( 1 ) WITH the agreement of the learned counsel for the parties we proceed to finally hear and dispose of this appeal instead of stay vacation (sic) application. The respondent, it appears, carries on business of procuring cattle and transporting them to West Bengal. In that connection viz. for transportation of cattle by railway he has to comply with certain requirements as contained in R. 96 of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978 as amended in 2001 which is quoted below: "96. Issue of certificate before transportation.- (1) a valid certificate issued by an officer or any person or Animal Welfare Organisation duly recognised and authorised for this purpose by the Animal Welfare Board of India or the Central Government shall be procured by any person making transport of any animal before transportation of such animal verifying that all the relevant Central and State Acts, rules and orders pertaining to the said animals including the rules relating to transport of such animals have been duly complied with and that the animal is not being transported for any purpose contrary to the provision of any law. (2) In the absence of such certificate, the carrier shall refuse to accept the consignment for transport. " ( 2 ) SINCE it appears that the required certificate was not furnished, the appellant refused to load the animals for transportation to West Bengal. The respondent approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. The High Court while dealing with the matter observed that the Rules show that the certificate in terms thereof can be issued after the animals are loaded in the wagons by the authority concerned and not before such loading. The relevant R. 96 quoted above does not indicate that any such meaning flows from the said rule. It cannot be said or inferred that the required certificate is to be furnished after loading of the animals in the wagons. Sub-rule (2) of R. 96 clearly provides that in the absence of such a certificate the carrier shall refuse to accept the consignment, hence the question of loading animals first does not arise. The appellants refusal to load the animals is according to the Rules. Sub-rule (2) of R. 96 clearly provides that in the absence of such a certificate the carrier shall refuse to accept the consignment, hence the question of loading animals first does not arise. The appellants refusal to load the animals is according to the Rules. ( 3 ) THE order passed by the High Court allowing the writ petition is based on misreading of the Rules while holding that the certificate under R. 96 can be issued only after loading of animals. It is against the plain language used in the provision. Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. We, therefore, allow the appeal with costs and set aside the order passed by the High Court.