Back
K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, A. K. MATHUR
Geeta Seshamani – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Key Points: - The petitioner argues lack of full implementation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 by various States (!) . - The petition contends that many States have not constituted State Animal Welfare Boards and that SPCAs in every district are not established as contemplated under Rule 3 of the 2001 Rules (!) . - The Court directed states that have not constituted State Animal Welfare Boards to do so within three months and to ensure SPCAs are established in every district (!) . - A copy of the order was to be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all States to take necessary actions (!) . - The matter concerned disposal of the writ petition and management of funds (Rs. 1,11,363/- in FDR) for the Delhi State Animal Welfare Board as it matures (!) . - The writ petition was disposed of accordingly (!) .
ORDER :
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the provisions contained under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 are not fully implemented by the various States. All the State Governments were impleaded as party respondents and some of the States have filed their responses.
2. Heard petitioner's counsel.
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in many States the State Animal Welfare Boards are not constituted and, therefore, implementation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules are not done effectively. It is also pointed that the Animal Welfare Boards in the States are not taking effective steps to establish Societies for prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCAs) in every district as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001. Some of the States have submitted that they have filed a statement to the effect that these SPCAs had already been constituted in all the States.
4. We direct the States, which have not constituted the State Animal Welfare Boards to constitute within a period of three months and also to see that
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
