1

Petition before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrates at National

Capital Territory of Delhi under section 133 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure by Naresh Kadyan, Chief National Commissioner.
 2

Scouts & Guides for Animals & Birds with OIPA – IPFA
 3

Before the Hon’ble Sub Divisional Magistrate’s in NCT of Delhi.

Naresh Kadyan, Master Trainer, AWBI / Volunteer, WCCB / National Chief
Commissioner, Scouts & Guides for Animals & Birds, National Authority for
Animal Welfare, OIPA: Indian People for Animals, C-38, Rose Apartment, Prashant
Vihar, sector-14, Rohini, Delhi – 110085 along with Abhishek Kadyan with Mrs.
Suman Kadyan and Mrs. Sukanya Berwal with approval of Ch. Om Parkash
Kadyan, Patron.
Petitioners…………….

Versus

1. Animal Welfare Board of India, NIAW campus, Faridabad through Secretary.

2. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals via Designated Officer
3. All Municipal Corporation’s of Delhi via Designated Officer
4. New Delhi Municipal Council via Designated Officer
5. Development Commissioner via Designated Officer
6. Secretary, National Biodiversity Authority.
7. Prevention of Food Adulteration via Designated Officer
8. Committee on Petitions, Rajya Sabha – Delhi Assembly via MP’s.
9. Committee on Petitions, Delhi Legislative Assembly via MLA’s
Respondents……………

INDEX
Sr. Particulars Page
No.
1. Copy of Petition with Prayers 3-6

2. National Biodiversity Authority communications 7-15

3. Commercial use of fisheries as Biological resources 16-17

4. Judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (Principal 18-21

Bench, New Delhi in original Application No. 347 of 2016.
5. Powers & Authorities to lodge complaints 22-25

6. Advisory of AWBI about custodian of Monkey 26-28

7. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change 29

clarified as custodian of Monkey
8. Advisory on the management of man – animal conflict by 30-38
the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change
 4

9. Monkey menace matter in Rajya Sabha 39-41

10. Delhi Legislative assembly on Monkey Menace 42-45

11. Animal performance 46-48

12. Communication between Rajya Sabha with Animal 49-54
Welfare Division
13. Status reports on Biological resources Meat Export 55-56

14. Committee on Petitions replied by Animal Husbandry 57-62

15. Status of Slaughter Houses in Delhi, Poultry slaughtered 63-64

16. 11th Amendment in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 65-67

17. DSPCA mandate not to rehabilitate animals 68

18. Advisory of AWBI on abandoned Cats 69-70

19. Communication about private ownership of reptiles, 71-75

specimens with langur: WCCB advisories
20. Central Zoo Authority refused to serve stray Monkey 76-78

21. Communications 79-82

Naresh Kadyan
 5

Before the Hon’ble Sub Divisional Magistrate’s in NCT of Delhi.

Naresh Kadyan with others

Petitioners…………….

Versus

1. Animal Welfare Board of India, NIAW campus, Faridabad through Secretary.

2. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals via Designated Officer
3. All Municipal Corporation’s of Delhi via Designated Officer
4. New Delhi Municipal Council via Designated Officer
5. Development Commissioner via Designated Officer
6. Secretary, National Biodiversity Authority.
7. Prevention of Food Adulteration via Designated Officer
8. Committee on Petitions, Rajya Sabha – Delhi Assembly via MP’s.
9. Committee on Petitions, Delhi Legislative Assembly via MLA’s

Respondents………
Complaint under 133 CrPc to remove public nuisance, protecting biodiversity, restoring
five freedoms of animals and birds: Threat on public life & property.

Respectfully showeth:
As per section 41 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002; every local body shall constitute a
Biodiversity Management Committee within its area of jurisdiction, whereas under
section 45 of the said Act, the annual reports of the BMCs are to be submitted to the local
body of the concerned area, besides it section 47 of the said Act also mandate the BMCs to
submit a copy of the same to the concerned District Magistrate having jurisdiction of the
area of the local body.
It would also be pertinent to mention here that as per section 22 (6)(8-11) of the Biological
Diversity Rules, 2004 that the main function of the BMC is to prepare Peoples Biodiversity
Register in consultation with local people, the Register shall contain comprehensive
information on availability and knowledge of local biological resources, their medicinal or
any other use or any other traditional knowledge associated with them.
It is humbly intimated that:
1. Animal Welfare Board of India issued advisory on dated May 9, 2018; keeping in view
section 6 of the said advisory, Urban & Local Bodies were held responsible for
Monkey, claimed to be stray, which seems to be a Wild Monkey, as per their shape &
size but don’t have wild character, besides it animal birth control of stray cat.
2. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change clarified that Monkey being
protected under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is a responsibility of the Forest
Department instead Urban & Local Bodies.
3. Monkey Menace:
 6

“There are provisions under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 to deal with the
issues relating to monkey menace, section 11 & 12 of the Act empowers Chief Wildlife
Wardens to control monkey menace.
The Ministry has issued guidelines / advisories in context of human-wildlife conflict to
the Chief Wildlife Wardens of all the State Governments / Union Territory
Administrations dated 24th December, 2014 and 1st June, 2015. Further, the Ministry
has approved a pilot project on the immuno-contraception for controlling the
population of wild animals responsible for damage and destruction of crops, namely;
elephant, wild boar, monkey, and nilgai”. This information was given by Minister of
State for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Dr. Mahesh Sharma in a written
reply to a question in Lok Sabha, copies attached as ready references.
Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits
Sharing Regulations, 2014, which were issued in exercise of the powers conferred by
section 64 read with sub-section (1) of section 18 and sub-section (4) of section 21 of the
Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (18 of 2003).
Prayers:
1. Whether Monkey menace being public nuisance, handled by which Authority,
either by Department of Wildlife or Urban & Local Body, needs clarification?
2. Abandoned Monkey needs to be declared vermin being public nuisance as per legal
provisions under section 62 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 to handle as stray
animal by the Urban & Local Bodies along with the Society for Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals, exercise of the powers conferred by section 62 of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), the Central Government, can declare Rhesus
Macaque (Macaca mulatta), listed at serial number 17-A of Part I of Schedule II to
the said Act, as vermin and included in Schedule V of the said Act, for a period as
per decision of the competent Authority.
3. Status report on the private ownership of wild reptiles, restoring their five
freedoms, keeping in view private ownership for personal gain & profit.
4. Biological Management Committee’s may be directed to identify the families of
stray Monkey being rich species, maintaining People’s Biodiversity Register along
with actual numbers, to rescue for further rehabilitation, restoring their five
freedoms, keeping in view the feeding charges along with treatment expenditure
bear by the said Authorities as budgetary provisions.
5. Award and compensation for the victims of the public nuisance created by the
abandoned monkeys, became threat to public life and property.
6. Status report on the strict compliance of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble
National Green Tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi in original Application No.
347 of 2016 on 08.08.2018.
7. Status report on the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated
Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014, which were issued in exercise of
the powers conferred by section 64 read with sub-section (1) of section 18 and sub-
section (4) of section 21 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (18 of 2003).

Naresh Kadyan
7
8
9
 10

Details for registration number : DOAAC/E/2019/00400

Name of Complainant Naresh Kadyan
Date of Receipt 06/03/2019
Received by Department of Agriculture and Cooperation
Grievance Description:
National Bee Board along with National Biodiversity Authority failed to restore five
freedoms of Honey Bee, preventing commercial use of Biological resources because
Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA)
claims that:
Honey and beekeeping have a long history in India. Honey was the first sweet food tasted
by the ancient Indian inhabiting rock shelters and forests. The raw materials for the
beekeeping industry are mainly pollen and nectar that come from flowering plants. Both
the natural and cultivated vegetation in India constitute an immense potential for
development of beekeeping. About 500 flowering plant species, both wild and cultivated,
are useful as major or minor sources of nectar and pollen. There are at least four species of
true honey bees and three species of the stingless bees. Several sub-species and races of
these are known to exist. In recent years the exotic honey bee has been introduced.
Together these represent a wide variety of bee fauna that can be utilized for the
development of honey industry in the country. There are several types of indigenous and
traditional hives including logs, clay pots, wall niches, baskets and boxes of different sizes
and shapes.
Varieties:
Rapeseed / Mustard Honey, Eucalyptus Honey, Lychee Honey, Sunflower Honey, Karanj /
Pongamea Honey, Multi-flora Himalayan Honey, Acacia Honey, Wild Flora Honey, Multi
and Mono floral Honey are some of the major varieties of Natural Honey.
Areas of Production:
North East Region of India and Maharashtra are the key areas for natural honey
production.
India Facts and Figures:
The country has exported 51547.31 MT of Natural Honey to the world for the worth of Rs.
653.58 crore/ 101.32 USD Millions during the year of 2017-18.
Major Export Destinations (2017-18) : U S A, Saudi Arab, U Arab Emts, Canada and
Qatar.
Hence, Mrs. Suman Kadyan, Universal Commissioner for IT & Retails in Canada along
with Abhishek Kadyan, Universal Commissioner for Human Resources, worried about five
freedoms of these Honey Bees along with delay in the Introduction of Indian Honey Bee
Act.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
 79

To, March 23, 2019

1. National Biodiversity Authority via its Chairman.

2. All Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Department,
Chandigarh / Andaman and Nicobar Islands / Dadra and Nagar Haveli / Daman and Diu
Lakshadweep / Puducherry and NCT of Delhi.

Subject: Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits
Sharing Regulations, 2014.

Greetings,

In a landmark judgment delivered in December 2018 in the Divya Pharmacy versus Union of India
case, the Uttarakhand High Court held that all Indian companies which are extracting biological
resources are liable to seek prior approval as well as share part of their revenue with the local
communities that are responsible for conserving and protecting such resources. The final judgment
was an outcome of a litigation spanning multiple hearings over two years in which Divya Pharmacy
vehemently opposed either seeking prior approval from the State Biodiversity Board or sharing a
part of its revenue with the local communities as ‘fees’ under what is termed as ‘fair and equitable
sharing of benefit’.

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 regulates the extraction of biological resources through the State
Biodiversity Boards and the National Biodiversity Authority. Biological resources include plants,
animals and micro-organisms but exclude those which are normally traded as commodities. The
powers and functions are divided between the State Biodiversity Boards and the NBA. Broadly, all
foreign entities (companies, institutions, individuals) are within the jurisdiction of the NBA while all
Indian entities are the subject matter of the State Board. The law contemplates that before a
commercial entity extracts biological resources, it must take prior approval of the State Board or
the NBA and also undertake to share the benefits arising out of the use of such biological entities
with the local community, which has conserved and protected these biological resources. The
benefits can be in the form of monetary compensation as well as ‘joint ownership of intellectual
property rights’ and or ‘transfer of technology’. The central idea behind this provision is that the
biological diversity in the form of plants and animals that exists in certain regions is because of the
traditional knowledge and practices of local communities. Thus, when a company extracts herbs,
roots, seeds and other biological resources and sells them commercially, it is, in fact, benefiting
from the traditional knowledge and practices of the local community. It, therefore, has to not only
pay for the product but also for the traditional knowledge and practices without which the
biodiversity would not have existed. This is the central idea behind fair and equitable benefit
sharing, which became a law in 2014 as a result of Access and Benefit Sharing Guidelines.
 80

Divya Pharmacy’s contention was simple: a swadeshi company was not required under the law to
share its revenue with desi people and only a videshi company should share its revenue with Indian
people. It is pertinent to point out that all that Divya Pharmacy was required to pay by way of fees
is 0.5 per cent of its gross revenue minus taxes. According to Divya Pharmacy, for an Indian entity,
all that is required is “prior intimation” to be given to the State Biodiversity Board.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, rejected every contention of Divya
Pharmacy. In a precedent-setting judgment, the court stated that though on “the first blush” it may
seem that an Indian entity is not required to share its revenue, however, “what seems obvious, may
not always be correct”. The court extensively relied on the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992
and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing of 2010 to hold that “Indigenous and local
communities, who either grow ‘biological resources’, or have a traditional knowledge of these
resources, are the beneficiaries under the Act.” In return for their parting with this traditional
knowledge, certain benefits accrue to them as fair and equitable benefit sharing. This benefit the
indigenous and local communities get under the law is over and above the market price of their
biological resources. Unlike most judgments that attribute international conventions to the efforts
of the government, Justice Dhulia credits the Convention on Biological Diversity and the fair and
equitable sharing of benefits to the “long history of the movement for conservation” and the “long
struggle, by and on behalf of the local and indigenous communities”. The court emphasized that the
rights of indigenous and local communities “have to be protected, equally from outside as well as
from within”. The court finally held that the State Biodiversity Board does have the jurisdiction to
demand “fair and equitable sharing of benefits” from Divya Pharmacy and, by implication, from
all Indian companies.

The high court’s decision has brought clarity to the interpretation as well as implementation of the
Access and Benefit Sharing regime. However, the real test will be in ensuring that the amount
collected by way of fees goes to the communities which have conserved biodiversity, and is used for
the purpose of conservation of biodiversity. Only then will the purpose of the fair and equitable
sharing of benefit be achieved. Otherwise, the fees will only end up as a licence to plunder the
resources.

Keeping in view the legal status of introduction of Delhi State Biodiversity Board, which is not
possible due to Union Territory, hence National Biodiversity Authority responsible to implement
the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing
Regulations, 2014 all around Delhi, including rest 6 other UT’s, whereas there are so many sale
outlet of Patanjali all around Delhi including rest 6 UT’s, trading out the product of Divya
Pharmacy, hence National Biodiversity Authority hereby requested to ensure the profit sharing as
per law for the commercial use of biological resources, Mrs. Sukanya Berwal, Commissioner of
Education, Scouts & Guides for Animals & Birds – OIPA: Indian People for Animals offered her
tireless services for the cause to safe guard flora & fauna.

Yours in Scouting’s,

Naresh Kadyan, Chief National Commissioner.

 81

Details for registration number: GNCTD/E/2019/01727

Name of Complainant Naresh Kadyan
Date of Receipt 23/03/2019
Received by Ministry of NCT of Delhi
Grievance Description:
Keeping in view the legal status of introduction of Delhi State Biodiversity Board, which is
not possible due to Union Territory, hence National Biodiversity Authority responsible to
implement the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge
and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014 all around Delhi, including rest 6 other UTs,
whereas there are so many sale outlet of Patanjali all around Delhi including rest 6 UTs,
trading out the product of Divya Pharmacy, hence National Biodiversity Authority hereby
requested to ensure the profit sharing as per law for the commercial use of biological
resources, Mrs. Sukanya Berwal, Commissioner of Education, Scouts & Guides for
Animals & Birds - OIPA: Indian People for Animals offered her tireless services for the
cause to safe guard flora & fauna.
Current Status Under process
Date of Action 26/03/2019
Remarks
Officer concerns to:
Officer Name Smt. Mamta Gaur
Officer Designation Dy. Secretary
Contact Address
Email Address pgcdelhi@nic.in

Forwarded with all papers as advance copy for immediate necessary action & reply, before
moving to the Court of law:

1. Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi.

2. Hon’ble Chief Secretary to Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
3. Hon’ble Speaker, Delhi Legislative Assembly.
4. Hon’ble Chairman, National Biodiversity Authority: Shri Anil Kumar Jain, IAS

Mrs. Sukanya Berwal, Commissioner of Education

 82

Details for registration number: GNCTD/E/2019/01315

Name of Complainant Naresh Kadyan
Date of Receipt 06/03/2019
Received By Ministry of NCT of Delhi
Grievance Description:
CHAPTER - VI of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Establishment of State Biodiversity
Board: 22 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, no State Biodiversity
Board shall be constituted for a Union territory and in relation to a Union territory, the
National Biodiversity Authority shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of a
State Biodiversity Board for that Union territory:
Provided that in relation to any Union territory, the National Biodiversity Authority may
delegate all or any of its powers or functions under this sub-section to such person or group
of persons as the Central Government may specify.
Whereas in Delhi, being Union territory, neither National Biodiversity Authority approved
Biodiversity Management Committees along with Peoples Biodiversity Registers nor
delegated any powers to do so, whereas its mandatory to safeguard the flora and fauna of
the Region, besides it animals are being slaughtered to export their meat for personal gain
and profit, without sharing for commercial use of Biological resources, hence impose
immediate ban on meat export from Delhi as Gazipur Slaughter House with many more,
assessing the percentage of their profit for local extortion of Biodiversity.
Current Status Case closed
Date of Action 28/03/2019
Remarks
Matter pertain to GOI
Officer concerns to:
Officer Name Smt. Mamta Gaur
Officer Designation Dy. Secretary
Contact Address
Email Address pgcdelhi@nic.in

Mrs. Sukanya Berwal, Commissioner of Education

1. Chairman / Secretary, National Biodiversity Authority.

2. All concedrned.