Environmental Foundation Ltd. v. Minister of Public Administration and Six Others

The petitioner, a public interest environmental law and advocacy organization, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the authorisation issued by the Director, Department of Wild Life Conservation (2nd respondent) granted to the 3rd respondent to possess and display 30 species of mammals, reptiles and birds in a zoo. It was contended that it was an offence to have in one’s possession 26 species of mammals, reptiles and birds listed in the permit except for the purpose of protection, preservation, propagation, scientific study or investigation, unless the Zoo was a National Zoo. The petitioner contended that in the circumstances, the authorization was illegal, null and void. The respondents contended that the petitioner had no locus standii to make the present application. They submitted that the writ could be applied for by an aggrieved party, or by a member of the public if he had sufficient interest to make the application. The petitioner on the other hand submitted that it had as its objectives the protection of nature and the conservation of its riches. It was genuinely concerned with the implementation and enforcement of the law relating to nature, its conservation and the environment in general and was performing a duty cast on it by Article 28(f) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, to protect nature and conserve its riches. The court noted that the provisions of Chapter VI did not confer or impose legal rights or obligations and were not enforceable in any Court or Tribunal. However, there were decisions both here and abroad which had expanded the principle of locus standi to include an applicant who could show a genuine interest in the matter complained of and who came before Court as a public spirited person, concerned to see that the law was obeyed in the interests of all. Nevertheless, the Court would not listen to a mere busybody who was interfering in things which did not concern him. But it would listen to anyone whose interests were affected. In any event, if the application was made by a mere stranger, the remedy is purely discretionary. The Court retained the discretion to refuse to act at the instance of a mere stranger if it considered that no good would be done to the public. It concluded that as a party genuinely interested in the matter complained of, the petitioner had the locus standi to make this application. Furthermore, it emphasized that any person aggrieved by the revocation of a permit had the right to appeal to the Minister, and the decision of the Minister was final and conclusive. The court would not interfere with an order except in the circumstances where the order made was not within the power conferred on the person making such decision, the person making such decision had not followed a mandatory rule of law or failed to observe rules of natural justice. The petitioner had not satisfied court that this was the case. If the owner of the Zoo had breached the conditions in the permit the petitioner had the right to make representations to the Director of Wild Life Conservation, for necessary action. Since breach of the conditions in the permit was a matter which court was not in a position to monitor continuously, it would not make orders it could not effectively enforce. The application was dismissed.