The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [October 13] issued notice on a plea filed by a Bengaluru resident seeking the return of his pet African Grey Parrot, which was seized by the Karnataka Forest Department's CID [Aranya Sanchari Dala] in July.

The single judge bench of Justice C.M. Poonacha issued notice to the respondents-State of Karnataka, the Forest Department, and the CID Aranya Sanchari Dala today. The court has posted the matter for further hearing on interim application on November 3.

The petitioner, R. Mahesh Kumar, a resident of Rajajinagar, has stated in the plea that he is a hobbyist who had been collecting fishes, birds, and dogs since childhood. In 2018, he came across a physically challenged African Grey Parrot, which was handed over to him by a close acquaintance of him, the plea states at the outset.

According to the petition, the bird was about three years old at the time, and is now around eleven years old. One of its wings is totally inactive, rendering it unable to fly like a normal bird, the plea adds.

Kumar has claimed that ever since the bird was handed over to him, he has been taking care of it on humanitarian grounds. The petitioner says further that he spends an average of Rs 6,000/- to Rs 10,000/- per month on the bird's upkeep and has also been attending to its medical requirements.

The petition underscores that he neither purchased the bird nor attempted to sell, breed, or carry out any commercial activity with it, in violation of any of the legal provisions.

The issue that forms the crux of the current writ arose on July 27, 2026, when the Forest Department took physical possession of the bird from Kumar's custody. The petitioner was also issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, calling upon him to show cause.

Subsequently, on July 31, 2026, the authorities invoked Sections 49D(K), 49H, 49M, 49Q, 50, and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 against Kumar.

Aggrieved by the seizure and the proceedings initiated against him, Kumar has now approached the High Court. He has contended in the writ that the actions of the respondent authorities are illegal and arbitrary.

According to him, the authorities failed to consider that the bird is physically challenged and that he has been caring for it for several years.

The petition places reliance on the Karnataka High Court's decision in Sri Tavaragi Rajashekhar Shiva Prasad v. State of Karnataka & Others [W.P. No. 15125/2024], where the Court held that a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS must mention the crime number and the offence alleged, and that a copy of the FIR must be attached to the communication. The plea further argues that the High Court had in the same matter held that where the notice does not contain the crime number, the offence alleged, or the FIR, the noticee is not obliged to appear, subject to just exceptions. Kumar has argued that the notice issued to him suffers from these deficiencies.

Kumar has prayed for quashing of the document invoked against him on July 31, 2026, and the notice dated July 27, 2026, issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS. He has also sought a direction to the CID Aranya Sanchari Dala to return possession of the bird to him.

Additionally, he has sought an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the document issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, pending disposal of the writ petition.

The petitioner was represented by advocate Trivikram S.