Karnataka High Court
Nandi Animal Welfare Society Of ... vs Rajnees Goel And Ors on 23 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3298-DB
CCC No. 200095 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.200095 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
NANDI ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY OF GULBARGA
THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
SRI HUNACHIRAYA MOTGI S/O SHARANAPPA MOTGI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE/SOCIAL WORKER,
R/O SY NO. 86/2 SINDAGI(B) VILLAGE,
TQ. KALABURGI,
(ANIMAL SHELTER-NANDI GOSHALA),
Digitally signed PIN CODE-585103.
by KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN ...COMPLAINANT
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. K. M. GHATE, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. RAJNEES GOEL
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
III FLOOR VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. RAJENDRA KUMAR KATARIA IAS,
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3298-DB
CCC No. 200095 of 2024
M S BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. AJAY NAGABHUSHAN IAS,
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. SHREEROOPA IAS,
THE COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
VETERINARY SERVICES, PASHUPALANA BHAWAN,
HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024.
5. FAOUZIYA TARANNUM B. IAS,
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
AND CHAIR PERSON DISTRICT SOCIETY FOR
PREVENTION OF, CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SPCA),
KALABURAGI.
6. RUPINDAR KAUR IAS,
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
KALABURAGI.
7. SHIRAJ AHMED D. AWATE,
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
VETERINARY, SERVICES AND MEMBER SECRETARY
DISTRICT SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY
TO ANIMALS (SPCA), KALABURAGI.
8. DR. SUBHASHCHANDRA TAKKALAKI,
THE CHIEF VETERINARY DOCTOR (ADM),
VETERINARY HOSPITAL, NEAR ANNAPURNA CROSS,
SEDAM ROAD, KALABURGI.
9. DR. AKASH KADAGANCHI,
VETERINARY DOCTOR,
VETERINARY HOSPITAL,
SHARANA SIRASAGI,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3298-DB
CCC No. 200095 of 2024
TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI.
...ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 9
10. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
III FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
... PROFORMA PARTY
(BY SRI MALHAR RAO, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY, GA AND
SRI G. B. YADAV, HCGP, FOR R1 TO R10)
THIS CCC IS FILED U/S. 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT
OF COURT ACT, PRAYING TO REGISTER THE COMPLAINT AND
ISSUE NOTICE CALLING UPON THE RESPONDENTS, WHY THEY
SHOULD NOT BE DEALT WITH UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF
COURTS ACT 1971, HAVING NOT COMPLIED THE INTERIM
ORDER / DIRECTION PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.201217/2024
DATED 09.05.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ACCORDINGLY
PUNISH THE RESPONDENTS.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
R.NATARAJ. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed alleging disobedience of an ex
parte interlocutory order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.201217/2024.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3298-DB
2. The learned Single Judge issued a direction to
respondent Nos.5 to 9 to provide essential facilities like,
water, fodder, electricity to 347 livestock within the
premises of the petitioner/complainant at Sy.No.86/2 of
Sindagi - B village, Taluka and District Kalaburagi within
seven days from the date of order.
3. It is alleged that even after the order dated
09.05.2024 was brought to the notice of respondent Nos.5
to 9, they have not taken any action to provide the
required water, fodder and electricity to the livestock, as a
result of which, some animals have died.
4. In view of the seriousness of the issue and also
due to sweltering heat faced in this part of the State,
respondent Nos.5 to 9 were called upon to comply with the
order dated 09.05.2024, failing which they were required
to be present before the Court.
5. Respondent No.7 has filed an affidavit stating
therein that a sum of Rs.15,42,250/- was released to the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3298-DB
petitioner/complainant during the year 2016-17 for
providing basic infrastructure facilities like, sinking a bore-
well, providing water supply to the animals and to obtain
electricity connection. It is stated that the respondents
have released the following funds every year to the
petitioner/complainant:
Sl.No. Year Amount
Released
1 2016-17 15,42,250
2 2017-18 9,99,969
3 2018-19 -
4 2019-20 5,59,132
5 2020-21 5,15,000
6 2021-22 5,22,900
7 2022-23 12,66,532
8 2023-24 -
TOTAL 54,05,783
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3298-DB
6. They contend that a sum of Rs.24,19,065/- was
released by the Commissioner for Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services, Bengaluru vide order dated
01.09.2023 for maintenance of animals. It is further stated
that the respondents-authorities have ensured supply of
water through the tank to the petitioner/complainant and
have also requested the Managing Director of GESCOM,
Kalaburagi to provide electricity connection for ensuring
water supply on top priority. It is also claimed that the
officers of the Revenue Department visited the petitioner/
complainant on 17.05.2024 and a detailed report is
submitted to the Tahsildar, Kalaburagi regarding the basic
infrastructure available at the petitioner/complainant. They
contend that pursuant to the order passed by learned
Single Judge of this Court on 09.05.2024, in
W.P.No.201217/2024, the basic facilities are already
provided.
7. The photographs produced by respondent No.7
along with his affidavit present a heart wrenching scene as
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3298-DB
the animals look weak and sick with their ribs exposed.
Respondent No.7 has claimed that a sum of
Rs.24,19,065/- was released to look after 219 cattle in the
year 2023. However, the petitioner/complainant contends
that 347 cattle are left with them to be looked after.
Therefore, the amount released to the petitioner/
complainant appeared insufficient for the maintenance of
the cattle. The photographs produced by the petitioner/
complainant along with the contempt petition is gut
wrenching, inasmuch as the several animals have died due
to malnourishment.
8. Having regard to the statutory rights of these
animals recognized under the provisions of the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act and the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Animal Welfare Board of India Vs.
A. Nagaraja and Others reported in (2014) 7 SCC 547
and Chief Secretary to the Government of Chennai,
Tamil Nadu and Others vs. Animal Welfare Board
and Another reported in (2017) 2 SCC 144, this Court
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3298-DB
felt that appointing a commissioner to visit the
petitioner's/complainant's animals shelter would result in
loss of time which could further worsen the situation.
Therefore, this Court visited the animals shelter created by
the complainant to take stock of the situation.
9. Accordingly, we visited the shelter of the
complainant along with the respondent Nos.5 to 9 and the
advocates for the complainant. The wife of the Secretary
of the complainant was present, stated that there was
sufficient fodder for the cattle and that the only issue was
regarding providing electricity to the bore-well sunk in the
land. We found that there were in all 272 heads of cattle
including calves. We also found fodder stocked in the part
of the premises at two places. We also found a water tank
installed to provide water to the animals. A bore-well was
also sunk by the petitioner/complainant within its property
to draw water. We were also told that the bore-well was
serviced with electricity drawn from an adjoining property
and that the petitioner/complainant does not have an
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3298-DB
electricity connection of its own. We were also told that
the petitioner/complainant has now approached the
GESCOM for electricity connection and that the
respondents have also recommended for grant of
electricity to the petitioner's/complainant's premises.
10. We therefore prima facie felt that the
respondents have done everything that they could do to
enable the petitioner/complainant to look after the animals
left in the shelter maintained by the complainant. At this
stage, we do not see any non-compliance of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge warranting contempt
action against the respondents. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the present contempt proceeding initiated
against the respondents be dropped.
Accordingly, the proceeding in this contempt petition
is closed.
However, before parting, it is necessary to record our
finding about the way in which the cattle were handled by
the petitioner/complainant. We found that 272 cattle were
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3298-DB
kept in two enclosures which were barely sufficient for the
cattle. We also found that the fodder stocked by the
petitioner/complainant was barely sufficient for 272 heads
of cattle. In that view of the matter, we leave it to the
discretion of the learned Single Judge to consider directing
respondent Nos.7, 8 and 9 to visit the cattle shelter of the
petitioner/complainant frequently or at least once in 15
days for a period of six months to ensure that the cattle is
provided with sufficient fodder from out of the funds
released by the Department of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services. The learned Single Judge may
consider issuing appropriate directions to respondent
Nos.7, 8 and 9 in this regard.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
CT:PK
