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

of 2012 In the Matter of : Naresh Kadyan Versus UOI & Ors INDEX S.No. Particulars 1. 2. 3 4. 5. 6 7 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 Opening sheet Notice of Motion Urgent Application List of dates and events
Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003

Petitioner Respondents Court Fees Page no.

3.00

RTI Petition before CBSE Online Petition duly supported by the

50.00

International communities. Notice under section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Pharmacy Council of India letter to use alternatives. CPCSEA letter

Vakalatnama Through Counsel for Petitioner Rajender Yadav, Advocate, rajallb@gmail.com 09213366970

New Delhi 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 : Sh. Naresh Kadyan Versus UOI & Ors Respondents Petitioner

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 Dt.23.04.2012. Counsel for Petitioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITON (C ) No. of 2012 In the Matter of : Naresh Kadyan Versus UOI & Ors MEMO OF PARTIES Naresh Kadyan, C-38, Rose Apartment, Prashant Vihar, Sector -14, Rohini, New Delhi 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 Respondents Petitioner

.Petitioner

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 Dt.23.04.2012 Counsel for Petitioner 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 Versus UOI & Ors Respondents Petitioner

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 Honble Chief Justice and His companion justice of the Honble 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 campaigns 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 animals 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 Honble 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 Honble 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 Schools 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 Honble 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