Disposed

N.Ramalinga, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Apr 2015WP/12239/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court disposed of the plea questioning the Municipal Corporation's illegal seizure of pigs. Relying on a Division Bench precedent requiring authorities to follow specific licensing and relocation procedures, the court directed the respondent to adhere to those directions rather than destroying stray pigs arbitrarily.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach respondent for license consideration as per AIR 1987 AP 193 judgment; Writ petition disposed.

N.Ramalinga, Vs State of Andhra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.12239 OF 2015

¶3

O R D E R :

¶4

This petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent Authorities and their men in catching the pigs belonging to the petitioners with the help of private agencies from Chennai and transporting them to Chennai, as illegal and arbitrary without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶5

The case of the petitioners is that their occupation is rearing of pigs and they are living in the colonies at the outskirts of the 2^nd respondent-Municipal Corporation, Anantapur; that in the month of January 2014 with a false and baseless allegation started propaganda that swine flu is getting spread due to the pigs and the pigs are causing sanitation problems; that the 2^nd respondent without any notice has deployed certain private agencies from Chennai and also gave police protection to them for catching the pigs, which are straying in the municipal localities; that by taking advantage of the same, the Authorities and the men of the 2^nd respondent in active connivance with the private agencies, with a malafide intention have forcibly taken the pigs of petitioners and transported to other places; and that the petitioners made oral representation to the 3^rd respondent-Commissioner, Anantapur Municipal Corporation; that as there was no response, they made representations dated 21.01.2015 and 27.01.2015 to the 4^th respondent-District Collector, Anantapur, stating that pigs worth Rs.6 lakhs were forcibly taken away by the Chennai agencies and sought for allotment of land for pigs rearing and to provide loans to build sheds. As no action has been taken on the representations of the petitioners, this writ petition is filed.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Administration appearing for the 1^st respondent, Sri S.D.Goud, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and learned Government

¶7

Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that the 2^nd respondent is only catching stray pigs as they are posing health hazard as several complaints are received from the local people.

¶9

A Division Bench of this Court in Andhra Pradesh Adimajati Seva Sangham v. Guntur Municipal Council considering the decision of this Court in S.Narayana v. M.C.H. held as under:

¶10

“The caution administered by this court had obviously little effect on the Government. We are not surprised if it is totally disregarded. It is clear that no endeavour is made by the Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Gram Panchayats, to educate these pig-owners and to give appropriate facilities for the rearing of the pigs outside the city limits. Counsel for all the petitioners agreed before us that the petitioners and other pig-owners are only too willing to move to any place or places that may be provided for the purpose either by the Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Gram Panchayats or for that matter by the Government. We do not think that any useful purpose will be served by our delving deep into the matter. Bearing in mind all aspects, we give the following directions for immediate compliance and implementation by the State Government, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Gram Panchayats :

¶11

1) The Government on its own and by issuing appropriate directions to the Municipal Corporations, Municipalities and Gram Panchayats, identify places outside the limits of the cities, towns and villages for locating the pigestablishments.

¶12

2) It is desirable to identify 3 or 4 alternative places and give the choice of selection to the pig-owners to move into;

¶13

3) As far as possible the areas should be identified within a distance of 3 to 5 Kms. from the end of the Municipal or Panchayat limits and the places selected should be such as would ensure proper surroundings for the survival of the pigs.

¶14

4) Specific extents of land, whether it is waste-land, poramboke or otherwise may be allotted to the petitioners and other pig-owners either on payment of a specified lease amount or may be sold to them on such terms as may be found mutually acceptable.

¶15

5) Once the areas are identified and the petitioners and other pig-owners make a choice they must be allowed to move into the respective places within three days. All possible help should be rendered to them to move out as it is not only a question of moving the pig establishments outside, but even the owners have to move their residences to be in the close vicinity of the areas where the pig establishments are located.

¶16

6) The petitioners and other pig-owners should be asked to make applications for written permissions or licences and the authorities concerned should grant written permissions or licences within one week from the date of receipt of the applications in accordance with law.

¶17

7) In order to establish that a pig has licence, it is desirable that the authorities concerned supply to the pig-owners tokens to be hung around the neck of the pigs so that any pig not having a token around its neck shall be considered to be an unlicenced pig and it will be open to the Government to destroy the same.

¶18

8) Periodical supervision should be made by the authorities concerned to satisfy

¶19

themselves that licensed pigs are not straying into the city, town and village limits.

¶20

9) The petitioners and other pig owners should be educated about their obligation to rear the pigs in a proper manner and comply with the statutory formalities.

¶21

A reading of the above, clearly indicates that the 2^nd respondent has to destroy the stray pigs. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, no whisper is made that the pigs, which are kept in the houses of the petitioners have been taken away. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the 2^nd respondent is taking away the stray pigs only.

¶22

In view of same, the respondent-Authorities shall follow the directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in AIR 1987 AP 193. However, it is open for the petitioners to make an application to the 2^nd respondent in respect of license and the same shall be considered by the 2^nd respondent in terms of the above referred judgment.

¶23

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶24

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

¶25

27.04.2015

¶26

pab

N.Ramalinga, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Ramalinga, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Sarojamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. T. Pallavi Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

K. Sunaina Bai Vs The State of Telangana

Kura Kistappa Vs The Gram Panchayat

Pujali Pungodi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Sambasiva Rao, Vs The State of Telangana