Animal rescue

GZRRC Welcomes Supreme Court Decision To Dismiss PIL Against Animal Rescue Center In Jamnagar Of Gujarat

Last update: August 20, 2022, 4:53 PM HST

The Supreme Court had rejected a plea filed by a lawyer seeking to prohibit the acquisition of animals by the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre. (Reuters/File)

Rejecting the plea, a Supreme Court bench said there was virtually no avenue to challenge that the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Center is a recognized zoo as well as a rescue center.

The Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Center Society on Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss a PIL challenging the license granted to a zoo and animal rescue center in Jamnagar, Gujarat.

“We at GZRRC are affected by the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court. We will continue our work for animal welfare. GZRRC is committed to animal welfare, rescue, rehabilitation and conservation as well as providing world-class rehabilitation care to animals that need to be rescued from harsh conditions,” said Dhanraj Nathwani, head of organization, GZRRC.

A bench of judges Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari had rejected a plea filed by a lawyer seeking to prohibit the acquisition of animals by the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre.

The High Court said there was virtually no arguing that the Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Center was a recognized zoo as well as a rescue centre. He said there was no legal invalidity in the granting of recognition to the zoo and the rescue center by the zoo’s Central Authority.

“The Claimant’s allegations regarding the lack of expertise on the part of Respondent 2 or regarding commercialization remain uncertain and it does not appear that the Claimant did the necessary research before moving this tribunal to PIL jurisdiction”, the bench said.

“We are forced to note that the petitioner himself is not an expert in the field and has based the petition simply on reports which, too, do not appear to have been made by the expert. In any case , where the estate is to be cared for and is under the supervision of Respondent No. 1 (Central Zoo Authority), and there is no infirmity on his part, the invocation of the jurisdiction of the PIL cannot be tolerated,” he added.

Read it Recent news and recent news here