Dismissed

Mallikarjuna a v. Government of India

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2021WP/5954/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by a petitioner seeking a mandamus to amend a State Government policy on fodder depots and cattle camps. The Court held that policy decisions are immune from judicial review unless arbitrary or illegal, rejecting the petitioner's lack of expertise and data as grounds for interference.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to amend the policy incorporating petitioner's suggestions was dismissed.

Mallikarjuna a Vs Government of India — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 5954 OF 2020(GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MALLIKARJUNA A S/O ALEGOWDA AGED 38 YEARS N.S.ROAD, CHELUR VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572117.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUNA A, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶12

AND:

¶13

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FAMILY WELFARE, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001. REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY.

¶14

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

¶15

¶16

DISASTER MANAGEMENT DIVISION, C-WIND, 3^RD FLOOR, NDCC II, JAISINGH ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY.

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶18

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (DISASTER MANAGEMENT) REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶19

DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-56001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA FOR R3 TO R5; NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DEEMED TO BE SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND FILED BY PARTY-IN-PERSON PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3, 4 AND 5 TO MAKE THE BELOW CORRECTIONS IN THE POLICY ANNEXED AS ANNX-A AND SERVE ALL THE LIVE STOCKS, USEFUL OR NOT, BROUGHT TO THE RELIEF CENTERS AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to direct respondents 3, 4 and 5 to bring in amendments to the policy relating to establishment, maintenance of fodder depots and cattle camps in Karnataka.

¶27

The present writ petition is filed in the nature of public interest litigation. The petitioner/party-in-person claims that he is a resident of Chelur Village of Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District and is an agriculturist. Petitioner contends that he is also doing social work and in the present writ petition though he is not questioning the Government Order dated 8.11.2019 wherein the State Government has come up with a policy in regard to establishment, maintenance of fodder depots and cattle camps in Karnataka, but, however by filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to incorporate few suggestions which are in the nature of advisory in the said policy. The petitioner has formulated the suggestions at prayer column(i)(a) to (q) of the writ petition.

¶28

¶29

The petitioner's contention is that though State Government has formulated a policy to counter disaster, however he contends that the State is neither equipped with the mechanism nor there are any guidelines in collecting data in regard to fodder availability. Therefore the fodder availability is done purely on mathematical basis and not on practical basis. He would further contend that if the State is unable to introduce the mechanism to ascertain the sale rates of animals, then it would be impossible for the State to collect data which would indicate whether the animals were sold under distress or not. The petitioner has also contended that the policy does not contemplate a mechanism as to how the fodder can be procured and its quality can be certified. The policy also does not deal with the distance from which the fodder is procured and also does not deal with likelihood of loss due to evaporation.The petitioner has raised several other grounds and on these set of grounds, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus to issue a direction to the State to bring in

¶30

¶31

appropriate corrections in the policy as suggested in the prayer column(i)(a) to (q).

¶32

The respondent-State on receipt of notice has

¶33

tendered appearance and filed statement of objections.

¶34

The State refuting the allegations averred in the

¶35

writ petition would submit that the policy as per Annexure-A framed by the State for establishment of fodder banks and cattle camps is farmer friendly and supportive to the farmers during acute distress times. The respondent-State has contended that the policy is in accordance with the mandate of

¶36

the Court. Countering the allegations that the policy does not indicate that it is covering all live stocks, at para 4, the State has specifically stated that the domestic animals such as horses, donkeys, mules etc. will also be taken care during drought or flood situation. The respondent-State has reiterated that every live stock is within the radar of the State when it comes to providing fodder and no discrimination is

¶37

¶38

made. The respondent-State has also taken a contention that the policy at Annexure-A provides much more than the live stock census reports and the State is well equipped to accommodate more farmers during distress situation and even if there is a demand by small farmers for more fodder support, the State will not deprive any farmer of such assistance sought. The respondent-State has also contended that during drought situation local veterinary officer with supporting staff conducts household survey to find out the ground reality of fodder availability and households with fodder are also identified and thereafter, cards are issued to avail fodder facility from the fodder depot or cattle camps. Therefore, the contentions averred in the writ petition are without any basis. The respondent-State at para 8 of the statement of objections has contended that the policy is time tested, objective and referred to in the drought manual and the drought manual is infact based on several comparative studies based on the opinions of the experts. The respondent-State has also taken

¶39

¶40

the contention that the APMC has proper mechanism of reporting selling price of livestock on every market day and therefore, the data is available with the APMC on day to day basis and there are no reasons to disbelieve the statistics available with the APMC.

¶41

Heard the party-in-person and the learned AGA. We have given our anxious consideration to the grounds urged in the writ petition. We have also meticulously examined the stand taken by the respondent-State in the statement of objections.

¶42

On meticulous examination of the statement of objections, which is culled out in brief supra, we are of the view that no mandamus issues to the respondent-State to bring in changes to the policy as suggested by the petitioner. It is a trite law that State is not accountable to the Courts in respect of the policy decisions. However, the State is accountable for the legality of such decisions. The petitioner is

¶43

¶44

not an expert and no data is furnished to substantiate his claim made in the writ petition. The grounds urged in the writ petition does not indicate any illegality in the policy. If the grounds urged in the writ petition are examined, it clearly indicate that the petitioner wants this Court to undertake Government duty and functions, which is impermissible under law. Policy decisions unless it is absolutely capricious, unreasonable and arbitrary or is violative of any constitutional provision is immune from judicial review. The policy formulated by the State in regard to establishment and maintenance of cattle camps in Karnataka involves expertise and lot of data collection on the ground and the policy clearly indicates involvement of several authorities which is quite complex. The policy has meticulously assigned a specific roles to the revenue department which deals with disaster management and animal husbandry and fishery departments and role of Deputy Commissioner of a district. The policy is exhaustive and involves various departments to enable

¶45

¶46

effective implementation of the objects of the policy. The respondent-State has reiterated its stand which is in consonance with the requirements contemplated under the policy at Annexure-A.

¶47

If these significant details are looked into, we are of the view that how the policy should be implemented has to be left to the discretion and wisdom of the State since it alone can decide how the policy should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects from different angles. In the matter of policy decision or exercise of discretion by the Government, so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown, it is a trite law that Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Courts will not and should not substitute its views as it lacks expertise in the field.

¶48

At paragraph (2), the respondent-State has made a

¶49

statement that it is open for any suggestions. The policy of establishment of fodder banks and cattle camps is a new

¶50

¶51

policy. Any short comings and infractions in implementing the policy has to be noticed only by passage of time. It is well within the discretion of the State Government to bring any changes or add new parameters to the policy if required at the instance of experts and the authorities who are implementing the policy at the ground level.

¶52

The petitioner/party-in-person has failed to make out that the policy is actuated by any malice or is the outcome of any arbitrary or whimsical act.

¶53

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merits in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶54

Sd/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

*alb/-.

Mallikarjuna a v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallikarjuna a v. Government of India

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

M/S Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Stone Crusher Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Yathin Stone Crusher Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Rama Stone Crusher Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nazeer Ahmed Vs Smt. Khazi Nafisa

Sri H M Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Bodhaketara Noukarara Sangha (Reg) Vs the Secretary