Remanded

M/S Ashraf Poultry Farm Thr Its Partner Mohd Ashraf Timol v. Union of India and Others

Bombay HC18 Feb 2021WP/3339/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two writ petitions, the Bombay High Court refused to interfere with the respondent authorities' order directing culling of birds in poultry farms situated beyond 1 km from infected zones, holding that authorities must rely on expert advice for epidemic control.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of by remanding the decision on culling to the authorities for reconsideration.

M/S Ashraf Poultry Farm Thr Its Partner Mohd Ashraf Timol Vs Union of India and Others — Bombay HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 WP-3339-2021 and 3340-2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3339 OF 2021

¶4

M/s. Ashraf Poultry Farm Through its Partner Mohd. Ashraf Timol ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India and Ors.

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr S.P. Brahme, Advocate holding for Mr M.S. Shah, Advocate for Petitioner Mr P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent-State

¶9

AND WRIT PETITION NO. 3340 OF 2021

¶10

M/s. Pioneer Poultry Farm Through its Partner Shri. Saleh Hasim Vhora and ors. ...Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents

¶13

Mr S.P. Brahme, Advocate holding for Mr M.S. Shah, Advocate for Petitioner Mr P.K. Lakhotiya, A.G.P. for Respondent-State

¶14

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 18^th FEBRUARY, 2021

¶16

PER COURT :

¶17

The petitioners are the owners of the poultry farms in Nandurbar District. The petitioners assail the order dated 12^th February, 2021 passed by the respondent No. 3 directing the culling of the birds, eggs in their poultry farms.

¶18

2 WP-3339-2021 and 3340-2021

¶19

Mr Brahme, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners poultry farms are beyond one kilometer from the poultry farm where the birds were found infected of bird flew (Avin influenza). The learned counsel submits that the birds of the petitioners’ poultry farm were tested time and again and the reports were negative of bird flu. In such scenario, the respondents could not have directed culling of the birds in the petitioners poultry farms. The learned counsel referring to section 25 of the Prevention and Control of Infectious and Contagious Diseases in Animals Act, 2009 submits that the resorting to the culling of the bird of infectious animals would be the last resort and the culling of the birds is contemplated only for infected animals and not for the other birds. The respondent authorities have not considered the said aspect while passing the impugned order. Declaration of infected area within the periphery 2.5 kiloliters of the infected poultry farms would cause loss to the poultry farm owners. The learned counsel submits that the poultry farms of the petitioners are also sealed on 4^th February, 2021. As such, no ingress and egress is permissible from the said poultry farm. No question arises of the birds, eggs or other items in the poultry farms to spread infection. The learned counsel relies on the order passed by the Principal Seat at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2455 of 2021 dated February 3, 2021.

¶20

Mr Lakhotiya, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that authorities have taken conscious decision. The birds in the 21 poultry farms in the vicinity of the petitioners poultry farms were found infected by bird flu. The large scale infection is spreading. The petitioners

¶21

3 WP-3339-2021 and 3340-2021

¶22

claim that their poultry farms distance is beyond one km. from the infected poultry farms. The distance within one km is infected zone and upto 10 kms. is surveillance zone. The learned counsel submits that the authorities after sealing the poultry farms with the consultation of the Central Government has taken the decision to safeguard the life and health of the general public, so also to curtail the spread of infection.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 17^th August, 2020 also, samples were taken for testing from the petitioners poultry farms. The report is awaited.

¶24

We have considered the submissions.

¶25

Upon reading the impugned order, it appears that the respondent authorities have taken the emergent steps to arrest the spread of infection. In fact, the steps appear to have been taken earlier also by sealing the petitioners poultry farm on 4^th February, 2021. The authorities certainly would have benefit of advise from the experts in the particular field and the authorities would be guided by the advise of the experts. The court cannot substitute its views in place of the experts views. Curtailing the spread of infection of bird flew certainly would be priority and the task to be done at war-footing. We may not interfere in the said process. The bone of contention of Mr. Brahme, the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the poultry farm of the petitioners were already sealed. They are beyond one km. from the infected poultry farms and in such scenario, the possibility of spread of infection would be nil. The birds, eggs and other items from the poultry farms of the petitioners cannot be sold. The

¶26

4 WP-3339-2021 and 3340-2021

¶27

authorities ought not to have taken drastic steps of culling the birds.

¶28

It would be the decision of the authorities based on the advise

¶29

of the experts regarding steps to be taken to curtail spread of infection.

¶30

The authorities may revisit the decision of culling animals and after considering all the aspects of the matter, may proceed with such steps as would appear to be proper for the spread of infection. The decision would solely rest with the authorities.

¶31

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶32

Authenticated copy be given.

¶33

[ SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J. ] [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶34

mta

M/S Ashraf Poultry Farm Thr Its Partner Mohd Ashraf Timol v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ashraf Poultry Farm Thr Its Partner Mohd Ashraf Timol v. Union of India 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

Navnath Ashruba Gholve and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Bhagwat Kondiba Khedkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Limited Pardi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prabhakar Sitaram Wade and Anohter Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Shabbir Shaikh Abdul Rahman Kureshi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Tushar Vishwasrao Rajale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others