Delhi High Court
Bhartiya Pashupalak Association vs New Delhi Municipal Corporation ... on 13 September, 2002
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition
seeking directions against respondent No. 1 Council to
reduce the rates of fine for catching cattle and to
bring it in parity with the rates of MCD. The
controversy in the present writ petition arises from a
notice advertised on 30.9.1999 by respondent No. 1
Council to the effect that any animal found to be
roaming or deserted or tied in any lane or public place
or on any plot of land within jurisdiction of the
respondent No. 1 council will be caught and taken into
custody being in violation of the provisions of Section
327 of the NDMC Act, 1994. The cost for catching the
animals, confinement, cost of transport etc. were
also specified as per the prescribed rates. The rates
fixed are Rs. 5000/- for maximum two days and Rs. 1000/-
for every next day and fodder charges of Rs. 225/- per
day for high quality milch animal/cattle. The amount
is lower for common milch cattle being Rs. 2000/- for
two days and Rs. 500/- for every next day and fodder
charges of Rs. 100/- per day and for other cattle, pig,
horse, mule, goat. calf, she-calf and donkey etc. is
Rs. 1000/- as cost for maximum two days and Rs. 250/- for
every next day and fodder charges of Rs. 75/- per day.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that rates of
the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, respondent No. 2 is
to the tune of the Rs. 1400/- per cattle and Rs. 75/- as
fodder charges. It is thus contended that the charges
for NDMS are much higher and are unreasonable and that
there should be parity between the same with the MCD.
3. Respondent No. 2 MCD has filed a counter
affidavit admitting the charges being levied by it.
4. Respondent No. 1 has also filed an affidavit
stating out the provisions of Sections 308, 309, 327,
328 of the NDMC Act, dealing with the issue of such
cattle which cause nuisance. It is stated that the
area under the jurisdiction of NDMC is in the heart of
the capital of the country including VIP areas and
commercial establishment and the areas of great public
importance. Thus every endeavor has to be made to
maintain areas at par with international norms. Thus
it cannot permit stray animals to roam around in public
places.
5. The rates have been justified as fixed on
rationale basis which not only include the cost
incurred but also include the opportunity cost of
respondent No. 1 in the area which is much higher than
of the area under the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2
It is thus stated that even expenses for engaging staff
is much higher. Details have been given that there are
number of supervisors, Class IV employees and trucks
for impounding the stray cattle apart from the expenses
incurred on purchase of fodder. It is stated that the
cost amount to Rs. 6 lakhs per year apart from the
fodder charges and respondent No. 1 Council was able to
realise only a sum of Rs. 93,675/- on account of
imposition of fine. It is thus stated that no parity
can be sought with respondent No. 2. It is also stated
that the gausadans are situated at a
distance of about 40-45 kilometres which also increase
the cost.
6. The menance of stray cattle on the streets of
Delhi is reaching alarming proportion day by day.
Apart from being a public nuisance, they are causing
number of accidents. However, needful has to be done
by the respondents to reduce this menace.
7. The owners of such cattle cannot let them free
on the roads of Delhi without any control and then come
in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India claiming that the charges should be less. The
nuisance caused to the citizens as a result of these
stray cattle is the direct result of pathetic manner in
which the owners lay them free to roam around on the
streets of Delhi.
8. Respondent No. 1 Council has considered the issue
of cost expended for removal of such stray cattle and
even given figures for same. The realisation even
from the rates is only small part of the cost incurred.
Thus the rates cannot be said to be unreasonable and
arbitrarily.
9. No rejoinder has been filed to counter affidavit
of respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2. The counter
affidavit of respondent No. 1 has been filed as far as
back on 13.2.2001.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts, I see no reason
to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
11. Dismissed.
