Disposed

Vinod Kumar Rajpurohith v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jun 2024WP/12308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition filed regarding alleged illegal staking and slaughtering of cattle in Vijayawada. The petitioner contested the authorities' inaction on a representation. The court noted it had already directed the appointment of nodal officers, which were subsequently appointed and publicized. Petition disposed with consent of parties.

What did the court decide?

Nodal officers directed to strictly prevent slaughter of livestock in public places and monitor certificate compliance under relevant Acts and Rules.

Vinod Kumar Rajpurohith Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12308 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vinod Kumar Rajpurohith, S/o. Bishan Singh Rajpurohit, age 43 years, Hindu, Business Gow Raksha Seva Samithi (AP) Regd.^No.147/2020 Member Society for the Prevention Cruelty of Animals Hilton Towers 23, Rajagopala Chari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada -^520002.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary,^Home Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary,^Animal Husbandry Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City Police, Vijayawada.

¶15

The District Collector, NTR District.

¶16

The Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Vijayawada.

¶17

Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Municipal Commissioner, Vijayawada.

¶18

The Veterinary Surgeon, In-charge Kabela (Slaughtering House) Vijayawada Municipal Corporation.

¶19

The Nodal Officer, For Prevention of Animal Cruelty^cumAsst. Commissioner of Police Special Branch, Police Commissionerate, Vijayawada City.

¶20

The Station House Officer, Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada.

¶21

...Respondents

¶22

■ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS against the respondent no 1 to 10 for not acting upon the petitioner representation dated 22-3-2024 against the culprits for illegal staking of cattle for slaughtering purpose in Vijayawada city surroundings without proper certification or documentation by the 8 th respondent as illegal arbitrary by violating the principal of natural justice as well as violation of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, AP Prohibition of Cows Slaughters and Animals Prevention^{Act1977APNo11} of 1977 which is nothing but abuse of process of law for their wrongful profits and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 10 to take necessary action against the culprits for illegal stacking of animals illegally by seizing those cattle by grating interim custody to the petitioner by protecting those lives at recognized GowShala through 9 and 10 respondents by registering a case against those culprits to investigate it.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to seize the cattle i.e., COW, CLAF, BULL by granting interim protection at GowShala which were illegally transported to surrounding areas of Vijayawada without proper certification and documentation issued by the concern Government^authorities like 8th respondents for slaughtering purpose by directing the respondents 9 & 10 to take serious measure to avoid the slaughter of live stock in public place and consequently direct the respondents 9 & 10 to register a case against the culprits to investigate the matter.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GANGISETTI UMA SANKAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents 1, 4, 9 & 10: GP FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 6: GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION & URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

Counsel for the Respondents 7 & 8: SRI M.MANOHAR REDDY, SC for MUNICIPALITIES

¶31

The Court made the following order:

¶32

HON-BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶33

WRIT PETITIOM 1230« of

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This writ petition is filed for not acting upon the petitioner’s representation dated 22.03.2024 against the culprits for illegal staking of cattle for slaughtering purpose in Vijayawada City surroundings without proper certification or documentation by the 8* respondent, as iUegal and arbitrary.

¶36

The main grievance of the petitioner is that he made a representation to the respondent authorities concerned to take serious measures to prevent slaughtering of permitted live stocks by the authorities only in permitted places like licensed slaughtering places identified by the Local Government authorities and strictly prevent the slaughtering in public places like on road, in public ground, open areas, community halls etc. to maintain peace in people belongs to various other religions in the residential areas, colonies and communities in the city.

¶37

Heard Sri Gangisetti Uma Sankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No. 1 4, 9 and 10; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration appearing for the respondent No. 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent No.5.

¶38

¶39

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner made a representation to prevent the slaughtering at public places, without obtaining proper certificates and proper documentation from veterinaiy surgeon, they are illegally slaughtering in pubUc places. He further submits that last year also it was done in open place and the same was also came to the light of the Courts and this Hon^ble Court has also gave some directions to that effect. The main endeavour of the petitioner counsel is that the respondent authorities have to follow strict implementation of the orders of this Court.

¶40

Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has placed copy of order of this Court dated 08.05.2024 passed in WP (PIL) No. 102 of 2024, wherein this Court whUe disposing of the writ petition directed the respondents to place the orders of appointment of the Nodal Ofifcers as also the proof that the said appointment has been widely publicized ini the media including the print media before the Registrar (Judicial). He further submits that in compliance of the above order, the Government has already appointed Nodal Officers vide Memorandum Rc.No.lOlS/L&O111/2024, dated 20.05.2024, which is at page No. 15 of the material papers. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, in compliance of the above order, the respondent authorities are following the guidelines issued by animal Welfare Board to take preventive steps like check points wide publicity of legal position to

¶41

¶42

prevent Hlegal transport and slaughtering of animals in violation of statute rules for upcoming bakrid.

¶43

Sri D. Prasad Kumar, Inspector, Bhavanipuram Circle, who appeared in-person, submits that, as per instructions^ofthe Government authorities, they have already taken steps to implement the orders of this Court like fixing Cheek-posts, police pickets at Ramavarappadu Ring Road, Ibrahimpatnam and Prakasam Barage (Varadhi) circles around clockwise. Meanwhile, without obtaining any certification from the Veterinary Doctor and Team of Doctors, slaughtering will not be done.

¶44

As seen from the representation of the petitioner^dated 22.03.2024, the petitioner requested respective authorities to take immediate action to ensure the strict enforcement and obedience of the orders of this Court. Further, all concerned parties must comply with the directions without any further delay.

¶45

On perusing the material on record, earlier, it is observed that, earlier the Animal Rescue Organization has filed several writ petitions (PILs) before a Division Bench of this Court and the same were disposed of and this Court has directed the respondent authorities to appoint Nodal Officers. For non-compliance of the orders of this Court, the Animal Rescue Organization has also preferred WP(PIL) No. 102 of 2024 before this Court. This Court, vide order, dated 08.05.2024, has again directed the authorities to

¶46

¶47

appoint Nodal Officers. Later, in compliance of the above order, the respondent authorities have appointed Nodal Officers (26 in Number) which is placed as material papers at page No. 15 to 17, wherein it is mentioned that the Nodal Officers are appointed at State Level and District Level and stated that to furnish the action taken report directly to the DIG (Legal) under intimation. It is further mentioned that the CPRO, CO, AP is requested to give wide publicity^tothe Nodal Officers who are appointed at State Level and District Level in the media including print media and furnish action taken report directly to the said DIG (Legal).

¶48

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, already this Court has passed orders for appointment of Nodal Officers. In compliance of the same, the respondent authorities have already appointed Nodal Officers vide Memorandum dated 20.5.2024. 10. So in view of the same, the Nodal Officers are directed to take steps strictly for prevention of slaughtering^{oflivestockof} cow. calf, oxen etc. in public places and to take appropriate steps in consonance with the provisions of Act 1977 and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, particularly,^shall monitor whether necessary certificates are obtained from the respondents No.3 to 5 by the slaughter houses.

¶49

5 i

¶50

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶51

To,

¶52