Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. In a Public Interest Litigation, viz., W.P. No.8502 of 2002, raising question with regard to the cruelty meted out to animals in the process of transportation from one place to another, the First Bench of this Court, having regard to the provisions of the Transport of Animals Rules, 1978, framed in exercise of the rule-making power conferred under Section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, by its order dated 11.06.2002, made the following observation/direction: "This matter came on for being mentioned. Our attention was adverted to Rule 96 of Transport of Animals (amendment) rules 2001, which have been framed under the rule making power under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Clause 96 of the said rules empowers the animal Welfare Board for issue of a certificate before transportation, and mandates that no carrier shall accept consignment for transport of animals without producing such a certificate. In the circumstances, we clarify our order dated 16. 2002 to the effect that if a representation is made by the petitioner herein, the animal Welfare Board shall consider issuing suitable directions to the appropriate authorities including the police for strict compliance of the possession of the said certificate as mentioned above. Re-communicate the order. " 2. The present Contempt Petition is preferred, alleging violation of the aforesaid order. In the meantime, the petitioner in the Contempt Petition wrote a letter, dated 5th April, 2007, to the District Collector, Coimbatore, giving reference to the Courts Order, with a request not to allow any vehicle including lorries to transport the cattle without any valid certificate from the Animal Welfare Board of India or its duly authorized persons; and also to register case under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960, as against those who violate the direction of the Court. 3. It appears that, after receiving the said letter, the District Collector, Coimbatore, insisted upon the members of Manila Mattu Viyabarigal matrum Thozilargal Padugappu Sangam (hereinafter referred to as Association)/petitioner in W.P. No.20888 of 2007 to produce Certificate in terms of Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. 3. It appears that, after receiving the said letter, the District Collector, Coimbatore, insisted upon the members of Manila Mattu Viyabarigal matrum Thozilargal Padugappu Sangam (hereinafter referred to as Association)/petitioner in W.P. No.20888 of 2007 to produce Certificate in terms of Transport of Animals Rules, 1978. In this background, the Association preferred the Writ Petition for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from interfering with its members or any farmers transporting cattle by insisting on a Certificate other than a Certificate prescribed under Rule 47 of the Transportation of Animals Rules, 1978. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by R-1/The Animal Welfare Board, Chennai, referring to Rule 96 of the Transport of Animal Rules, 1978, as introduced by the Amendment in 2001, it is informed that Certificate is not required from the Animal Welfare Board but is required from any Officer, Person or Animal Welfare Organization recognized and authorized for this purpose by the Animal Welfare Board or the Central Government. List of persons authorized to issue permission under the Rules has been enclosed with the counter affidavit. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Association points out that as regards the State of Tamil Nadu, six persons have been authorized to issue certificate, of whom, one is at Auroville and five are at Chennai, and submits that inasmuch five authorized persons are at Chennai, the State Capital, the members of the petitioner Association and farmers in remote parts of the State have been put to great hardship as they will have to cover a long distance to come to Chennai for getting such certificate. By further submitting that the Rules cannot be given effect to, learned counsel seeks for permission of this Court to file a petition challenging the validity of the Rules. 6. As could be seen, under Rule 96 of the Transport of Animals (Amendment) Rules, 2001, no transporter can be permitted to transport cattle from one to place to another without the valid certificate issued by the Animal Welfare Board of India or persons authorized by it in that regard. The Rules cannot be challenged on the vague ground that the persons authorized are at Chennai and that the members of the petitioner Association or others seeking issuance of the certificate cannot travel a long distance from their actual places. The Rules cannot be challenged on the vague ground that the persons authorized are at Chennai and that the members of the petitioner Association or others seeking issuance of the certificate cannot travel a long distance from their actual places. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the question whether the Rules or any of the provisions are ultra vires or not. 7. Coming to the Contempt Petition, the action alleged to have been taken by the District Collector, Coimbatore District, shows that the authorities are implementing the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.8502 of 2002 in letter and spirit, therefore, we are of the view that there is no ground made out for contempt. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. M.P. No.1 of 2007 is closed. Contempt proceedings are dropped and the Contempt Petition is closed.