ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) : 1. Though the matter has been listed in ‘Fresh’ category, at the joint request of both the parties, the matter is heard finally today itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 01.12.2023 (Annex.21) passed by the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Churu and also seeking directions to the respondent to release the grant of 1st Phase financial year 2022-23 (April, May and June 2022) and 2nd Phase of Financial Year 2022-23 (November, December 2022 and January and February 2023) in accordance with the physical verification as well as the application submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed that any kind of grant should also not be withheld in future, if the petitioner is found eligible. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the petition are that petitioner Samiti is a registered society and is an eligible Gaushala receiving grants issued by the Gopalan Department in every phase from 2017 to 2021 (Annex.4) as per the number of cows in the Gaushala. Thereafter, in 2021, Rajasthan Cows Conservation and Propogation (Amended) Rules, 2021 (‘Rules of 2021’) (Annex.3) have been notified and subsequently, the respondent Department had issued Guidelines for the grant of the second phase of the financial year 2021-22 (January to March, 2022) dated 09.02.2022 (Annex.5). 4. In pursuance of the same, the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Churu issued communication dated 25.02.2022 (Annex.6) to all the Gaushalas of District Churu and advised them to upload their online application on or before 05.03.2022. Thereafter physical verification was done by the respondent department on various dates from 03.01.2022 to 12.04.2023, according to which report (Annex.7) the petitioner Gaushala was found having 738 bovines as on cut off date. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner uploaded application in the requisite performa seeking grant for the 1st phase of financial year 2022-23 (April to June, 2022) and the online application (Annex.8) was uploaded on 05.07.2022 and subsequently in the report dated 25.07.2022 (Annex.9), based on the physical verification, 682 xkSoa’k have been found. The petitioner also furnished details of the bill (Annex.10) for purchasing the fodder/grass. 6. On 18.03.2023, another online application was submitted by the petitioner for the grant of financial year 2022-23 (2nd phase November-December 2022 and January-February 2023) for 552 xkSoa’k and a bill (Annex.12) thereto for the fodder purchased have also been submitted. The petitioner also furnished details of the bill (Annex.10) for purchasing the fodder/grass. 6. On 18.03.2023, another online application was submitted by the petitioner for the grant of financial year 2022-23 (2nd phase November-December 2022 and January-February 2023) for 552 xkSoa’k and a bill (Annex.12) thereto for the fodder purchased have also been submitted. Subsequently, in the report dated 12.04.2023 (Annex.13) based on the physical verification, 522 xkSoa’k have been found. 7. On account of the grants not being sanctioned/released by the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing SBCWP No.11996/2023, which was disposed of by this Court vide order 26.09.2023 (Annex.18) wherein the State Government assured the release of grant within 30 days. Thereafter, another inspection was made on 02.10.2023 wherein 290 xkSoa’k were found in satisfactory arrangement. 8. The petitioner further submitted representations for the release of grant however, vide order dated 01.12.2023 and communication dated 13.12.2023 (Annex.21), passed by the Joint Director, it was informed that the case of the petitioner had been decided in the light of the order passed by this Court dated 26.09.2023 and the same has been rejected on the ground that the Gaushala had not been shifted to other land. 9. Thus, aggrieved of the order dated 01.12.2023 (Annex.21) passed by the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Churu, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 01.12.2023 is illegal and bad in the eyes of law since the grant to the Gaushala has been provided under the Rules of 2016 and the rejection has been made beyond scope of the rules. He further submits that in the Guidelines (Annex.5), it has been clearly specified that the rejection has to be made by the District Level Committee and the impugned order in this writ petition has been passed from the office of the Joint Director and signed by the District Collector, thus, the matter was not placed before the Committee and therefore, suffers from illegality. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made efforts to shift the Gaushala as per the undertaking given by the petitioner, however on account of the inaction of the revenue authorities which have not processed the allotment despite the request made by the petitioner, the Gaushala could not be shifted. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made efforts to shift the Gaushala as per the undertaking given by the petitioner, however on account of the inaction of the revenue authorities which have not processed the allotment despite the request made by the petitioner, the Gaushala could not be shifted. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Gaushala duly maintains the number of cows and calves as per the minimum requirement prescribed in Rule 12 (i) of the Rules of 2021 (Annex.3) and also maintains a record in the register which has been verified by the authorized representation of the respondent department and thus, it has been contended that the Gaushala is running continuously and is active at the place with required number of bovines. He also submits that thus the respondents have arbitrarily stopped the aid and violated the Rule 12 (iii), (iv), (xiii) and (xviii) of the Rules of 2021 notified by the State dated 23.12.2021 (Annex.3). 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a separate register is also maintained by the petitioner with the tag number according to which the Gaushala is having more than 738 xkSoa’k and thus, the petitioner is eligible for disbursal of the grant and thus, the respondents have acted contrary to the Rules of 2016. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response to the additional affidavit, placed on record the report dated 11.05.2024 (Annex.AA/2) after conducting the inspection on the directions of this Court dated 08.05.2024, submits that: (a) firstly, the title of the land has been put to question by the respondents, however, the petitioner has duly submitted for the change of land from the graveyard but due to the inaction of the revenue authorities, the said change could not be made by the petitioner. (b) secondly, there is no guideline which prescribes for the post-mortem to be done mandatorily and thus, the respondents cannot claim that due to the improper health and hygiene the bovines are dying in the Gaushala. (b) secondly, there is no guideline which prescribes for the post-mortem to be done mandatorily and thus, the respondents cannot claim that due to the improper health and hygiene the bovines are dying in the Gaushala. (c) thirdly, the respondent department have failed to take note of the number of bovines since the number has been clearly mentioned by the petitioner in their application (Annex.AA/1), and while the inspection had been conducted, some of the xkSoa’k had been sent for water in the nearby areas and thus, were not taken into account by the authorities while carrying out the inspection. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the financial assistance to the xkSoa’k are provided as per the Rajashthan Cows Conservation and Propagation Rules, 2016 which have been amended in 2021 wherein it has been provided that financial assistance for food and water will be granted only to the tagged xkSoa’k . He further submits that while the application of the petitioner reveals the presence of 738 xkSoa’k in the Gaushala, however, vide inspection report dated 25.07.2022 (Annex.R/2), the respondent department found only 675 xkSoa’k being maintained and thus, a re-inspection was conducted and vide report dated 27.09.2022 (Annex.R/3), the number of the xkSoa’k were reduced to 477 subsequently. He thus submits that the total number of xkSoa’k were less than 261 from the total number of xkSoa’k as submitted by the petitioner in its application form and further a difference of 198 xkSoa’k were found upon the joint physical inspection. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the grant for the 2nd phase of the year 2022-23 has not been disbursed due to the reason that the physical inspection report dated 12.04.2023 (Annex.13), on the basis of which the grant of financial assistance was sought, does not bear the signature of the Administrative Officer. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Gaushala is operating on the land bearing khasra no. 177 which is recorded as gair mumkin samshan land in the revenue record and the said fact is revealed upon the perusal of the proposal submitted by the petitioner dated 25.07.2011 (Annex.15) that the land of the Gaushala is indicated as Moksh Land. He also submits that for removal of encroachment on the khasra no. 177, notice dated 12.07.2022 (Annex.R/4) had also been sent by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Seowa. 18. He also submits that for removal of encroachment on the khasra no. 177, notice dated 12.07.2022 (Annex.R/4) had also been sent by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Seowa. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 11996/2023 dated 26.09.2023, the respondents were not directed to release the grant of financial assistance but to merely decide the representation of the petitioners, which the respondents have decided and the said representation had been rejected vide order dated 01.12.2023 (Annex.21). 19. The respondent State, by filing an additional affidavit, submits that after the directions passed by this Court in the order dated 08.05.2024, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 09.05.2024 (Annex.AA/1) to the respondent department wherein 271 tagged and 85 untagged xkSoa’k were present, making it a total of 368 xkSoa’k present and subsequent thereto, an inspection was conducted and the report of the said inspection dated 11.05.2024 along with From No. 5 (Annex.AA/2) which revealed that total 51 xkSoa’k were present and out of those 51, only 25 xkSoa’k were found to be tagged and there was no detail found for the rest 26 xkSoa’k , thus showing major discrepancies in the application of the petitioner for the grant of financial assistance. 20. Learned counsel for the respondent State also submits that the petitioner also did not adhere to the Rule 12 (vi) of 2021 pertaining to the disposal of the xkSoa’k who have died, wherein it has been provided that the dead xkSoa’k have to be disposed in a scientific manner. He also submits that owing to the improper conditions of disposal as implemented by the petitioner, dead xkSoa’k are lying on the open land of the Gaushala creating foul smell and unhygienic atmosphere within the Gaushala and nearby areas, the photographs of the same have been attested as Annex.AA/3. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 22. He also submits that owing to the improper conditions of disposal as implemented by the petitioner, dead xkSoa’k are lying on the open land of the Gaushala creating foul smell and unhygienic atmosphere within the Gaushala and nearby areas, the photographs of the same have been attested as Annex.AA/3. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 22. This Court finds that after the physical inspection, the report of the physical verification for the grant of financial assistance in the 1st phase of the financial year 2022-23, is of 25.07.2022 (Annex.9), clearly reveals that the authorities had pointed out that the petitioner is not adhering to the directions for disposal of the dead xkSoa’k , and the same is being done in the Gaushala premises itself, thus causing foul smell and unhygienic conditions for the rest of the xkSoa’k in the Gaushala as well as the areas nearby. A response on the said issue was also sought by the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Churu. 23. It is also seen that on account of the grant not being released, the petitioner filed the writ petition being SBCWP 11996/2023, which came to be decided on 26.09.2023 (Annex.18), whereby the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner and only if the decision taken by the respondents is found in favour of the petitioner, the grant was to be released. The relevant para of the order dated 26.09.2023 (Annex.18) reads as follows: “In light of such submissions, the present petition is disposed of while directing the respondents to adhere by the assurance given by the learned Additional Advocate General that the application for release of grant of aid for financial year 2022-23 (April, May & June, 2022 and Phase 2nd of Financial year 2022-23 (November, December 2022 and January and February, 2023) pending before it be decided within a period of 30 days from today by passing a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. In case, the decision taken by the respondents is in favour of the petitioner-Samiti, appropriate grant shall be released in favour of the petitioner-Samiti. All pending applications stand disposed of.” 24. In case, the decision taken by the respondents is in favour of the petitioner-Samiti, appropriate grant shall be released in favour of the petitioner-Samiti. All pending applications stand disposed of.” 24. Subsequent to the said order dated 26.09.2023 (Annex.18), the respondents conducted an inspection and vide inspection report dated 02.10.2023 (Annex.19) observed that while facilities for water and fodder have been found proper but the petitioner was directed to maintain appropriate conditions for cleanliness and a proper channel to be given for rainwater. This Court finds that pursuant to the said directions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court, respondent no. 3 issued a speaking order dated 01.12.2023 (Annex.21) whereby the release of grant for financial assistance for the first phase has been discussed in the meeting dated 25.05.2023 and thereby, the grant has been rejected on the following grounds: “HINDI IMAGE” With regards to the grant of financial assistance for the 2nd phase, vide the said order dated 01.12.2023 (Annex.21), the release of grant for financial assistance for the first phase has been discussed in the meeting dated 03.07.2023 and thereby, the grant has been rejected on the following grounds: “HINDI IMAGE” 25. The respondents conducted various inspections from 23.12.2021 to 04.07.2022 (Annex.7), and directions have been issued to maintain health and hygiene of the bovines as well as for ensuring proper disposal of the dead xkSoa’k . In the report dated 30.03.2022 (Annex.7), the petitioner was specifically directed to ensure that the dead xkSoa’k are disposed of in proper manner, however nothing has been done in this regard by the petitioner. The relevant report is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” It is also observed that vide report dated 07.05.2022, it has been pointed out by the respondent authorities that even after being directed to dispose the dead xkSoa’k in a proper manner, it has been found that the on account of no land present for the disposal of the dead xkSoa’k , the corpse of the xkSoa’k are lying on the Gaushala premises and further the petitioner was directed to stop the stray dogs from coming in the premises. The relevant report is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” Furthermore, vide report dated 30.05.2022 (Annex.7), it has been found that the petitioner has neither provided the description of the xkSoa’k in the format of Form 5, nor provided the register mentioning the details of the xkSoa’k . The relevant report is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” Furthermore, vide report dated 30.05.2022 (Annex.7), it has been found that the petitioner has neither provided the description of the xkSoa’k in the format of Form 5, nor provided the register mentioning the details of the xkSoa’k . The relevant report is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” Moreover, vide report dated 15.06.2022 (Annex.7), it has been pointed out by the respondent authorities that the petitioner was again directed to dispose the dead xkSoa’k in a scientific manner and at a proper place. The relevant report is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” 26. Thus, it is seen that number of irregularities have been found in the petitioner Gaushala but the same have not been resolved/cured. This Court also finds that on the basis of inspection conducted and the report dated 25.07.2022 (Annex.9), the respondent authorities found that only 682 xkSoa’k are being maintained by the Gaushala, out of which only 675 xkSoa’k have been tagged, whereas 738 xkSoa’k , were maintained by the petitioner, as mentioned by the petitioner in its application dated 05.07.2022 (Annex.8) for the grant of aid for the 1st Phase (April to June, 2022). Further based on the re-inspection conducted by the respondent authorities and the report dated 27.09.2022 (Annex.R/3), the number of xkSoa’k had reduced to 477 and the dead xkSoa’k were found lying in the Gaushala premises itself, with no plausible explanation being given by the petitioner. 27. This Court also observes that vide speaking order dated 01.12.2023 (Annex.21), a meeting was held on 25.05.2023, while affording an opportunity of hearing to the President of the petitioner Samiti, and the issue for the grant of financial assistance for 1st phase of the year 2022 was discussed, wherein it was found that there is no evidence submitted by the petitioner in respect of 240 xkSoa’k which were missing/sent from the Gaushala, nor there is sufficient information regarding the 97 dead xkSoa’k in Form-5 submitted by the petitioner, which was/is a blatant violation of Rule 12(v) of the Rules of 2021 (Annex.3). The relevant rule is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” 28. The relevant rule is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” 28. This Court also observes that the respondents have rightly pointed out that the financial grant in the 2nd phase of the year 2022-23 cannot be disbursed to the petitioner since the physical inspection conducted by respondent authorities and the report dated 12.04.2023 (Annex.13) is not bearing the signature of the Administrative Officer. 29. This Court also observes that the inspection reports dated 25.07.2022 (Annex.9), 27.09.2022 (Annex.R/3), 02.10.2023 (Annex.19) and 11.05.2024 (Annex.AA/2) along with the reports subsequent to the inspections carried out from 23.12.2021 to 04.07.2022 (Annex.7), the respondent authorities have repeatedly pointed out numerous deficiencies, however, the petitioner has miserably failed to make any effort to cure the said deficiencies and no plausible explanation has been given by the petitioner in this regard. Thus, on account of such irregularities present, it is seen that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Rajasthan Gaushala Act, 1960 along with guidelines (Annex.5) as well as Rules of 2021 (Annex.3) and therefore is not entitled to the grant of financial assistance. The relevant guideline is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” 30. This Court also finds that as per the directions given by this Court dated 08.05.2024, inspection was conducted by the respondent authorities on 11.05.2024, and upon perusal of the report (Annex.AA/2) based on the said inspection, following deficiencies were found, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein below: “HINDI IMAGE” Thus, from a bare perusal of the recent report (Annex.AA/2) of the inspection dated 11.05.2024 brought on record by the respondents by way of filing the additional affidavit, it is clearly seen that not only has the petitioner flouted the Guidelines (Annex.5) as well as Rules of 2021 (Annex.3), but also disregarded the directions issued by the respondents time and again by way of inspection reports. 31. This Court takes note of the fact that the following deficiencies have been recurring since the beginning, which include: (a) Upon perusal of the mandatory provision prescribing the eligibility under the Rules of 2021 (Annex.3), for running the Gaushala along with the Guidelines (Annex.5), it is seen that the petitioner has failed to tag all the xkSoa’k which is present in the Gaushala and the register is also not properly maintained for the available xkSoa’k . Thus, under the provisions and the Guidelines (Annex.5), the petitioner cannot keep any xkSoa’k untagged in the Gaushala and further it also becomes ineligible to run the Gaushala. It is also seen that upon inspection done on 11.05.2024 (Annex.AA/2), the basic eligibility of running a Gaushala that minimum 100 xkSoa’k should be available was also not found in place. The relevant rule is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” The relevant Guideline, in respect to the requirement of tagging is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” The said Guidelines (Annex.5) not only prescribe that a minimum of 100 bovines should be present, having their separate number tags which would be unique for each xkSoa’k , while seeking financial assistance, but it is also specified that such bovines should be tagged for the purpose of maintaining a record as per the scheme of the Government of India, ‘Information Network for Animal Productivity and Health’ (‘INAPH’). The relevant guideline is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” The relevant rule is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” (b) Furthermore, it was categorically mentioned in the Guideline 2(v) (Annex.5) that not only every xkSoa’k is to be tagged, but a separate register is also to be maintained and in case any xkSoa’k is transported/sold/donated or has died, then in that case, then it is mandatory to note the said detail in the register in red ink so that it becomes feasible to assess the condition of the Gaushala during the physical verification. The relevant guideline is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” Moreover, Guideline 6(i) (Annex.5) specifies that authorities while conducting inspections will have to take into account the bovine maintenance and tagging register in a prescribed format, the fodder and water register in a prescribed format and bills pertaining thereto along with the cash deposits with the Gaushala and even in presence of such clear stipulations, it is seen that the petitioner has not bothered to maintain the said register in accordance with the Guidelines (Annex.5), and is thus not entitled for the grant of financial assistance. The relevant Guideline is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” (c) Due to the improper disposal of the dead xkSoa’k , the entire Gaushala as well as the nearby area is contaminated with foul smell and thus impacts the public health at large, which is against the Rule 12(vi) of the Rules of 2021 (Annex.3) as well as the Guidelines of 2022 (Annex.5). Rule 12(vi) of the Rules of 2021 reads as under: “HINDI IMAGE” The relevant guideline (Annex.5) is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” The petitioner has also falsely mentioned in the communication made to the respondent dated 11.05.2023 (Annex.14) that the dead xkSoa’k are being disposed of in a scientific manner, however upon perusal of the photographs attested along with the additional affidavit filed by the respondents (Annex.AA/3), it is clearly seen that the corpse of dead xkSoa’k are lying in the Gaushala premises itself. (d) This Court finds that the respondents have placed on record a notice dated 12.07.2022 (Annex.R/4) issued by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Seowa wherein it has been stated that there was no permission or resolution in respect to the consent given by the Gram Panchayat or the Gram Sabha to the petitioner for running Gaushala on the graveyard, Khasra no. 177. In the said notice, it was also mentioned that the said fact has been brought to the knowledge of the petitioner vide letter dated 18.06.2022, to which no response has been made by the petitioner and, therefore, on account of complaints being received by the villagers, in the meeting dated 07.07.2022, it has been decided that the petitioner should stop operating the Gaushala on the graveyard otherwise the petitioner would have to vacate the land situated on the graveyard by way of conducting proceedings in accordance with the law. This Court also takes into account the fact that the petitioner has not questioned the said notice dated 12.07.2022 (Annex.R/4) and it is also seen that admittedly, the petitioner had given an undertaking to the District Collector dated 26.05.2023 (Annex.14) that the petitioner Gaushala would be shifted to a different place, however till date is running the Gaushala on the same location. The relevant portion of the undertaking given by the petitioner vide communication dated 26.05.2023 (Annex.14) is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” Furthermore, it is also seen that vide communications dated 31.05.2023 and 04.06.2023 (Annex.14), the petitioner has stated that the District Collector had asked the petitioner to shift the Gaushala and in response to which the petitioner itself had reiterated that it had provided the consent letter to shift the Gaushala, but upon perusal of the recent inspection report dated 11.05.2024 (Annex.AA/2), the Gaushala is situated on the same land and the petitioner has acted contrary to the directions given by the District Collector and its own undertaking. The re levant portion of the communication dated 31.05.2023 (Annex.14) is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” The relevant portion of the communication dated 04.06.2023 (Annex.14) is reproduced as under: “HINDI IMAGE” 32. This Court also finds that the respondent department has acted in its competence while pointing out the irregularities under the Rules of 2021 (Annex.3) since the respondent State derives it power to formulate legislation on subjects relating to preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases, by virtue of Entry No. 15 of the State List and the Rules of 2021 (Annex.3) have been formulated by the respondent State with the object of protection and propagation of cows. Entry No. 15 of the State List under Seventh Schedule reads as under: “SEVENTH SCHEDULE List II—State List 15. Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice.” 33. Furthermore, this Court takes into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja reported in MANU/SC/0426/2014 that Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends to both human beings and that every species has an inherent right to live subject to the exception provided out of necessity and this right also encompasses the right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere, which is being violated by the petitioner in the instant case. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under: “62. Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which includes depriving its life, out of human necessity. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under: “62. Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which includes depriving its life, out of human necessity. Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. So far as animals are concerned, in our view, “life” means something more than mere survival or existence or instrumental value for human-beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honour and dignity. Animals’ well-being and welfare have been statutorily recognised under Sections 3 and 11 of the Act and the rights framed under the Act. Right to live in a healthy and clean atmosphere and right to get protection from human beings against inflicting unnecessary pain or suffering is a right guaranteed to the animals under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act read with Article 51A(g) of the Constitution. Right to get food, shelter is also a guaranteed right under Sections 3 and 11 of the PCA Act and the Rules framed thereunder, especially when they are domesticated. Right to dignity and fair treatment is, therefore, not confined to human beings alone, but to animals as well. Right, not to be beaten, kicked, over-ridder, over-loading is also a right recognized by Section 11 read with Section 3 of the PCA Act. Animals have also a right against the human beings not to be tortured and against infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. Penalty for violation of those rights are insignificant, since laws are made by humans. Punishment prescribed in Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the ravity of the offence, hence being violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the Act, hence the necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act.” 34. Punishment prescribed in Section 11(1) is not commensurate with the ravity of the offence, hence being violated with impunity defeating the very object and purpose of the Act, hence the necessity of taking disciplinary action against those officers who fail to discharge their duties to safeguard the statutory rights of animals under the PCA Act.” 34. Thus, this Court observes that it is indeed a sorry state of affairs that the conditions in which the xkSoa’k are being kept in the Gaushala run by the petitioner, as seen from the recent report based on the inspection conducted on 11.05.2024 (Annex.AA/2) and even after deficiencies being pointed out from time to time, the petitioner has miserably failed to make necessary efforts and the situation of the xkSoa’k and the Gaushala has only worsened. It is also seen that the petitioner has not shifted the Gaushala even after submitting an undertaking to the District Collector dated 26.05.2023. The petitioner has also failed to adhere to the Rules of 2021 (Annex.3), which stipulates that the disposal of the dead xkSoa’k has to be done in a scientific manner and it is also seen that no record in regard to this extent has been submitted by the petitioner denying the said deficiency. Not only this, upon perusal of the photographs (Annex.A/3) attested along with the inspection report dated 11.05.2024 (Annex.AA/2), the dead xkSoa’k are lying in the Gaushala premises in a very poor state. Moreover, huge discrepancies have been found in relation to the number of tagged xkSoa’k as submitted by the petitioner in their application dated 09.05.2024 (Annex.AA/1) and the report (Annex.AA/2) made on the inspection done on 11.05.2024 as the respondent authorities found only 51 bovines against 238 bovines as submitted by the petitioner in their application, and the petitioner has failed to provide any valid reason for the said inconsistency. 35. Thus, no interference is called for by this Court for the grant of financial assistance to the present petitioner in the light of the deficiencies as pointed out by the respondents. 35. Thus, no interference is called for by this Court for the grant of financial assistance to the present petitioner in the light of the deficiencies as pointed out by the respondents. Looking into the fact that the xkSoa’k is being kept in petitioner Gaushala in unhygienic conditions and the petitioner is continuously flouting the mandatory provisions of the Rules of 2021 (Annex.3) and the Guidelines (Annex.5) and on account of which the petitioner is not having the eligibility to receive the grant from the State, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent State to take the necessary steps for shifting the existing xkSoa’k from the petitioner Gaushala to another Gaushala which is having the eligibility for receiving the financial aid and is also having hygienic conditions, at the earliest, preferably within a period of one month. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition and other misc. application, if pending, shall also stand dismissed.