Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1529 (JHR)

Delip Jerath v. State of Jharkhand

2012-10-06

JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
ORDER By Court.-one writ petition was filed by Mr. Ajit Kumar, now the Additional Advocate General in the Jharkhand High Court being C.W.J.C. No. 1799 of 2001 wherein petitioner prayed for direction to the respondents to make proper improvements in the administration, beautification and other arrangements in the Baidyanath Temple under the guidelines, control and supervision of the. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar who is the Trustee of the said temple and further direction upon the respondent No.1, the State of Jharkhand, to completely take over the matter of administration, maintenance and development of said temple. In the writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1799 of 2001 several detailed orders were passed and finally vide detailed order dated 08.05.2002 Management Board was constituted headed by Sri T.P., Sinha, former Director General of Police, Jharkhand (now residing in the State of Bihar at Patna). In para 20, certain directions were issued to the Management Board and in the same order liberty was given to the parties to approach this Court whenever any need arises or the need is felt for any modification, clarification or vacation, with respect to the directions issued earlier or contained in order dated 08.05.2002. 2. One of the Member of the Management Board Sri Delip Jerath. Advocate of this Court has moved this C.M.P. No. 475 of 2012 and prayed that respondent Management Board be restrained from sacrificing the goats and male buffaloes in the temple premises on the occasion of durga puja and kali puja for which the Chairman of the Board has sanctioned 150 and 22 goats for sacrifice on occasion of durga Puja and kali Puja respectively and sanctioned an amount of Rs. 2,58,000/- and also sanctioned Rs. 88,000/- for the sacrifice of 20 and 2 buffaloes on the occasion of durga Puja and kali Puja respectively. This allocation is for the year 2012. 3. Sri Jerath submitted that the Management Board miserably failed to fulfill and achieve the objects for which the Board was constituted and in fact the Board is not properly, functioning and the objections raised by the members of the Board are not being taken note of in any of the meetings and decisions are taken which includes decision of sacrifice of these animals referred above which was seriously objected by the applicant and member of the Board Sri Jerath himself along with other persons. 4. 4. The applicant Sri Jerath drew our attention to the various activities which are not permitted but being carried out by the Board and also has shown apprehension of his own harm in case of resistance by him which may be caused by the persons who have direct connection or may not have any, connection with the proper working of the Board of Baba Baidyanathdham Temple. 5. The writ petitioner Sri Ajit Kumar also supported the contention of the applicant Sri Jerath and submitted that in fact the Management Board has miserably failed to discharge its functions obligations and duties. Sri Ajit Kumar vehemently submitted that it is none of the functions of the Managing Board to allocate and spend the money for sacrifice of the animals. 6. Sri Jerath submitted that the decision of the respondents to sacrifice the animals is contrary to law as it is an act prohibited under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960 enacted by the Parliament as well as is contrary to the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act. 2005. 7. It is submitted that validity of the Act of 2005 was under challenge in the case of Mustafa Ouraishi v. State of Jharkharid & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) JCR 496 (Jhr) wherein validity has been upheld after considering the Supreme Court's earlier decision delivered in the case of Mohd, Hanif Quareshi & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, reported in AIR 1958 SC 731 and subsequent judgments which includes the judgment of the State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Qurasi reported in AIR 2005 SCW 5723 and other judgments. 8. Applicant Sri Jerath submitted that the earlier judgment of Mohd. Rani Quareshi & Others (supra) was rendered before coming into force of the directive principles in the Constitution. It is also submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960 what to say of killing of the animals, even cruelty upon the animals is prohibited irrespective of their classification. It is submitted that after coming into force of the Act of 1960 as well as the Act of 2005 in the State of Jharkhand no animal can be sacrificed may it be in the name of some religious rights. It is submitted that as per his knowledge. It is submitted that after coming into force of the Act of 1960 as well as the Act of 2005 in the State of Jharkhand no animal can be sacrificed may it be in the name of some religious rights. It is submitted that as per his knowledge. there is no mention of sacrifice of animals even in the religious texts and. therefore, such pretexts are required to be examined by this Court so as to find out that in the days of vast knowledge of the persons and serious voice raised by various organizations against the cruelty against the animals, whether such pretexts can be still made available to the persons who are for no reason killing the animals. 9. Learned counsel applicant as well as petitioner, both also raised serious objection with respect to the working of the Management Board details of which at present is not needed. 10. We are of the considered opinion that the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Act, 1960 was enacted to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain and sufferings on animals and for the purpose of amending the law relating to prevention of cruelty to animals. What is cruelty to animal has been described in Section 11 of the Act of 1960 which includes even beating kicking and overriding and overloading on any animal resulting into unnecessary pain and suffering which are much less to the killing of the animals. The details of the examples of cruelty to animal have been given in Sub-Clauses (a) to (o) in sub-section (1) of Section 11. The cruelty to animal has been made offence under the Act of 1960. 11. In the case of State of West Bengal & Others v. Ashutosh Lahiri, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 189 , Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the issue of slaughter of cows on the occasion of BakrI'd and while considering the said issue. also considered Article 25 of the Constitution of India with reference to any fundamental right of a community vis-a-vis essential religious practice rights of persons and held that there is no fundamental right of a Muslim of slaughter of healthy cow on BakrI'd day which cannot be a valid ground for exemption by the State under Section 12 which would in turn enable slaughtering of such cows on BakrI'd. 12. Applicant Sri Jerath submitted that as per his knowledge, such issue has been taken for consideration by the Orissa High Court and therein some directions have been issued but he is not in a position to place before us the order passed by the Orissa High Court except the news item published in the newspaper ‘The Hindu’ on 06.10.2010. 13. Learned counsel Sri Mahesh Tewari orally submitted several reasons for immediate change of the Management Board. However it will be appropriate for learned counsel to move appropriate application which may be considered by this Court and appropriate order will be passed on such application after hearing the other parties also. Such application may also be filed in this case. 14. We are of the considered opinion that issue raised by Sri Jerath. Advocate of this Court and member of the Management Board of Baba Baidyanathdham Temple requires serious consideration and, therefore it is essential to issue notice to Baba Baidyanathdham Temple Management Board. 15. The State Government is directed to serve notice upon any Body or Committee which may have been constituted by the State Government in furtherance to the Jharkhand Bovine Animal Prohibition of Slaughter Act. 2005. if it is there. 16. The applicant Sri Jerath may also give the particulars of the Animal Welfare Board of India which may be constituted under Section 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. 1960 and upon furnishing the particulars of the Animal Welfare Board of India the notice be issued to the said Board forthwith. 17. Notice be filed by today which may be issued forthwith. The applicant may file the notice with the Registry of this Court and also give a copy to the learned counsel for the State who may in turn serve the same upon the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar who is Secretary of the Management Board. 18. Put up on 10.10.2012. 19. A copy of this order be given to the applicant Sri Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the State as well as Sri Ajit Kumar petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1799 of 2001. Ordered accordingly