SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Bom) 314

V.P.TIPNIS, C.S.DHARMADHIKARI
Krushi Goseva Sangh & another – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & others – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the mandate of mandamus under Article 226 in requiring the State of Maharashtra to frame a scheme for the effective implementation of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976?

What is the appropriate legal framework and remedies for preservation, custody, and disposal of cattle or schedule animals pending trial under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, including the use of Section 451 CrPC?

What amendments or additional provisions could enhance the efficacy of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 (e.g., banning slaughter of progeny, licensing requirements, and maintenance/detention guidelines) to prevent evasion and ensure speedy trials?


JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, Acg. C.J.:---This writ petition is filed by Krushi Go-Seva Sangh, Malegaon a social organisation and another, for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 the State of Maharasthra to frame a scheme for effective implementation of the provisions of the Maharasthra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. A further direction is also sought for making arrangement for preservation and maintenance of animals during the tendency of the trial through social organizations, like the petitioner No. 1 Krushi Go-Seva Sangh, Ejaz Ahmed Kallu alias Zhinka, Abdul Bari and Subhan Khan who claim to be the traders, dealing in the business of sale and purchase of cattle at Malegaon made applications for intervention which came to be allowed.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that at Malegaon and several other places in Nasik District, flagrant breaches of the provisions of sections 6 and 7 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 are being committed and no action is being taken by the authorities concerned, thereby making the very provision of the Act nugatory. On the other hand it is the case of the Intervenors that bona fide traders who deal in the business of sa
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top