CITES compliance challenge fails where lawful import was authorised and no violation was proved.

A writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions for action over alleged CITES non-compliance was rejected because the alleged violation was not substantiated. The Court noted that a Special Investigation Team had already examined the matter and found no breach of domestic or international law, and that the CITES Secretariat document also showed no evidence of import without required documentation or for commercial purpose. It further held that an import made under valid permission cannot later be treated as prohibited merely because objections are raised afterwards, particularly where disturbing the custody and welfare of lawfully imported living animals may itself amount to cruelty. No ground for the requested regulatory directions was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking directions regarding alleged violation of CITES-related permissions and regulatory action against the concerned respondents disclosed any ground for interference under Article 32.

Analysis: The reliefs sought were founded on alleged non-compliance with CITES documentation and sought production of records, constitution of an independent committee, regulatory proceedings under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and interim restraint on further imports. The subject matter had already been examined by a Special Investigation Team constituted by the Court, whose report had been accepted and had recorded no violation of domestic or international law. The relied-upon CITES Secretariat document also recorded that there was no evidence of import without requisite CITES documentation or import permits, and no evidence of commercial purpose. The Court further held that an import made under valid permission cannot later be treated as prohibited merely because objections are subsequently raised, and noted that unsettling the custody and environment of lawfully imported living animals may itself amount to cruelty.

Conclusion: No ground for the requested directions was made out, and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge failed on merits because the alleged CITES violation was not substantiated and the prior lawful import could not be retrospectively invalidated on the basis of later objections.

Ratio Decidendi: An import carried out under valid permission cannot be treated as prohibited retrospectively merely because objections are raised later, especially where the competent inquiry has found no violation of law.

---