B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, K.GNANAPRAKASAM
V. Vijaya Raghavalu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government – Respondent
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Declaration for the reasons stated therein.)
B. Subhashan Reddy, CJ.
1. The constitutionality of Tamil Nadu Animals & Birds in Urban Areas (Control & Regulation) Act, 1997 (Act 46 of 1997), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the consequential notifications issued thereunder are in challenge in this batch of writ petitions.
2. Before coming into force of the Act, the keeping of animals and birds was being regulated by issuance of licences under Sections 282 and 283 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as the CCMC Act. In fact, no such strict regulation was being enforced and it can be taken that the Chennai Corporation has never bestowed any attention or deemed it serious about the requirement of licences for keeping the animals or birds, as the case may be. While the Municipal Corporations Act is a general enactment, the Act in question is a special one relating to animals and birds in urban areas and it prevails over the Acts under which the local authorities function.
3. Even though arguments have been advanced that the licences have to
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.