The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Friday put off till December 31 the hearing of a petition that challenged legality of special permits issued to the Arab dignitaries for hunting endangered wildlife when the federal government told it that it was going to request chief justice to constitute a larger bench to hear the case.
A division bench headed by Justice Sajjad Ali Shah had taken up a petition filed by Lal Khan Chandio and Rahib Kalhoro who pleaded to the court to declare the issuance of special permits to the Arab dignitaries illegal and order suspension of the same.
The petitioners’ counsel had submitted that the federal government had issued licenses to various Arab dignitaries for hunting the endangered houbara bustard (locally know as Tiloor) in violation of the international laws. This was not the first time the government had issued the permits but this illegal act was being perpetuated for many years, he added.
He said houbara bustard also figured on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) list as vulnerable and feared to be decreasing by 30 percent a year in Pakistan alone.
He said this bird was declared to be among endangered species in 1912 and a permanent ban on its hunting was placed in 1971. Although a ban already existed, another ban was imposed on hunting in 1992, albeit with provision of special temporary license for Arab royals. He said this provision was also struck down by the court in 1993 when it was approached but the practice of hunting was still continuing unabated.
On Friday, Salman Talibudin, deputy attorney general, submitted that hunting of the endangered wildlife was not permitted in the areas declared as Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks. However, under Section 16 of the Sindh Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1972, the government may declare any area as game reserve, where hunting and shooting of wildlife shall not be allowed except special permits, which may specify the maximum number of animals or birds that may be killed or captured.
He stated that the SHC’s judgment regarding hunting of endangered wildlife passed in 1993, which the petitioners’ counsel were relying on, was against the standpoint of the federal government as certain provisions including the section 16 were not discussed, which allowed the government to issue permits. He added the government wanted to raise new points which were not discussed in the above-mentioned judgment.
“We are bound to follow the judgment, snapped the member of the bench,” adding the bench had to abide by the judgments issued by this court earlier.
Salman stated that various provisions were not properly discussed earlier and requested the judges to adjourn the matter to enable him to file application for constitution of a larger bench to decide the case once for all. While granting his request, the court adjourned the hearing till Dec 31.
