# Mufeed Ali v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 494
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 40656 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mufeed-ali-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45312
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 - Section 38 - Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals in Animal Market Rules, 2018 - Rule 3
2 All. Mufeed Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
495
and 16 -Licence to run Cattle market -
Cancellation - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Committee - Under the provision, it is the
Committee, which is vested with detailed
power - Constitution of the Committee by
District Magistrate was completely de hors the
rules prescribed and therefore illegal and
cannot result in any recommendation legally
enforceable - If the committee is to be
constituted as contemplated under the law
then the constitution of the Committee has to
be in consonance with the provisions contained
under Rules 3. (Para 9 and 10)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

According to the High Court
"the money of the Bank and financial
institutions is public money, which should
be in circulation, otherwise the Bank and
depositors will suffer." We are afraid that
while this may be very good sentiment, it
cannot apply in the face of Section 3 of the
Act for the reason that Section 3 does not
envisage the provisions of the Act being
utilised for recovery of every loan taken.
Section 3(1)(b) permits this to be done
only in respect of loans taken under a
"State-sponsored
scheme",
which
expression has been defined in Section
2(g) of the Act. Since it is admitted that the
loan taken by the appellant was not under
or in relation to a "State-sponsored
Scheme" within the meaning of Section
2(g), whatever else it may be, it would not
be recoverable by recourse to the
machinery under Section 3 of the Act.

13. Following the law laid down
by the Apex Court, we have no hesitation
in
granting
the
relief
prayed
for.
Accordingly, the impugned citation dated
1.12.2009
issued
by
the
Tehsildar,
Mawana,
District
Meerut
is
hereby
quashed.

21. In view of the legal proposition
enumerative
above
as
well
as
the
principles laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid judgements, it is very clear that
contractual amount cannot be recovered as
arrears of land revenue, in the absence of
any
provisions
contained
under
UP
Kshetra
Samiti
and
Zila
Panchayat
Adhiniyam, 1961. Therefore, the action
taken by the respondents by way of issuing
the recovery citation is not legally
justified.

22. The counsel for the respondents
also could not bring any material or law
contrary to the aforesaid judgements,
before this Court, therefore, the action
taken by the respondents in issuing
recovery citation for recovery of the
contractual amount as arrears of land
revenue, is illegal.

23. In the facts of the case, we find
just and proper to conclude that the
impugned
recovery
certificate
dated
24.8.2019 issued by Upper Mukhya
Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Sonebhadra and
recovery citation dated 1.11.2019 issued
by Tehsildar Chunar, Distt. Mirzapur,
seeking to enforce the recovery of
contractual amount as arrears of land
revenue, cannot be sustained and are
hereby quashed.

24. The writ petition is allowed. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2020)02ILR A494

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 40656 of 2019

Mufeed Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Alok Kumar Singh, Sri Vikas Budhwar,
Sri Shashi Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Atul Tej Kulsrestha

A. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 - Section 38 - Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals in Animal Market Rules, 2018 - Rule 3
2 All. Mufeed Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
495
and 16 -Licence to run Cattle market -
Cancellation - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Committee - Under the provision, it is the
Committee, which is vested with detailed
power - Constitution of the Committee by
District Magistrate was completely de hors the
rules prescribed and therefore illegal and
cannot result in any recommendation legally
enforceable - If the committee is to be
constituted as contemplated under the law
then the constitution of the Committee has to
be in consonance with the provisions contained
under Rules 3. (Para 9 and 10)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Deepak Babaria and another Vs. State of
Gujarat and others, (2014) 3 SCC 502

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J. &
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shashinandan, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikas
Budhwar,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, Sri Atul Tej Kulshrestha,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3
and 4, Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1
and 2 and perused the record.

2. By means of this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India the
petitioner has questioned legality and
propriety involved in the order dated
27.11.2019
whereby
the
petitioner's
licence of the cattle fare/cattle market on
his own land has come to be cancelled. He
has accordingly, sought quashing of the
order dated 27.11.2019 which has been
filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are
that the petitioner having licence to run
cattle market over his own land, was
initially aggrieved against the notice dated
15.11.2019 whereby the running of the
cattle market over the land of the
petitioner was stopped on certain grounds
regarding sanitation of the place over
which the cattle market was being run and
that too as a serious threat to the
environment and the public at large. The
petitioner rushed to this Court and this
Court has, accordingly, passed an order on
21.11.2019 in Writ-C No.38021 of 2019
directing the respondent to consider the
reply of the petitioner to get the spot
inspection done of the place where the
market was being run and that too in
presence of the petitioner and thereafter
take a decision by passing a reasoned and
speaking order. It appears pursuant to the
order dated 21.11.2019 the petitioner
submitted his reply on 23.11.2019 and
thereafter
the
District
Magistrate
constituted a five member Committee to
get the inspection done of the place where
the cattle market was being run by the
petitioner. Some report was submitted on
26.11.2019 and consequential action has
been taken on 27.11.2019 on the basis of
report, which according to the order,
recommended for action impugned as the
cleanliness
was
not
found
to
the
satisfaction and as per norms under the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 and also the Animal Market Rules
framed thereunder and thus, the Upper
Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat has
come to exercise his power under Section
78-D of the 1961 Act, cancelling the
licence of the petitioner.

4. Assailing the order impugned
dated 27.11.2019 it has been contended on
behalf of the petitioner that the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is a
Central Act under which the Animal
Markets Rules, 2018 have been framed
and the Acts provide under Section 38 to
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
make rules for the purposes to carry out
the object of the Act, and further it is
argued
that
the
Rules
provide
for
constitution
of
a
Committee.
The
Committee that has to be constituted
necessarily includes District Magistrate,
one of the representative of the State
Animal Welfare Board and other members
also including the Chairperson of the Zila
Panchayat but in the present case the
Committee that was constituted by the
District Magistrate did not consist of those
members as have been mentioned in Rule
3 of the 2018 Rules. It is further submitted
that all the powers under the Rules are
vested with the Committee constituted for
the said purpose and it is on the basis of
the recommendation of the Committee that
a decision to be taken by the Board.
Further while Committee recommends for
a decision be taken in the matter, the
Committee shall afford a reasonable
opportunity to the aggrieved party to be
heard vide Rule 16 after the inspection of
the animal market is carried out and,
therefore, it is argued that the order passed
by the respondent dated 27.11.2019 and
the procedure followed by him in passing
the order has been de hors the provisions
as contained under the Rules and the Act
and, therefore, unsustainable.

5.

Per
contra,
the
argument
advanced by learned counsel appearing for
the respondents is that the power vests
with the Chairman of the Kshetra
Panchayat under Section 78-D of U.P.
Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat
Adhiniyam, 1961 for the grant of licence
as well as cancellation thereof and
therefore, the power has been exercised
taking recourse to the said provision and, it
cannot be said that the power exercised is
de hors the provisions contained under any
Rule or Act.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, learned Standing
Counsel and their arguments advanced
across the Bar and having perused the
record, we find that the controversy
revolves around the decision making
process as prescribed procedure to be
followed for action in cases where the
cattle market is being run is found not
being run properly in the sense that the
cleanliness and other hygiene is not
maintained on the spot, has been allegedly
not followed.

7. A close scrutiny of the Act of
1960 reveals that the scheme of Act
clearly provides for such action to be
preceded by a detailed procedure. The
statements and objects of the Act of 1960
clearly
disclose
that
since
earlier
provisions of the Act were only confined
to only the urban areas within municipality
limits, the legislature thought in its
wisdom to enact a detailed law governing
the field. Section 38 of the Act provides
for rule making power of the Central
Government and Section 41 provides for
repeal of such provision if prevalent in any
State relating to the subject matter of the
Act,
shall
stand
repealed
within
enforcement of the Provision of this Act of
1960. It is admitted to the parties that the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,
1960 is the Central Law which is prevalent
at this point of time and the State laws
have come to be repeal by virtue of
Section 41 of the Central Act. It is also not
disputed to the parties that exercising the
rule making power under Section 38 of the
Central Act, Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals in Animal Market Rules, 2018
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rule") have
come to be enforced w.e.f. 22.03.2018
with it's publication in the official gazette
2 All. Mufeed Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
497
as prescribed for under Section 38 of the
Central Act. From the close scrutiny of the
relevant provisions of the Rule, we come
to notice that an Cruelty to Animals
Committee is sought to be constituted vide
Rule 3 of the said Rule. Rule 3 of the Rule
is reproduced hereunder:

"3. Constitution of Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals Committee- (1)
There shall be a Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Committee in each district for the
purpose of exercising the powers under
these rules, to be constituted or designated
by the concerned State Government.

(2)
The
Committee
shall
comprise of the following members:-

(a) the District Magistrate;

(b) one representative of the
State Animal Welfare Board;

(c) the Superintendent of Police
of the district;

(d) one representative of a local
Non Governmental Organisation dealing
with animal welfare;

(e) one representative of the
SPCA;

(f) district veterinary officer,
who shall be the Member Secretary;

(g) chairperson of the Zilla
Parishad or Autonomous Council, as the
case may be;

(h)
chairman
of
the
Municipality; or Panchayat at the district
level;

(i) the Committee may co-opt
such other person, not exceeding three,
with
expertise
in
animal
welfare,
veterinary sciences, governance, and law
enforcement.

Provided
that
the
State
Government
may
designate
any
Committee set up by it or a district
administration under it or a State Act or
the rules or regulations made thereunder
for the upkeep of animal markets, as the
Prevention
of
Cruelty
to
Animals
Committee for the enforcement of these
rules.

Provided
further
that
the
provisions of clauses (a) to (I) shall not
apply in the case a Committee referred to
in the first proviso.

(3) A person who has been
convicted under the Act shall be prohibited
from being a member of the Committee."

8. From the perusal of the above
provision it is quite explicit that a
committee that is contemplated under the
Rule shall consist of as many as nine
members necessarily. The functions of the
Committee have been provided under Rule
4. Rule 7 provides for the facilities that
have to be maintained in the animal
market to prevent cruelty to the animals
and Rule 9 provides for certain practices
which are rendered as prohibited practices,
then Rule 14 provides for the inspection of
the animal market. Rules 7, 9, 14, 15 and
16 lay down the procedure how the
inspection has to be carried out. For the
convenience these Sections are reproduced
hereunder:

"7. Facilities at animal markets
to prevent cruelty to animals - (1) Every
animal market shall ensure that the
following facilities are available:-

(i) water supply;

(ii) lighting in areas where the
markets function after sunset;

(iii) feed storage area and feed
supply;

(iv)
provisions
for
proper
disposal of dead animals from the site;

(v) provisions to ensure hygiene,
proper disposal of manure and bio-waste.

(2) The Committee shall, for
reasons to be recorded in writing,
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
determine the maximum holding capacity
of every animal market.

(3) specifications regarding
the facilities mentioned in sub-rule
(1)
and
the
maximum
holding
capacity determined as per sub-rule
(2), shall be intimated to each animal
market
by
the
Committee
and
prominently displayed at the animal
market
in
such
manner
as
the
Committee may direct.

9. Prohibited practices -
The following cruel and harmful
practices
shall
be
prohibited
at
animal markets, namely:-

(a)
animal
identification
methods such as hot branding and
cold branding;

(b)
shearing
of
horns,
bishoping in horses and ear cutting in
buffaloes;

(c) casting animals on hard
ground without adequate bedding
during farriery;

(d) use of any hazardous
chemicals on body parts of animals;

(e) sealing teats of the udder
using any material such as adhesive
pats to prevent suckling;

(f) forcefully drenching any
fluids or liquids or using steroids or
diuretics or antibiotics, other than
prescribed by a veterinarian for the
purpose of treatment;

(g) use of any type of
muzzle, that hurts, to prevent young
animals from suckling or eating good;

(h) injecting oxytocin into
milch animals;

(i) castration of animals by
quacks or traditional healers;

(j)
nose-cutting
or
earslitting or cutting by knife or hot iron
marking for identification purposes
other than by a veterinarian;

(k) tying rope around the
penis of animal; or

(l) any other prohibited practice
as determined by the Committee, for
reasons to be recorded in writing.

Provided that Committee may,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax
any of the above practices as per local
conditions.

14. Powers of State Board to
authorise inspection- For the purpose of
ensuring compliance with these rules, the
State Board, may authorise any of its
officers in writing to inspect any animal
market and submit a report to the State
Board and the Committee for further
action and any officer so authorised may-

(a) enter at reasonable times to
inspect the animal market;

(b)
require
any
person
to
produce any record kept by him with
respect to the said market.

(c) take photographic and video
proof of cruelty to animals.

15.
Inspection
of
animal
markets- (1) The Committee shall cause
regular inspections of animal markets in tis
jurisdiction to be made by authorised
officials, as may be required.

(2) Every such inspection shall
be followed by an inspection report, to be
scrutinised
by
the
Committee
to
recommend future action.

(3) The Committee may remove
from the animal market, any animal, if it
has rason to believe that the animal is
being treated cruelly at an animal market,
and the animal to seized shall be kept in
the custody of the local SPCA or an
animal welfare organisation recognised by
the Board.

16. Action for non-compliance-
If any animal market fails to comply with
these
rules,
the
Committee
may
recommend to the authority invested by
2 All. Mufeed Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
499
law to licence or register an animal market
in a State or Union Territory-

(a) for cancellation of licence or
registration of such animal market;

(b) for imposition of a bar on
any person from entering an animal
market, if non-compliance is owing to any
act
or
omct
of
whom,
such
recommendation
is
being
made,
an
opportunity of being heard."

9. From the bare reading of the
aforesaid provisions it is clearly revealed
that the legislature has intended that it is
the Committee which is vested with
detailed power as provided under the
Rules and, therefore, the Committee has to
inspect the site where the animal market is
being run and if the Committee finds
anything wrong in terms of Rule 7 and
Rule 9 of the Rules then the Committee
shall prepare report for that purpose and
shall also make recommendation to the
authority who is vested by law to issue
license or to cancel the same. However,
any such recommendation before the
Committee made the proviso to Rule 16
clearly stipulates that the such aggrieved
person shall be given an opportunity to be
heard in the matter.

10. Thus, applying the above Act and
the Rules we find that the Committee as
had been constituted by District Magistrate
was
completely
de
hors
the
rules
prescribed and therefore, the constitution
of the Committee was per se illegal and
cannot result in any recommendation
legally enforceable. If the committee is to
be constituted as contemplated under the
law then the constitution of the Committee
has to be in consonance with the
provisions contained under Rules 3.
Besides that, the Committee while making
a recommendation has to apply its mind by
conducting
such
inspection
as
contemplated and to also record findings
regarding non-compliance of the norms as
contained under Rule 7 or commission of
any prohibited practice as prescribed for
under Rule 9. We find that the District
Magistrate in the present case though, has
discussed the inspection report but it is
nowhere discussed as to what was the
inspection report submitted and whether
the petitioner had been offered any
opportunity to explain his conduct by the
Committee
before
making
such
recommendation because the provisions as
already quoted above prescribed for such
opportunity of hearing to be afforded to
the petitioner by the committee itself. Here
we are also reminded of the judgment of
the Apex Court in Deepak Babaria and
another Vs. State of Gujarat and others,
(2014) 3 SCC 502 wherein the Court has
held that when a thing is required to be
done in a particular manner the same shall
be done in that manner alone.

11. In such view of the matter,
therefore, we are of the clear opinion that in
the present case not only the procedure as
prescribed for has not been followed but
even the rule of natural justice has come to
be
violated
which
has
been
duly
incorporated under Rule 16 of the Rules of
2018 and therefore, the order impugned
dated 27.11.2019 cannot be sustained in law
and deserves to be set aside and the same is
accordingly, set aside, However, it is left
open for the District Magistrate to initiate a
fresh proceeding but strictly in accordance
with law as per 1960 Act and the Rules
framed thereunder of 2018 as have been
discussed herein above in this judgment.

12. The writ petition thus stands allowed
as above.
----------
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)02ILR A500

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ C No. 43167 of 2019

Masroor Ahmad & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Puneet Bhadauria, Sri Rakesh Kumar
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Permission
to
use
amplifiers
and
loudspeaker in religious place -refused not
only
for
noise
pollution-but
also
to
maintain peace and tranquility in the areaHigh Court should maintain social balancematter donot require any interference-W.P.
dismissed.

Cases cited:

1.
Acharaya
Maharajshri
Narandraprasadji
Anandprasadji Maharaj Vs. State of Gujarat, 1975
(1) SCC 11

2. Church of God (Full Gospel) in India Vs. K.K.R.
Majestic Colony Welfare Association and others,
2000 (7) SCC 282

3. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu,
AIR 2015 SCC 460

4. Sant Kumar and others Vs. Collector, Saharanpur
and others, 1999 (2) AWC 1664

5. Noise Pollution (V), IN RE, 2005 (8) SCC 796

6. Farad K. Vadia Vs. Union of India and others,
2009 (2) SCC 442
7. State of Maharashtra Vs. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC
481

8. Ritesh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2010 SC 3823

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. &
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)

1. Heard Sri Puneet Bhadauria, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amit
Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents.

2. The petitioners who are Muslims by
religion have preferred this petition for the
quashing of the order dated 12.06.2019
(wrongly mentioned as 21.06.2019 in the
petition) passed by respondent No.4 SubDivisional Magistrate, Shahganj, District
Jaunpur (wrongly mentioned as respondent
No.3 Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur in the
writ petition).

3. The aforesaid order disposes off the
representations of the petitioners filed pursuant
to
the
directions
of
the
Court
for
permission/renewal of the license to use
amplifiers and loudspeakers on religious places
on the ground that such use of sound
equipments is likely to cause animosity
between the two religious groups of the village
creating law and order situation.

4. The petitioner No.1 had moved
application before the authority concerned
for license/permission to use amplifiers
and loudspeakers on two Mosques, Masjid
Abu Bakar Siddiqui and Masjid Rahmani,
both situate in village Baddopur, Tehsil
Shahganj,
District
Jaunpur
for
the
purposes of Azaan for Namaz.

5. The petitioner No.1 was granted
permission by respondent No.4 SubDivisional
Magistrate,
Shahganj
on
15.01.2018 to use sound equipments as