Partly allowed

Jyoti Rajendra Thombre v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2021PIL/132/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions to control stray cattle attacks and compensation for her minor son's death. The court directed police and municipal authorities to act under Maharashtra Police and Municipal Acts. Compensation was dismissed as the petitioner had accepted Rs.75,000/- payment without protest.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police and municipal authorities to prevent stray cattle attacks on public roads in accordance with statutory provisions.

Jyoti Rajendra Thombre Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.132 OF 2013

¶4

JYOTI RAJENDRA THOMBRE VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr.S.S.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.J.Salgare, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Smt.R.B.Ghule-Palve, Advocate for Rahata Nagarparishad, Shirdi Nagar Panchayat, Deolali - Pravara Nagar Palika. Mr.M.M.Patil-Beedkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Ms.Trupti Joshi h/f Mr.V.S.Bedre, Advocate for Shrirampur and Sangamner Municipal Council.

¶7

(CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶8

DATE : JANUARY 21, 2021

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

In this PIL petition, relief claimed by the petitioner is two-fold: [i] direction upon the respondents to take appropriate steps to control and manage wild cattle/stray cattle and to save lives of citizens from the attack of such cattle; [ii] direction upon the respondents to pay ex-gratia compensation to the petitioner for the unfortunate death of her minor son, who was attacked by stray cattle.

¶11

khs/Jan.2021/132

¶12

- 2 -

¶13

We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

¶14

Provisions exist in the Maharashtra Police Act (sections 89 to 94), as well as the Maharashtra Municipal Council and Nagar Panchayats Act (Chapter XXI), which require the public authorities to take appropriate action in case of cattle straying on the public roads and to penalize even the owner of such cattle or any person connected therewith. In case cattle is found to stray on public roads, a power of seizure is provided. The enactments also provide for sale of such cattle which are seized and are not claimed by the owner or the person concerned, as the case may be.

¶15

There cannot be any doubt that the statutory provisions are required to be implemented in letter and spirit. If indeed stray cattle have been/are a source of menace for the citizens, it would be the duty of the public authorities to take recourse to the provisions of the aforesaid enactments and deal with the problem appropriately. They are reminded that after all, life of each and every citizen is precious and has to be preserved and no slip in this regard would ordinarily be tolerated.

¶16

khs/Jan.2021/132

¶17

- 3 -

¶18

We, therefore, direct that as and when cattle (domesticated/ wild) are found to stray on the public roads, the police as well as the Municipal Authorities shall take appropriate steps in accordance with the aforesaid enactments to prevent any untoward incident as well as to avoid traffic dislocation.

¶19

Insofar as grant of compensation to the petitioner consequent upon the unfortunate death of her minor child owing to attack by stray cattle is concerned, we are informed that she has been paid Rs.75,000/- as compensation in terms of Government Resolution dated 11/07/2011. The unfortunate incident occurred on 15/08/2011 and, therefore, the said Government Resolution was squarely applicable. The Government Resolution has neither been subjected to any challenge in this writ petition by the petitioner nor has she received the amount of compensation of Rs.75,000/- under protest.

¶20

In such view of the matter, even though we had expressed our mind yesterday for enhancing the amount of compensation, the matter must be allowed to rest.

¶21

The PIL petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions/ khs/Jan.2021/132

¶22

¶23

observations. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶25

( CHIEF JUSTICE )

¶26

khs/Jan.2021/132

Jyoti Rajendra Thombre v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Rajendra Thombre v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Nagorao Bharne Vs the Union of India and Others

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the Union of India and Others

Dinkar Bhagwanrao Ingle and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

Avinash Munjajirao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Basavraj Shivaling Jibkate Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Milind Pralhad Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahendrasing Premsing Jadhav and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Courts on Its Motion Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Department of Labour, Mumbai and 2 Others

Vinod Nagorao Bharne Vs the Union of India and Others

Sulbha Bhawanidas Kulkarni Vs the Union of India and Others

Suresh Tryambak Takane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Grampanchayat Savangi through Its Upa Sarpanch Shaikh Kadir Shaikh Abdul Raheman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhavrao S/O. Sonbaji Lingade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suresh Rameshwar Jawale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others