Disposed

Prabhu Mahadji Pitlewad, President Sant Mauli Warkari Pratisthan, Ekamba v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Mar 2014PIL/11/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the public slaughter of goats and the procession of slaughtered animals during the God Kanhoba Fair in Nanded. The court directed respondents to ensure no slaughter occurs in public and no procession of slaughtered animals takes place in the village or public places.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to respondents (Nos. 1 to 4) to ensure no animal slaughter in public places and no procession of slaughtered animals during the Fair.

Prabhu Mahadji Pitlewad, President Sant Mauli Warkari Pratisthan, Ekamba Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

{1}

¶2

pil 11.14 sr.96 mar 10.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PIL PETITION NO. 11 OF 2014

¶5

Prabhu s/o. Mahadji Pitlewad

¶6

Petitioner/s

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

Respondent/s

¶10

Mr. M.K. Goyanka, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, GP for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
 A.M. BADAR, JJ.
 DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2014.

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1]By this petition, the petitioner is seeking
directions to the respondents, including the Collector
and Superintendent of Police, Nanded, to take steps to
ensure that animals are not slaughtered in public
place during the yearly Fair of God Kanhoba
(Kanifnath), at village Ekamba, Taluka Himayatnagar,
District Nanded.

¶14

2]The petitioner contends that as a part of
yearly festival or fair/Jatra, hundreds of animals
(Goats) are slaughtered and the slaughtered animals
are then taken through the village in procession. The

¶15

{2} pil 11.14 sr.96 mar 10.odt

¶16

petitioner makes a complaint about the slaughtering of
animals at a public place, as well as, objects to the
act of taking procession alongwith the slaughtered
animals throughout the village.

¶17

3]The petitioner contends that the act of
slaughtering in public, affects the decency and
tranquility. Moreover, taking procession alongwith
the slaughtered animals through the village is also an
act affecting the decency and is against the civilized
behaviour. It is contended that the act of

¶18

slaughtering animals at a public place can be
construed as a “Public Nuisance”, as defined in
Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

4]“Public nuisance”, is defined in Section
268, as under :-

¶20

“A person is guilty of a public nuisance who
does any act or is guilty of an illegal
omission which causes any common injury,
danger or annoyance to the public or to the
people in general who dwell or occupy
property in the vicinity, or which must
necessarily cause injury, obstruction,
danger or annoyance to persons who may have
occasion to use any public right”

¶21

5]In case of public nuisance, as provided
under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the District Magistrate is empowered to take
appropriate steps. In case of emergency a notice as
contemplated by Section 134 of the Cr.P.C. can also be
dispensed with in view of sub-section (2) of Section
144.

¶22

{3}

¶23

pil 11.14 sr.96 mar 10.odt

¶24

6]In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to
direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, to take appropriate

¶25

steps for ensuring that the animals are not
slaughtered in a public place, and no procession
alongwith slaughtered animals takes place in the
village, or at a public place.

¶26

7]With the above directions, PIL is disposed
of.

¶27

8]Parties to act upon authenticated copy of
this order.

¶28

[A.M. BADAR][R.M. BORDE]
 JUDGEJUDGE.

¶29

grt/-

Prabhu Mahadji Pitlewad, President Sant Mauli Warkari Pratisthan, Ekamba v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu Mahadji Pitlewad, President Sant Mauli Warkari Pratisthan, Ekamba v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Sudesh Babulalji Patni and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vijay Laxman Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijay Laxman Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Narayan Namdeo Yadav and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation, Nasik and Ors.

Vilas Haribhau Wankhede Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Pandurang Doke Vs Lilawati Maruti Ambivale and Ors.

Dr. Mrs. Bhagyashree Gandhe Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Social Welfare Department and 5 Others

Bhrashtrachar Virodhi Manch Vs State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

The Commissioner Municipal Corporation , Latur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandurang Umaji Ubale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Municipal Commissioner Latur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Abhiman Shrirang Pawar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Kaustubh Ashok Mankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others