The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday sought a response from the State on a Bengaluru resident's plea challenging the proceedings initiated against him by Criminal Investigation Department’s (CID) Forest Wing for possessing an African grey parrot.
Justice C M Poonacha issued a notice to the Forest Department and the CID’s Aranya Sanchari Dala (Forest Mobile Squad) on a petition filed by R Mahesh Kumar.
Kumar has sought quashing of a notice seeking his presence before the authorities as well as a subsequent document invoking provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 against him.
He has also sought a direction for the bird to be returned to his custody pending consideration of his application for a licence to keep it.
Kumar said he had received the parrot from a close acquaintance in 2018, when it was approximately three years old. He added that the bird had sustained injuries to its wings, leaving it unable to fly normally.
He has claimed that he has been looking after the bird since then, providing medical attention and meeting its upkeep expenses.
One of the bird's wings remains inactive, and he spends approximately ₹6,000 to ₹10,000 every month on its care, the petition states.
The plea alleges that the CID Forest Wing took physical possession of the parrot on July 27 and issued a notice directing him to appear before the authorities and produce documents relating to the bird.
These include its registration certificate, purchase bill, import documents or those required under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and identification proof matching that of the registered owner.
The petitioner subsequently submitted a statement explaining the circumstances in which the bird came into his care.
On July 31, the authorities issued a further document invoking Sections 49D(k), 49H, 49M, 49Q, 50 and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 against him.
Kumar has contended that he never purchased the parrot and was not involved in its sale, breeding or any commercial activity.
He has argued that his intention was solely to protect and care for the injured bird, which would not have been able to survive independently given its physical condition.
The petition alleges that the authorities failed to consider his longstanding efforts to provide medical care to the bird and the circumstances in which he took it into his custody before initiating proceedings against him.
He has further stated that he applied for a licence under the Living Animal Species (Reporting and Registration) Rules, 2024, on September 11, seeking permission to keep the parrot.
Advocate Trivikram S appeared for the petitioner.