The Comptroller and Auditor general (CAG) has criticised the former UDF government for letting a “prominent actor” off the hook after four elephant tusks, all of them undeclared, were fished out of his house in 2011.
The CAG report, which was tabled in the Assembly on Friday, has not named the actor but said the benefit granted exclusively to the actor was a violation of section 40(4) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
According to the Act, every person having in their custody captive wild animals and specified animal articles should declare particulars of such wild trophies to the chief wildlife warden or the authorised officer within 30 days from the commencement of the Act.
Under section 40(4), the state government can ask people, through an official notification, to declare such articles in their custody. Such notifications asking the public to reveal their animal trophies were issued in 1972 when the Act came into force, and then in 1978, 1999, and 2003. There is no record of the actor declaring his possessions in response to these notifications.
But during the 2012-17 period there were two declarations of possession of animal articles by the actor. This came after forest authorities found four tusks at his house. However, the government granted the actor permission on December 16, 2015, to declare the possession of the four articles under section 40(4) issuing an order specifically for the actor.
Three months later, on February 3, 2016, the actor sought permission to further declare 13 artefacts made of ivory or elephant tusks. The actor said they were family heirlooms. The government once again issued an order solely for the sake of the actor.
The CAG has taken strong exception to this differential treatment. The report said an order issued solely for the benefit of a single individual instead of a notification in an official gazette was a violation of section 40(4) of the Forest Protection Act. The report also asked why similar offences, say the illicit custody of stuffed tiger and leopard heads or the possession of elephant tusks and teeth, did not receive such favourable treatment and are still under investigation.
