Private aquarium maybe flouting Central Zoo Act

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Owner says premises used as treatment centre for injured animals, yet charges fee of Rs 10 to visitors, which makes it a mini zoo without required sanction

Once again, questions have been raised on investigations that the Anti Poaching Unit (APU) on Dolphin Fish Aquarium and Boating Club, Irla Chowk has conducted after TWM’s article ‘Dolphin Aquarium suspected of poaching’. Their search of this fish recreation centre has not only failed to find skins of monitor lizard that the complainant provided proof of, the APU has avoided involving the complainant for the investigations carried out.
About Pics : At the Dolphin Aquarium, monitor skin lizards (inset) have been seen in the past

States Sunish Subramanian, Secretary, PAWS, “During our meet with Satish Phale, Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF), APU in May 27, which had RFO, Vigilance, Rajendra Magdum, PAWS-Mumbai, Member, Mihir Joshi and Owen Misquitta, Director of the aquarium as well as his wife, we were told we could accompany APU for the investigations or visit the Aquarium on the following Saturday.

However, on that day, we were informed that he would be taking only his team of two officers to carry out the investigations at the Aquarium. They ensured that the necessary actions will be taken on the Aquarium for poaching and keeping illegal wild animals in captivity under the guise of curing them.”

On their visit to the Aquarium, officers couldn’t find skins of monitor lizard, and they did not think it necessary to enquire the same of the director of the aquarium. Says Subramanian, “We have photographic evidence about the presence of monitor lizard skins. Moreover, we also have a voice recording of Misquitta, during his visit to Phale’s office, admitting that he did keep dried monitor lizard skins.

Why was any enquiry not been made on these lines?”
As per the panchnama that this TWM correspondent has in their possession, it’s stated that one Dr S R Deshpande had handed over the wild animals, other than the wild cat, to the Aquarium owner.

When Subramanian questioned Phale, as to who the person is, he was told Dr Deshpande was a veterinary officer working with another animal welfare NGO Karuna, and that the animals he gave to the aquarium were injured and kept there for medication and recovery.

Questions such as why a private aquarium was authorised to cure animals are still unanswered. More so, if the Aquarium is a treatment centre, then why is there a charge of Rs 10 from the visitors? According to PAWS, this amounts to a mini zoo, for which the owner does not have the permissions from the Central Zoo Authority and / or the Forest Department. Comments Phale, “About our course of action, we have carried out the necessary investigations and have forwarded a report to the Conservator of Forests. Now, it’s their duty to take action.”

States an assistant to the Conservator of Forests, “We have sent a letter to the RFO, Mumbai to carry out investigations on whether the Aquarium has permission from the Central Zoo Authority to run this private firm. Also, if the wildlife found at the Aquarium falls within any of the six scheduled sections of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. If it is so, then the Aquarium must posses an ownership certificate. If they fail to do so, then they will be booked under law.”

Incidentally, Arvind Shah, founder and animal activist, Karuna admits, “We have been handing over injured animals to this Aquarium to cure, because Parel Hospital lacks the necessary facilities to treat injured animals. More so, we have maintained a record about the types and number of animals that are handed over to this Aquarium. The owner does not sell animals, and all the animals are taken care of using the owner’s own funds.”

Take note
Keeping wildlife in custody is an offence under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Displaying wildlife in public taking money without sanction from Central Zoo Authority is an offence under Central Zoo Act, 1992.

Law behold
Under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 under Section 9, 39, 40 (2), 49 B
* Hunting, keeping or breeding of any wild animals and birds
* Acquiring, receiving, keeping in control, custody or possession, selling wild animals like monkeys, snakes or any wild birds. This includes parakeets and mynahs
* Selling skins or meat of wild animals. This includes monitor lizard oil or oil of any other creature. Stuffed squirrels, snake skins and peacock feathers.

Penalty
Offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one year, which may extend to six years, and also with a fine, which shall not be less than five thousand rupees
Under Section 38 (J)

Teasing, injuring or causing disturbance in the zoo Penalty Offender shall be punishable with imprisonment for six months, or with fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both