Quashed

Gargi Gogoi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2012PIL/109/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition challenged a State Government corrigendum that allowed bullock cart races for castrated bulls despite a Central Government ban on exhibiting or training bulls. The court quashed the State notification, holding that all bulls, castrated or not, fall under the ban.

What did the court decide?

Corrigendum dated September 12, 2011, allowing bullock cart races for castrated bulls was quashed; directive issued to ban all bullock cart races regardless of castration status.

Gargi Gogoi Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

PIL(L).28.2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) NO.28 OF 2012

¶5

Smt.Gargi Gogai Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents

¶6

Respondents

¶7

Mr.A.V.Anturkar, Sr.Advocate for petitioner. Mr.G.W.Mattos, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.R.V.Desai, Sr.Advocate with Ms.S.V.Bharucha for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶8

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND RANJIT MORE, J.

¶9

DATE : March 12, 2012

¶10

PC :

¶11

Mr.Anturkar, learned senior advocate appearing for petitioner seeks leave to place on record three photographs of the bullock cart race recently held at Kupwad, District Sangli.

¶12

Leave granted. Photographs are taken on record.

¶13

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

¶14

1 of 7

¶15

2 PIL(L).28.2012

¶16

The petitioner prays to quash the corrigendum issued by Government of Maharashtra in Agriculture, Animal Welfare, Dairy and Fisheries Department, Mumbai dated September 12, 2011, to Government Notification dated August 24, 2011 issued by the said Department.

¶17

Brief facts leading to this petition are as follows.

¶18

In exercise of powers conferred by Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (`the said Act' for short), Government of India has issued notification dated July 11, 2011 (Exhibit-B) specifying that following animals shall not be exhibited or trained as performing animals viz :

¶19

i) Bears ii) Monkeys iii) Tigers iv) Panthers v) Lions i) Bulls.

¶20

Pursuant to the above notification of Government of India the Government of Maharashtra issued notification dated August 24, 2011 (Exhibit-C) imposing ban on exhibition, training, and public performance of the above animals. This notification further bans bullock cart races/ training/exhibitions/games relating to bulls. The operative part of the said notification reads as under :-

2 of 7

PIL(L).28.2012

"Accordingly, by this notification a ban has been imposed on bullock cart races/ games/training/ exhibition in the State in accordance with the above reference item No.(1) Notification of the Central Government."

¶25

In view of the above notification of the State Government, a ban came to be imposed on the bullock cart races/games/training/exhibition in relation to "Bulls" in the State of Maharashtra. However, thereafter the Government of Maharashtra by Notification dated September 12, 2011 (Exhibit-D) amended its earlier notification dated August 24, 2011 in the following terms :

¶26

"State Government Clarification :

¶27

As per the State Government's Notification dated 24 August 2011, a ban has been imposed on use of bullock for competitions, sport, training, exhibition.

¶28

As per Notification dated 11 July 2011 of Govt. of India, a ban brought about is on use of Saand' (Bulls) (Valu) in races, sport, training, exhibition and therefore the word Bail' (bullock) in the Notification should be read as `Valu/Saand' (non-castrated bulls) ".

¶29

The grievance in the present PIL is that when the Central Government has already issued notification dated July 11, 2011 imposing ban on exhibition or their performance after training, insofar as "Bulls" are concerned, there was no justification on the part of Government of Maharashtra in confining that ban to "Valu/Saand" i.e. "Non-Castrated Bulls". It is submitted that castrated bulls are also bulls. The Central Government notification does not make micro

3 of 7

PIL(L).28.2012

distinction of "Bulls" as "castrated" and "non-castrated". Therefore, the ban on bullock cart races/games/exhibition/training ought to be applied to "Bulls", whether castrated or non-castrated.

¶34

Mr.Anturkar, learned Sr.Advocate appearing for petitioner invites our attention to the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the said Act and submits that if any person beats, kicks, over-rides, over-drives, over-loads, tortures or otherwise treats any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes, or being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated, shall be punishable with a fine. The section also provides that in case of a second or subsequent offence, the offender is also liable to be sentenced with imprisonment for a period of three months or with fine and imprisonment both. It is, therefore, submitted that any bull owner participating in bullock cart race will be violating the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, the State Government or its officers cannot grant any licence either under the Bombay Police Act or any other Act for holding such bullock cart races. It is submitted that what is prohibited by the Central Government under the said Act, cannot be permitted by the State Government or its officers by using a notification/corrigendum.

¶35

Mr.Mattos, learned AGP submits that all that the Government Notification dated September 12, 2011 does is to clarify that the ban imposed by the Government of Maharashtra vide notification dated August 24, 2011 will apply to non-castrated bulls. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned notification. Learned AGP also invites our attention to the provisions of Section 11(3)(a)

¶36

4 of 7

¶37

5 PIL(L).28.2012

¶38

which provides that nothing in this section shall apply to "the castration or branding or noseroping of any animal in the prescribed manner". It is, therefore, submitted that what is permitted by Section 11(3) of the said Act is imported into the impugned notification for the purposes of clarification.

¶39

We are afraid the argument of learned AGP is clearly misconceived. Section 11(3)(a) only clarifies that the castration or branding or noseroping of any animal in the prescribed manner would not amount to cruelty to the animal for the purposes of making it an offence, but that does not exclude operation of Section 11(1)(a) which prohibits a person from beating, kicking, over-riding, over-driving, over-loading, torturing or otherwise treating any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering or causes, or being the owner permits, any animal to be so treated. There can be no doubt that the Central Government by notification dated July 11, 2011 has banned exhibition of bulls or their training as performing animals irrespective of any sub-classification. Hence, it is not open to the State Government to make sub-classification of bulls into castrated bulls and non-castrated bulls and to permit races of castrated bulls. For the purposes of Section 11(1)(a) of the said Act, all bulls, whether castrated or non-castrated, belong to the same category and it is not open to Government of Maharashtra to permit castrated bulls to be exhibited for bullock cart races.

¶40

In view of the above discussion, the impugned notification dated September 12, 2011 of Government of Maharashtra

¶41

5 of 7

¶42

6 PIL(L).28.2012

¶43

(Exhibit-D) is hereby quashed and set aside. The Government of Maharashtra shall issue instructions to all its officers in the State informing them about notification dated September 12, 2011 being held to be unconstitutional and illegal. The Government of Maharashtra shall also accordingly issue instructions that use of bullocks for bullock cart races/sport/training/exhibition in the State of Maharashtra is banned and that this ban applies to all "Bulls" without making distinction between "castrated bulls" and " noncastrated bulls".

¶44

Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B), relevant portions of which read as under :

¶45

"(A) quashing and setting aside the corrigendum issued by the Respondent no.1 and Respondent No.2 bearing No.Pa.Vi.R-2011/ Pra.Kra.398/Pa.Du.M-3A, dated 12th September 2011 issued by Agricultural, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fishery Department, Government of Maharashtra, as illegal and bad in law;

¶46

(B) directing the Respondent No.1,2,3 and 4 to forthwith direct all the District Collectors, as well as the Superintendent of Police, through out, in the State of Maharashtra, to stop the Bullock Cart races, irrespective of whether the Bullocks/Bulls are castrated or not castrated."

6 of 7

PIL(L).28.2012

Before parting with the matter, we are inclined to observe that the amount of fine referred to in section 11(1)(a) of the said Act is minuscule. The State of Maharashtra may consider making suitable amendment for enhancing the amount of fine and also consider whether imprisonment may also be provided for the first offence also.

¶51

All parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by registry of this Court.

¶52

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶53

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶54

M.S.Thatte

Gargi Gogoi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gargi Gogoi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nilesh Sonal and Anr. Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and 2 Ors.

Mukkesh Chandranath Sharma Vs Government of India through Central Board of Film Certification (Censor Board) and 2 Ors.

Sanjay Bhila Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Court on Its Own Motion Vs the Principal Secty. Urban Dev. Dept. and Ors.

Vidarbha Taxpayers Association (Vta) Thr. Its Honourary Secty. Tb Renu Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Principal Secty. and Ors.

Prabhakar S/O Annasa Jayde Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department and Oths

Dilip Namdeo Dherange and Ors. Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Abdul Nasr Abdul Samad Jalal Vs Divisional Commissioner and Ors.

M/S. Dawson Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs E.M.U. Lines Pvt. Ltd. Co.

Rajshekar Palaniswami Vs M/S Chopda Finance Corporation and Anr.

Yashwantrao Shamrao Sonawane Vs State of Maharashtra

Iqbal Ahmed Hussain Vs Abdul Mannanchotekhan

Forum for Fairness in Education Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashirwad Charitable Trust Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.