IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

th

ON THE 15 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 17914 of 2013 DORILAL MEHRA AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

None for the petitioners.

Shri Tapan Bathre - Panel Lawyer for the State.

ORDER (iii) Cost of this petition may be awarded.

This petition has been filed praying the following reliefs:

"(i) It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to make suitable provision for transportation of agricultural cattle within the State of M.P., which are fit for milch, draught or other use of

agricultural purpose.

(ii) Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct

the respondents no.2 & 3 not to harass petitioners and other cattle dealers, who are duly registered under the M.P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act and have necessary documents during the course of business on the pretext of violation of Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam & Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Act.

(iv) Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed, in the interest of justice."

When the matter is called out, no one appears for the petitioner.

2. Counsel for the State submits that the State has filed return and contends that none of the reliefs is required to be granted to the petitioner as there are sufficient provisions in the Statute and Rules. In this context, he has also drawn attention of this Court to paragraphs 4 to 7 of the return.

3. Considered the submissions made by Shri Tapan Bathre, counsel for the State at the Bar and also considered the reliefs sought by the petitioner as well as return filed by the State, there are specific provisions available. In the Rules framed in the year 2012 in exercise of power conferred under Rule 17 read with Rule 12 of the MP Gowansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, there is Rule 3 which deals with grant of transit permit. In the return, State has referred to Section 11 of the MP Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam and provisions of Cruelty to Animal Act. there is also reference to Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Policy which also take care of reliefs sought by the petitioner. Therefore, considering the averments made in the return filed by the State authorities and the reliefs sought by the petitioner which is essentially sought to frame necessary Rules under the statute which are already in existence, no further consideration is required. Consideration of such prayer has become merely academic exercise.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as essentially the reliefs sought by the petitioner are already satisfied in view of the existing provisions under the law.

(SANDEEP N. BHATT)

JUDGE ks