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

2017 Supreme(Ker) 590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Petitioner
Versus
Respondent
W.P.(C) Nos. 17803, 17829 & 1806 of 2017
Decided On : 07-06-2017

The court exercised judicial restraint in declaring legislation unconstitutional and considered the impact on livelihoods and meat supply in directing the matters to be heard on a priority basis.

Headnote:

Cattle Trade - Challenge to Rule 22 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 - Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 22, the definition of 'animal market' and 'cattle', and the contentions of the petitioners regarding legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, and impact on agricultural activities and meat scarcity. The court considered the nature and object of the Act, the scope of the impugned Rule, and the principles of judicial restraint in declaring legislation unconstitutional.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged Rule 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017, which prohibits sale of cattle in animal markets for slaughter and prohibits purchasers from selling cattle for slaughter. They argued that the Rule is ultra vires the Act, infringes fundamental rights, and impacts livelihoods and meat scarcity.

Finding of the Court:

The court found a strong prima facie case for the petitioners but exercised judicial restraint in not putting the impugned Rule on hold. The court directed the matters to be heard on a priority basis, considering the impact on livelihoods and meat supply.

Issues: Legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights, impact on livelihoods and meat supply.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature and object of the Act, the scope of the impugned Rule, and the principles of judicial restraint in declaring legislation unconstitutional.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were admitted, and the matters were directed to be heard on a priority basis.

JUDGMENT :

1. When these writ petitions came up for admission on 31.05.2017, the learned Assistant Solicitor General took notice for the Union of India and the Ministries under it and the learned Special Government Pleader took notice for the State Government and Directorates under it. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed for an interim order staying the Rule which is impugned in the writ petitions, the counsel on either side where heard on the prayer for interim order.

2. The first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17803 of 2017 is a cattle trader, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17829 of 2017 and petitioners 2 and 3 in W.P.(C) No.18064 of 2017 are meat traders and the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18064 of 2017 is an Association of workers engaged in meat markets.

3. Rule 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017(“the Rules”) framed by the Central Government. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (“the Act”), is under challenge in these matters.

4. Rule 22 of the Rules which deals with restrictions on sale of cattle in animal markets reads thus:

“Restrictions on sale on cattle.—The Member Secretary of the Animal Market Committee shall ensure that-

(a) no person shall bring to an animal market a young animal;

(b) no person shall bring a cattle to an animal market unless upon arrival he has furnished a written declaration signed by the owner of the cattle or his duly authorised agent—

(i) stating the name and address of the owner of the cattle, with a copy of the photo identification proof;

(ii) giving details of the identification of the cattle;

(iii) stating that the cattle has not been brought to market for sale for slaughter;

(c) every declaration furnished to the Animal Market Committee shall be retained by it for a period of six months from the date on which it is furnished to them and the Animal Market Committee shall, on demand made by an Inspector at any reasonable time during that period, produce such declaration and allow a copy of it or an extract from it to be taken;

(d) where an animal has been sold and before its removal from the animal market, the Animal Market committee shall—

(i) obtain the expenses incurred for each animal, as approved by the District Animal Market Monitoring Committee, so as to provide the basic facilities for animal and people;

(ii) take an undertaking that the animals are bought for agriculture purposes and not for slaughter.

(iii) keep a record of name and address of the purchaser and procure his identity proof;

(iv) verify that the purchaser is an agriculturist by seeing the relevant revenue document.

(v) ensure that the purchaser of the animal gives a declaration that he shall not sell the animal up to six months from the date of purchase and shall abide by the rules relating to transport of animals made under the Act or any other law for the time being in force;

(vi) retain such record for a period of six months from the date of sale;

(vii) produce such record before an inspector on demand being made by him at any reasonable time during that period and allow a copy of it or an extract from it to be taken;

(e) the purchaser of the cattle shall—

(i) not sell the animal or purpose of slaughter;

(ii) follow the State cattle protection or preservation laws;

(iii) not sacrifice the animal for any religious purpose;

(iv) not sell the cattle to a person outside the State without the permission, as per the State cattle protection or preservation laws;

(f) where a cattle has been sold and before its removal from the animal market, the proof of sale shall be issued in five copies, out of which first copy shall be handed over to purchaser, second copy to seller, third copy to tahsil office of the residence of purchaser, fourth copy to the Chief Veterinary Officer in the district of purchaser and last copy to be kept intact in the record by the Animal Market Committee.”

As evident from Rule 22, the same not on








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
whatsapp-icon Back to top