(Through Video Conferencing) vs The Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 72 j&K

                                                                 Sr. No. 101
               HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                          AT JAMMU
CJ Court

Case: WP(C) PIL No. 18 of 2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
SAVE                                                ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
                                  Through: Sh. S. S. Ahmed, Advocate.

                          v/s
The Union of India and others.                                 .... Respondent(s)
                                  Through: Sh. D. C. Raina, Advocate General
                                           with Sh. KDS Kotwal, Dy. AG.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE


                                      ORDER

1. Heard Sh. S. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sh.

D.C. Raina, learned Advocate General for the Union Territory of Jammu and

Kashmir.

2. The petitioner is an NGO working for the wildlife protection. It has

initiated this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in public

interest for commanding the respondents to enact a law prohibiting slaughter of

cows and its progeny, ox, bull, buffalo etc in the Union Territory of Jammu and

Kashmir and to make such an act of slaughtering of these animals a cognisable

offence with strict punishment.

3. It is settled law that no writ of mandamus would lie for issuing

direction for enacting a particular law. It is for the law makers i.e. the

legislature of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to enact a law on a

given subject. The said task cannot be given to any of the respondents. At

present the legislature of the Union Territory is not in place. Therefore, at the

moment no such law can be considered for being enacted.

4. The court cannot take upon the task of enacting the law itself or to

issue any direction in this regard to any other authority as the same is only

within the domain of the legislature of the Union Territory.

5. Sh. Ahmed relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Miscellaneous Application No. 2560/2018 [in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 738 of

2016] titled Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India and another, passed on

05.09.2019 submits that if there is any vacuum in law, the courts can certainly

intervene and issue necessary directions.

6. Enacting of law to prohibit the slaughter of cows and its progeny is a

new subject and can not be due to any vacuum in law. It is a fresh demand of

certain section of the people or the wildlife lovers to have such a law on the

subject with the repeal of RPC. It is for the law makers to consider and to take

a call on it.

7. Sh. D. C. Raina, learned Advocate General on the other hand submits

that the grievance of the petitioner can be taken care of by the Chief Secretary

and as and when the legislature comes into existence, the matter can be brought

to its notice for due consideration.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not deem it

necessary to keep this petition pending and dispose of the same with liberty to

the petitioner to raise his grievance before the Chief Secretary by submitting a

comprehensive representation in that regard who on consideration of the same

will do the needful as observed above.

9. Petition is disposed of accordingly along with all pending

miscellaneous applications.

                     (RAJNESH OSWAL)              (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                               JUDGE                CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
05.02.2021
Raj Kumar