Wildlife licensing cannot be compelled where trapping amounts to hunting and statutory conditions must be satisfied first.

A licence to deal in captive birds cannot be compelled where the proposed source of supply would require trapping of birds protected under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Act treats trapping as "hunting" and prohibits hunting of animals in Schedules I to IV except as specifically permitted, while the licensing scheme requires the authority to assess the applicant's antecedents, experience, source of supply, and the impact on wildlife. Rules validly framed under the Act form part of the statutory scheme, so compliance with both the Act and the Rules is mandatory before any licence is granted. A court cannot direct grant of a licence when the statutory authority must first determine whether the activity would itself violate the law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a licence to deal in captive birds could be directed to be granted when the source of supply would involve trapping of birds covered by Schedule IV of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and whether the High Court could issue a mandamus compelling grant of such licence.

Analysis: The Act defines "hunting" broadly to include trapping, and by the 1991 amendment section 9 prohibits hunting of wild animals specified in Schedules I to IV except as permitted under sections 11 and 12. Section 44 permits dealing in captive animals only under licence, and the licensing authority must be satisfied about the applicant's antecedents, experience, and the impact of the grant on wildlife. The 1983 Rules further require consideration of the source and manner of supply and the implications of the licence on hunting or trade of the wild animals concerned. Since rules validly framed under the Act form part of the statutory scheme, the authority must ensure strict compliance with the Act and the Rules before granting a licence. A direction to grant licence cannot be issued by the High Court where the statutory authority must itself determine whether the proposed business would involve prohibited trapping or otherwise violate the Act.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in mandating grant of the licence. The direction to issue the licence was set aside, and the licensing authority was left to consider any application in accordance with the Act and the Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a protective statute entrusts licence-granting power to a statutory authority and requires strict compliance with objective statutory conditions, a court cannot compel grant of licence if the proposed activity may violate the statute, including where "hunting" expressly includes trapping.

---