Allowed

Dr. Giridas P.B., v. Animal Welfare Board of India

Kerala HC1 Nov 2023WP(C)/20746/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the withdrawal of his nomination as a representative on the State Animal Welfare Board. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Animal Welfare Board of India to reconsider its decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Writ Petition allowed; Impugned proceedings quashed; Direction to reconsider withdrawal after hearing.

Dr. Giridas P.B., Vs Animal Welfare Board of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 20746 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

DR. GIRIDAS P.B., AGED 51 YEARS S/O. BALAN, PANDARIKKAL HOUSE, KARYATTUKARA, ELTHURUTH P.O., THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680611

¶6

BY ADVS. P.MARTIN JOSE P.PRIJITH THOMAS P.KURUVILLA R.GITHESH AJAY BEN JOSE MANJUNATH MENON SACHIN JACOB AMBAT ANNA LINDA V.J HARIKRISHNAN S. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FISHERIES, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING, GOVT. OF INDIA, (DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING), NIAW CAMPUS, 42 MILE STONE, DELHI-AGRA HIGHWAY NH-2, BALLABHGARH, HARYANA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 121004

¶9

2 STATE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD KERALA, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA , REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, PIN - 695033

¶10

3 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, VIKAS BHAWAN, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033

¶11

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA, PIN - 695001

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC, ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF

¶14

WP(C) NO.20746 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

INDIA MANU S. DSG OF INDIA

¶17

SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP, SMT.MINI GOPINATH, CGC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO.20746 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner impugns Ext.P9, proceedings of the 1^st respondent – Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), whereby, his nomination earlier made as their representative in the State Animal Welfare Board, has been withdrawn. The petitioner asserts that as evident from Ext.P9, certain unsubstantiative complaints had been raised against him, based on which, the AWBI directed the State Animal Welfare Board to investigate and take an action, but on the ground that no reply had been received from the said Authority, Ext.P9 order had been issued withdrawing the nomination. He asserts that Ext.P9 is untenable because the State Animal Welfare Board had caused the investigation to the complaints to find that no cases or vigilance enquiry were pending against him, but that this had been noticed by the AWBI while issuing Ext.P9. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be quashed.

¶23

Interestingly, Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader conceded that the State Animal Welfare Board had not replied to the notices of the AWBI, until such time Ext.P9 had been issued, but responses were

¶24

WP(C) NO.20746 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

caused, thereafter as evident from Exts.R3(a) and R3(b). He submitted that as evident from the said responses there are no subsisting complaints against the petitioner nor did any enquiry found any culpability against him. He, therefore, left to this Court to take an apposite decision.

¶27

Smt.Mini Gopinath – learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent – AWBI asserted that Ext.P9 is irreproachable because the State Animal Welfare Board itself admits that they had not caused any reply to the notice has issued by the former regarding the petitioner. She submitted that, however, if this Court is to incline the matter can be reconsidered by the AWBI adverting to Exts.R3(a) and R3(b), but asserted that no fault can be found against the said Board in having issued Ext.P9.

¶28

I must say that there is great force in the afore submissions of Smt.Mini Gopinath because a challenge to Ext.P9 by the petitioner ipso facto cannot succeed. This is because, it is conceded before me by the State Animal Welfare Board that no response had been issued to the AWBI prior to Ext.P9 had been issued and that they did so only later through Exts.R3(a) and R3(b). However, since both

¶29

WP(C) NO.20746 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) unequivocally certified that there is no vigilance case or disciplinary action against the petitioner, I am of the view that the matter will require to be reconsidered by the AWBI at the appropriate level.

¶32

In the afore perspective and for the sole reason above, I allow this Writ Petition and set aside Ext.P9 with a consequential direction to the Competent Authority of the 1^st respondent – AWBI to reconsider the withdrawal of nomination of the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent - the State Animal Welfare Board adverting to Exts.R3(a) and R3(b), after affording him an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶34

lsn

¶35

WP(C) NO.20746 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF CERTI	FICATE DATED
	13/06/2012 ISSUED COUNCIL OF KERALA ANIMAL SCIENCES UN PETITIONER	BY THE MANAGEMENT VETERINARY AND IVERSITY TO THE
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RECONSTITUTING THE WELFARE BOARD, KER	DATED 27/08/2021 RESPONDENT STATE ANIMAL ALA
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF COMMU 06/10/2021 ISSUED RESPONDENT TO THE SELECTING 2 PERSON PERSONS CONTAINED NOMINEE OF THE 1ST THE 2ND RESPONDENT	NICATION DATED BY THE 1ST 3RD RESPONDENT FOR S, OUT OF THE 6 THEREIN, AS THE RESPONDENT BOARD IN BOARD
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF GOVER (MS)NO. 37/2021/AH ISSUED BY THE 4TH SELECTING THE PETI JACOB FROM THE LIS EXHIBIT.P3 AS THE RESPONDENT IN THE	NMENT ORDER, G.O. D DATED 11/10/2021 RESPONDENT, TIONER AND MS. MARIA T OF THE NAMES IN NOMINEES OF THE 1ST 2ND RESPONDENT BOARD
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF COMMU 22/11/2021 ISSUED RESPONDENT TO THE	NICATION DATED BY THE 1ST 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE L 23/01/2020 ISSUED COLLECTOR, THRISSU EXPLANATION FROM T ALLEGEDLY ISSUING WITHOUT ASCERTAINI CONDITIONS OF THE	ETTER DATED BY THE DISTRICT R, SEEKING HE PETITIONER FOR FITNESS CERTIFICATES NG THE ACTUAL HEALTH ELEPHANT
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF EXPLA 15/02/2022 SUBMITT TO EXHIBIT.P6	NATION DATED ED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF LETTE ISSUED BY THE KERA COUNCIL	R DATED 28/01/2020 LA STATE VETERINARY
Exhibi P9	TRUE COPY OF PROCE	EDINGS DATED

¶40

WP(C) NO.20746 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

30/05/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶43

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶44

EXHIBIT R3(a) True copy of letter no. AHD/7516/2021E2 dated 06-06-2022 EXHIBIT R3(b) True copy of letter no. AHD/7516/2021E2 dated 23-06-2022

¶45

TRUE COPY

¶46

P.A TO JUDGE

¶47

LSN

Dr. Giridas P.B., v. Animal Welfare Board of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Giridas P.B., v. Animal Welfare Board of India

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

Aswin Ashokan Vs Union of India

Jinu James Kandathil Vs the Chief Engineer

Jinu James Kandathil Vs the Superintending Engineer

Perfect Engineers and Contractors, Vs State of Kerala

Asif Azad Vs Haja Maheen

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs the Chief Controller of Explosives