Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 903 (MP)

Rahul Bansal v. State of M. P.

2016-10-05

J.K.MAHESHWARI, S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2016
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction for proper care of the cattle which are under custody of respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation at Gaushala situate at Lal Tipara, Gwalior and to provide basic facilities that includes proper fund, shed, fodder, water, doctor and all other ancillary facilities as required to the cattle. The direction has also been sought that erring officials of respondent No.3 Municipal Corporation, Gwalior be held responsible for not maintaining the said Gaushala. 2. This Court has issued various directions and in furtherance to those directions, the report of the Commission has been sought. As per the inspection report dated 24.4.2016, the following deficiencies were found :- “4. Upon inspection of store, it has been found that chaff of pulses (Dalhan) was found which as per veterinary doctor is not good for cows health in summer season. 6. The committee upon inspection of shed and upon space has found that cleanliness is properly made and in the fodder channel only dry chaff has been found without it being minced with Chooni Peena and green fodder. So far as fodder part is concerned, the condition has been found to be pathetic. 8. There is absolutely no arrangement shown in relation to proper supply of fodder. Certain persons were present on spot who were said to be supplier of fodder and they were raising complaint about the supply being taken with some particular persons. 10. The committee was surprised to see that : I. There is no proper arrangement for continuous and uninterrupted supply of fodder. II. There is no stock for Chooni Peena. III. There is absolutely insufficient quantity of green fodder found on the spot. IV. New shed has been constructed in a vast area, it is open one and certain area has been shown to be under encroachment of which possession has not been taken till date. 11. Gobar Gas Plant is shown to be operational one. It is stated that local energy requirements are made through it. The committee found that for the purpose of improvisation of condition of Gaushala help of some veterinary experts may be taken to control the population of unproductive animals and to control the population of dead breed which is not milking sufficiently for being economical viable.'” 3. It is stated that local energy requirements are made through it. The committee found that for the purpose of improvisation of condition of Gaushala help of some veterinary experts may be taken to control the population of unproductive animals and to control the population of dead breed which is not milking sufficiently for being economical viable.'” 3. After receiving the said inspection report, this Court on 2.5.2016 referring the provisions as contained under section 66(1)(g) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall referred to ''Act of 1956'') has observed that if the Corporation approaches to Madhya Pradesh Gaupalan Evam Pashudhan Samvardhan Board seeking financial assistance then it may be considered by the Board within a period of two weeks. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per order dated 2.5.2016, a letter was written by the Managing Director of Madhya Pradesh Gaupalan Evam Pashudhan Samvardhan Board on 15.5.2016 how the Gaushala can be maintained and submit proposal in proper format. Thereafter, on 11.8.2016 and 29.8.2016, the request was made by the Corporation to provide certain funds which have been refused for by communication dated 9.9.2016 stating that Madhya Pradesh Gaupalan Evam Pashudhan Samvardhan Board is receiving a total sum of rupees fifteen to twenty crores per annum and they have to maintain 585 Gaushala and the amount is required to be equally distributed on those Gaushala. However, the demand of Rs.5,40,00,000/- is not possible to be released in favour of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior. In view of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the respondent/Municipal Corporation, Gwalior contends that in absence of any fund, they are not in a position to properly maintain the Gaushala. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ''Rules of 2004'') and the document of constitution of the Board. By referring Clause 12, it is urged that it is the duty of Madhya Pradesh Gaupalan Evam Pashudhan Samvardhan Board to provide financial assistance for basic infrastructure and amenities, therefore, the Board cannot refuse to release the aid for maintaining the Gaushala. 6. By referring Clause 12, it is urged that it is the duty of Madhya Pradesh Gaupalan Evam Pashudhan Samvardhan Board to provide financial assistance for basic infrastructure and amenities, therefore, the Board cannot refuse to release the aid for maintaining the Gaushala. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/Board has contended that as per letter dated 16.5.2016, the communication has already been made by the Board to submit a proper proposal indicating the plan for infrastructure and for utilizing basic facilities to the cattle like shed, fodder, water and the other demand for the benefits of the cattle and in absence thereto the Board is unable to sanction the amount. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the inspection report dated 24.4.2016 and in the context of the provisions of section 66(1)(g) of the Act of 1956 and also Clause 12, in Gwalior a Society has registered to run Gaushala, the Commissioner and the Councilors of the Municipal Corporation are the members of the said Society and responsible to run Gaushala as to how such Gaushala shall be maintained. Therefore, it is their duty to maintain and run Gaushala in proper manner. The issue of fund is in between the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior as well as the State Government or Board and it can be resolved by them, but neither the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior nor the State Government can escape from their liability to maintain those cattle which are in the Gaushala. The aforesaid issue is not required to be adjudicated by this Court. The only issue with respect to maintaining the Gaushala in proper manner is to be adjudicated by this Court. In that view of the matter, the following directions are being issued :- ''1. It is the duty of the registered Society and its members that includes the Commissioner as well as the Councillors of the Municipal Corporation to collect the funds and to maintain the Gaushala providing the uninterrupted supply of fodder, maintaining the stock of Chooni Peena and green fodder. In case of violation of any of the direction, the Commissioner and the Councillor including the Managing Director of Madhya Pradesh Gaupalan Evam Pashudhan Samvardhan Board may be responsible. 2. In case of violation of any of the direction, the Commissioner and the Councillor including the Managing Director of Madhya Pradesh Gaupalan Evam Pashudhan Samvardhan Board may be responsible. 2. It is directed that the sheds which have been constructed in the vast areas which are open and not of use, however, by raising further construction if so required, it would be made for use of cattle. 3. The facility of veterinary doctor who can visit at least in an alternative day to Gaushala must be made with the assistance of the local administration and if the said facility of veterinary doctor is not made available then name of the person who is not complying the order of this Court shall be disclosed so that appropriate action may be taken. 4. It is further directed that if any land is under encroachment, the said encroachment be removed within a period of fifteen days from today and the area of Gaushala be made encroachment free by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior with the help of Collector and Superintendent of Police (City) Gwalior. 5. It is lastly directed that the Gaushala must be maintained in a manner as required as per the object to which the Board is constituted.'' 8. Let compliance report be submitted by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior as well as by the State Government on or before the next date of hearing. 9. The members who inspected the Gaushala are further requested to visit at least twice in a month and prepare their report and that report be submitted for perusal separate to the compliance report of the Municipal Corporation as well as of the State Government thereby this Court may be in a position to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the compliance of the directions of this Court has been carried out or not. List this case after two months. Certified copy as per rules. Typed copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents for communication and compliance. Rajmani Bansal for petitioner; Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for respondents No.1, 2 and 4/State; Kamal Kumar Jain for respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation, Gwalior.