Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2751 (PNJ)

Ashwani Kumar v. U. T. Chandigarh

2016-09-27

LISA GILL, S.S.SARON

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.S. Saron, J. The Civil Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to take necessary legal action on the representations dated 09.09.2016 (Annexure P-1), 12.09.2016 (Annexure P-3) and 13.09.2016 (Annexure P-4) and further restricting the local residents of Chandigarh especially local residents of Mani Majra, Chandigarh not to purchase or sell animals from the sellers outside Union Territory, Chandigarh without obtaining a licence/permission to deal in such trade from the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh as required by the provisions of Section 332(1) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (as extended to Chandigarh) and further for directing the respondents to take strict legal action against the local residents of Mani Majra, Chandigarh, who slaughtered animals in an open area of their houses without obtaining license/permission violating the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 ('the Rules' - for short) and the provisions of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act and also polluted the environment, water drainage and also gave a bad message to the nearby residents/children and further direct the respondents to take adequate effective steps to prevent the sacrifice of innocent animals (goats) etc. and to stop illegal slaughtering of animals in public places, houses, rented accommodation etc. and further directions be issued to respondents to make strict-hard guidelines/policy/rules to save many innocent animals of their lives for future and these guidelines/provisions of relevant Acts/Municipal Corporation Act be given wide publicity through press and electronic media preferably at the time of such religious festival of Eid-Ul-Zuha/BakrI'd etc. 2. The petitioner claims that he is a public spirited person and he has filed the present petition in Public Interest. He has filed the petition so that in future such type of illegal activities for which he has prayed for prohibition may not occur in public areas, houses, rented houses and streets without permission/licence from the Government authorities. The petitioner claims that he has no vested interest in filing the present petition. The petition has not been filed for the purpose of publicity by the petitioner. Being a citizen of India, the petitioner, it is submitted, is fully entitled and competent to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner states that he is a resident of Mani Majra. The petition has not been filed for the purpose of publicity by the petitioner. Being a citizen of India, the petitioner, it is submitted, is fully entitled and competent to invoke the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner states that he is a resident of Mani Majra. He was coming back from his office on 09.09.2016 at about 8.00 p.m. At that time, he saw small goats in front of many houses in his area i.e. Mani Majra, Chandigarh. He enquired about the purpose of collecting these animals at this particular area and found that these animals (goats) were purchased by some members of the Muslim community for sacrificing them on 13.09.2016 i.e. on the occasion of Eid-Ul-Zuha. When the petitioner asked about this from persons of the Muslim community, they answered that these animals were not for sacrificing and said that these are their cradle animals. However, when the petitioner enquired more from some senior citizens of the area, they informed him that these persons were making a fool of him and that these animals would be killed after three days on the occasion of the religious festival of Eid-Ul-Zuha. The petitioner ran from pillar to post to protect these innocent animals and also to save the environment from pollution. He went to the office of Municipal Corporation Chandigarh, Sector 17, Chandigarh and Police Station Mani Majra, Chandigarh but all in vain. Now he wants that strict action be taken against all the local residents who sacrificed innocent goats/animals in their houses without obtaining any licence/permission from the Government authorities. The petitioner made an online complaint to the Chandigarh Police, Municipal Corporation, Chairman Pollution Board, Chairman Animals Welfare Board of India etc. A copy of the complaint/representation dated 09.09.2016 (Annexure P1) has been placed on record. 4. According to the petitioner, his doubts were fully converted into truth when he read a news item dated 11/12.09.2016 in the newspaper “The Tribune Chandigarh” which fully described about the illegal selling of the innocent goats in Chandigarh as also the purpose of selling of these innocent animals in Chandigarh. It was mentioned clearly as to from where they had come and the approximate price of each goat was mentioned. A copy of the news item is placed on record as Annexure P2. 5. It was mentioned clearly as to from where they had come and the approximate price of each goat was mentioned. A copy of the news item is placed on record as Annexure P2. 5. The petitioner made efforts to save these animals with the help of local authorities and other animals related departments. He made a representation dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P3) to some of the authorities so as to protect the innocent animals which would be sacrificed by the local residents of Mani Majra and other areas of Chandigarh for the religious festival. The petitioner made efforts to save these animals through the local authorities. However, being unsuccessful he has filed the present writ petition. 6. It is to be noticed that the petition has been filed in the nature of a Public Interest petition. The petitioner has not mentioned his antecedents showing that he has been espousing public causes. No averment has been made as to whether he has contributed towards public interest. He has merely stated that he is a 'public spirited' person. 7. This Court has framed the Maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. Rule 7 of the said rules provides that the Registry shall be entitled to verify the antecedents of a person, society or an association that invokes the jurisdiction of the High Court on the cause of public interest. Where the Registry has any doubt on such antecedents, an office note to that effect is to be put up, except on the petitions which are received by post. The Registry raised objections regarding the maintainability of public interest litigation, which inter alia records that the writ petition be filed according to the directions passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v. State of Punjab, 2013 (4) PLR 367, which was available on the High Court website. In response to the same, the petitioner merely recorded; 'yes'. 8. In Ajaib Singh's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court emphasized that a petitioner has to specifically disclose his credentials and his direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the case, if any, by way of an affidavit. In response to the same, the petitioner merely recorded; 'yes'. 8. In Ajaib Singh's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court emphasized that a petitioner has to specifically disclose his credentials and his direct or indirect personal motive or interest involved in the case, if any, by way of an affidavit. The expression “specifically disclose his credentials”, it was held, must naturally, imply that he has to set forth what he does for his living, what public interest he has been espousing, the work done by him in that behalf, the particulars of any matter preferred by him as PIL earlier on which the Court had passed orders, etc. It could not imply merely writing a sentence that a person is residing in the State, is 'public-spirited' and is, thus, filing a PIL. A direction was issued to the Registry to ensure strict compliance with these rules and to return petitions styled as PIL with objections unless these parameters were specified. It was held that in fact, there is a mandate on the Registry as per Clause-7 of the said Rules to verify the antecedents of the persons, Societies or Associations who invoke jurisdiction on the cause of public interest and, if they are not satisfied with the antecedents, to return the petition. 9. The petitioner in his affidavit that has been filed for showing his antecedents and credentials to file the petition has merely stated that he is self employed and working as a computer operator. His annual income is approximately Rs.1.00 lac. He filed the public interest litigation before this Court and he has no direct and (sic. - or) indirect personal motive or interest involved in the present case. However, there is no mention in the affidavit that has been filed as to what public cause he has been espousing, the work done by him in that behalf, the particulars of any matter preferred by him as PIL earlier on which the Court has passed orders, etc. Therefore, it is a case where the petitioner has merely stated that he is a public spirited person and is filing the PIL. The petitioner submits that he is working for the protection of innocent animals and also to save environment from pollution. 10. It is to be noticed that the petitioner stated that he saw many residents in his area who had small goats with them. The petitioner submits that he is working for the protection of innocent animals and also to save environment from pollution. 10. It is to be noticed that the petitioner stated that he saw many residents in his area who had small goats with them. However, he has not named any of the residents or any particular house where he saw the goats. Therefore, directions that he seeks are general in nature. Even in the representation dated 09.09.2016 (Annexure P-1) that has been made, the names of the persons who are said to be violating the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules have not been mentioned; besides, the petitioner also refers to the news item (Annexure P-2) that was published in “The Tribune Chandigarh”. The news item reports are not by themselves to be taken as evidence of the veracity of allegation as made. Such news items at best are a secondhand secondary evidence. 11. In Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v. George Fernandez and others, AIR 1969 SC 1201 , it was observed that reporters collect information and pass it on to the Editor, who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process, the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible. 12. In Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam, (1999) 7 SCC 435 , it was held by the Supreme Court that the presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to newspaper reports cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated therein. In S.A. Khan v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, (1993) 3 SCC 151 , a newspaper paper report was held to be a hearsay secondary evidence which cannot be relied upon unless proved by evidence aliunde. Therefore, not much reliance can be placed on the newspaper report that the petitioner urges in support of his case. 13. The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to take strict legal action against the persons who are stated to have violated the Rules but has not made a mention of any person. Therefore, not much reliance can be placed on the newspaper report that the petitioner urges in support of his case. 13. The petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to take strict legal action against the persons who are stated to have violated the Rules but has not made a mention of any person. In case he has any material of cognizable offences being committed, the remedy for the same is to report the matter to the SHO of concerned Police Station where the offences are stated to have been committed. Entertaining such a plea in the nature of public interest without necessary materials and particulars as to who have violated the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules would be unsafe; besides, even otherwise unwarranted. 14. In the circumstances, we find that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition and even otherwise there is nothing on merit to substantiate his claim. 15. As regards the slaughter of goats on the occasion of festival of Id-Ul-Zuha, the Supreme Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 considered the case of the petitioners therein who were Muslims by religion and generally engaged in the butchers' trade and its subsidiary undertaking. They challenged the constitutional validity of various State Acts banning the slaughter of certain animals including cows on three grounds, namely, that they offended the fundamental rights guaranteed to them by Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held (i) that the challenge under Article 14 could not prevail inasmuch as the Acts had adopted a classification on sound and intelligible basis and could stand the test of permissible classification; (ii) that the Acts insofar as they prohibited slaughter of cows of all ages and calves of cows and calves of buffaloes, male and female, were constitutionally valid and insofar as they totally prohibited the slaughter of she buffaloes, breeding bulls and working bulls, without prescribing any test or requirement as to their age or usefulness they offended against Article 19(1)(g); and (iii) that the Acts did not violate the fundamental rights of the Mussalmans under Article 25(1) as there was no material to substantiate the claim that the sacrifice of a cow on BakrI'd day was enjoined or sanctioned by Islam to exhibit a Mussalman's religious belief and ideas. The Supreme Court referred to Hamilton's translation of Hedaya Book XLIII at page 592 and noticed that it is the duty of every free Mussalman, arrived at the age of maturity, to offer a sacrifice on the Yd Kirban, or festival of the sacrifice, provided he be then possessed of Nisab and be not a traveller. The sacrifice established for one person is a goat and that for seven a cow or a camel. It is, therefore, optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goat for one person or a cow or a camel for seven persons. It was observed that it did not appear to be obligatory that a person must sacrifice a cow. 16. In State of W.B. and others v. Ashutosh Lahiri and others, (1995) 1 SCC 189 , it was held that it is optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goat for one person or a cow or a camel for seven persons. Once the religious purpose of Muslims consists of making sacrifice of any animal which should be a healthy animal, on BakrI'd, then slaughtering of cow is not the only way of carrying out that sacrifice. Thus slaughtering of healthy cow on BakrI'd is not essential or required for religious purpose of Muslims or in other words it is not a part of religious requirement for a Muslim that a cow must be necessarily sacrificed for earning religious merit on BakrI'd. The following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are apposite:- “The attainment of these objectives may well necessitate that the slaughters of cattle should be dealt with more stringently than the slaughterers of, say, goats and sheep. The impugned Acts, therefore, have adopted a classification on sound and intelligible basis and can quite clearly stand the test laid down in the decisions of this Court. Whatever objections there may be against the validity of the impugned Acts the denial of equal protection of laws does not, prima facie, appear to us to be one of them. In any case, bearing in mind the presumption of constitutionality attaching to all enactments founded on the recognition by the Court of the fact that the legislature correctly appreciates the needs of its own people there appears to be no escape from the conclusion that the petitioners have not discharged the onus that was on them and the challenge under Article 14 cannot, therefore, prevail.” 17. Therefore, from the above, it follows that sacrificing of goats on the occasion of BakrI'd has not been invalidated by the Supreme Court even though the slaughtering of cows, calves etc. has been invalidated by the Supreme Court. 18. It may also be noticed that a Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case, State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and others, (2005) 8 SCC 534 , held that the slaughter of cow and cow progeny on BakrI'd is neither essential to nor necessarily required as part of the religious ceremony. An optional religious practice, it was held, is not covered by Article 25(1) of the Constitution. On the contrary, it is common knowledge that the cow and its progeny i.e. the bulls, bullocks and cows are worshipped by Hindus on specified days during 'Diwali' and other festivals like 'Makar Sankranti' and 'Gopashtmi'. It was further held on the question of enlargement of restriction on cow progeny, that bulls and bullocks below the age of 16 years could not be slaughtered, to a total ban thereon under Gujarat Act 4 of 1994 if in the interest of the general public. It was held on the basis of available material that the said ban was in the interest of general public and the change in factual circumstances since the decision in Quareshi-I ( AIR 1958 SC 731 ), warranted the reversal of that decision. It was held that merely because it may cause “inconvenience” or some “dislocation” to butchers, the impugned restriction did not cease to be in the interest of general public and the former must yield to the latter. The Gujarat Act of 1994 was held intra vires the constitution and the decision in Quareshi-I ( AIR 1958 SC 731 ) and the decisions following it were overruled on this point. 19. The decision in the case, State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and others (supra) known as Mirzapur case was clarified in Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) v. State of A.P., (2006) 4 SCC 162 . It was held that both the directive principles and fundamental duties must be kept in mind while assessing the reasonableness of legal restrictions placed upon fundamental rights. It was held that in Mirzapur case (supra), the impugned Act therein provided for prohibition on slaughter of certain types of cattle. It was held that both the directive principles and fundamental duties must be kept in mind while assessing the reasonableness of legal restrictions placed upon fundamental rights. It was held that in Mirzapur case (supra), the impugned Act therein provided for prohibition on slaughter of certain types of cattle. The Supreme Court in that case, it was observed, held such a legislation to be constitutional in the light of the finding that the legislation was in furtherance of the directive in Article 48 of the Constitution and any enactment which furthers the cause in the directive principles of State policy cannot be held unconstitutional. It is true that in Mirzapur case (supra) it had been held that total prohibition of cow and cow progeny may be justified. It was, however, not held therein that permitting slaughter of bovine cattle by itself is unconstitutional or that laws or policies which permit such slaughter are unconstitutional. Therefore, the position of law, it was held, remains that the directive principles and fundamental duties cannot in themselves serve into invalidate a legislation or a policy. 20. The ban on slaughter of cow and cow progeny was upheld and the question of goats being sacrificed on the occasion of BakrI'd was not gone into. Therefore, the position is that the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (supra) continues. In the said case different categories of animals being susceptible of classification into separate groups on the basis of their usefulness to society, the butchers who kill each category, it was held, may also be placed in distinct classes according to the effect produced on society by carrying on of their respective occupations. It was held that indeed the butchers who kill cattle, according to the allegations of the petitioners themselves in their respective petitions, form a well defined class based on their occupation. That classification is based on an intelligible differentia which places them in a well defined class and distinguishes them from those who kill goats and sheep and this differentia has a close connection with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned Act, namely, the preservation, protection and improvement of our livestock. The attainment of these objectives, it was held, may well necessitate that the slaughterers of cattle should be dealt with more stringently than the slaughterers of, say, goats and sheep. The attainment of these objectives, it was held, may well necessitate that the slaughterers of cattle should be dealt with more stringently than the slaughterers of, say, goats and sheep. 21. In the circumstances, the challenge to the sacrifice of goats on the occasion of BakrI'd against which the petitioner is aggrieved has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Hanif Quareshi (supra) and in any case is not liable to be gone into as the petitioner, it has been observed above, has no locus standi to file the petition. 22. The petition is accordingly dismissed.