scheduled wild animal specimens.

25. The Indian Express dated April 21, 2012 reporting, which is self

explanatory reproduced as below:

“Chandigarh: The technicalities in the Wildlife Protection Act,

which make it mandatory for schools to obtain possession

certificates from the state Chief Wildlife Warden, seem to

have triggered the controversy pertaining to the recent raid

conducted at Sacred Heart School Sector 26. The issue

surfaced on Tuesday when a team of People For Animals

(PFA) raided the School’s biology lab with a team of police

officials and sealed the laboratory after recovering 31

specimens of animals. These specimens included that of

frog, lizard, cobra and few other species.

As per the rules framed under the Act in 2003, all institutions

including schools were directed to either surrender

specimens of prohibited wild animals included in Schedule 1

of the Act or obtain possession certificate from the state

Wildlife Department. Going by the records available with UT

Chief Wildlife Warden Santosh Kumar, none of the city

schools obtained the certificate within the deadline, when the

ruling came in 2003.

“Although only a particular school had to bear the brunt, the

issue pertains to many schools in the country as they could

not attain the possession certificates. For educational

institutions, there is nothing wrong in preserving these

specimens for research purposes. The anomaly lies in the

interpretation of the technicality in the Wildlife Act by the

schools. However, if the schools send us requests now, we

will certainly recommend their case to the Central

government,” said Santosh Kumar.

Sharing a similar opinion, DPI (Schools) Sandeep Hans said,

“Since the Central government had made provisions for the

schools to take permission for possessing the specimens in

their labs, it is certain that their purpose of keeping these

specimens is valid. Even if the schools failed to comply with

the technical clause, keeping in view the interests of

students, they may be given a chance to apply for the

certificates once again.”

The police, however, have not registered any case. Senior

Superintendent of Police (SSP) Naunihal Singh said, “The

PFA representatives had given us a complaint citing

infringement of the Wildlife Protection Act by the school. So,

on the basis of their complaint, we deputed a team of police

 officials to accompany the PFA representatives to look into

the matter.”

Santosh Kumar, on the other hand, said, “We have returned

the report to the police since they are equally empowered to

pursue the case.”

Prayer:

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may

grant the following relieves:

a) To issue the directions to the Respondents n. 1 to 4 to make the

guidelines or rules according to the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972

read with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 for all

educational Institutions in India.

b) The CBSE guideline about animal specimens be quashed because

there are so many alternatives and CPCSEA, Pharmacy Council of

India issued directions to all concerned to replace animals with

alternative methods.

c) To issue the directions to the Respondent no. 6 to lodge the FIR

against the Respondent no. 7 and the Respondent no. 7 may be

directed to use other alternative for their practical replacing animal

and their specimens.

d) To issue directions to the Respondent no. 5 and the Wild Life Crime

Control Bureau – WCCB set up under the control of the

Respondent no. 2 to investigate the matter that how many

educational Institutions still have scheduled wild animal specimens

in their biological laboratories and from where they procured these

objectionable articles and who is the responsible for poaching?

Or any other/further orders deems fit in the interest of natural justice.

Petitioner

Through

Counsel