(IN) TREATMENT & CARE OF ANIMALS IN THE STATE OF HARYANA REGARDING.

[Guest guest]

http://courtnic.nic.in/dhcorder/dhcqrydisp_O.asp?pn=49214 & yr=2006

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

01.03.2006 Present:- Mr. Surgiva Dubey for the Appellant.

Mr. L.C. Jain, Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. O.P. Saxena for the Respondent/MCD.

 

CM 2622/2005 in WP© 14175/2005 Notice.

Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the MCD.

Mr. L.C. Jain, Chairman of the Committee, states that Goshalas of Delhi,

submitted its report and the respondent/MCD has agreed to pay Rs.20/- and Govt.

of NCT has agreed to pay Rs. 5/- per day per cattle for the purpose of

maintenance of health of the cattle kept in the Gaushala. However, the

respondents have not released the funds for the maintenance of the Gaushala. It

is contended that the funds will lapse if the same are not released to the

Gaushala as agreed by the respondents.

 

Therefore, we issue a direction to the respondents to release the necessary

funds given in the same financial year to different Goshalas @ Rs.25/- per day

per cattle. Let the same be done within two weeks.

CMs 2623 and 2624/2006 Notice.

Mr. O.P. Saxena, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the MCD.

It has been brought to our notice that the Govt. of NCT of Delhi is not taking

seriously the meetings of the Committee which are held with Mr.L.C. Jain. As

nobody is present on behalf of Govt. of NCT of Delhi, issue notice to Ms. Hima

Kohli, Standing Counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi for 8.03.2006.

Dasti as well.

Copy dasti.

VIJENDER JAIN, J S.N. AGGARWAL, J Q MARCH 1, 2006 'vk'*

 

*

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-\

..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

RESPECTED SIR / MADAM,*

 

*KINDLY REFER TO THE ABOVE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ORDERS WHICH WAS IMPLEMENTED

IN DELHI LAST YEAR WHERE AS UNDERSIGNED REGULARLY REQUESTED TO THE GOVT. OF

HARYANA FOR THE LAST 9 YEARS TO FIX UP THE FEEDING CHARGES FOR THE ANIMALS AS

PER THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE PREVENTION OF THE CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ACT, 1960 BUT TILL DATE NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ADMINISTRATION, THE

RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ACT REPRODUCE HERE :-*

*

 

35. Treatment and care of animals : (1) The State Government, may by general or

special order appoint infirmaries for the treatment and care of animals in

respect of which offences against this Act have been committed, and may

authorise the detention therein of any animal pending its production before a

magistrate.

 

(2) The magistrate before whom a prosecution for an offence against this Act has

been instituted may direct that the animals concerned shall be treated and cared

for in an infirmary, until it is fit to perform its usual work or is otherwise

fit for discharge, or that it shall be sent to a pinjrapole, or if the

veterinary officer in charge of the area in which the animal is found or such a

veterinary officer as may be authorised in this behalf by rules made under this

Act certifies that it is incurable or cannot be removed without cruelty, that it

shall be destroyed.

 

(3) An animal sent for care and treatment to an infirmary shall not, unless the

magistrate directs that it shall be sent to a pinjrapole or that it shall be

destroyed, be released from such place except upon a certificate of its fitness

for discharge issued by the veterinary officer in charge of the area in which

the infirmary is situated or such other veterinary officer as may be authorised

in this behalf by rules made under this Act.

 

(4) The cost of transporting the animal to an infirmary or pinjrapole and of its

maintenance and treatment in an infirmary, shall be payable by the district

magistrate, or, in presidency-towns, by the commissioner of police; Provided

that when the magistrate so orders on account of the poverty of the owner of the

animal, no charge shall be payable for the treatment of the animal.

 

(5) Any amount payable by an owner of an animal under sub-section (4) may be

recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue, (6) If the owner

refuses or neglects to remove the animal within such time as a magistrate may

specify, the magistrate may direct that the animal be sold and that the proceeds

of the same be applied to the payment of such cost.

 

(7) The surplus, if any, of the proceeds of such sale shall, on application made

by the owner within two months from the date of the sale be paid to him.

 

HENCE AGAIN IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED TO FIX UP THE FEEDING CHARGES RATES FOR THE

TREATMENT & CARE TO THE ANIMALS & IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT

HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO THE STATE GOVT.

OF HARYANA & PUNJAB TO SET UP INFIRMARIES BUT THESE INFIRMARIES SET UP ON PAPERS

ONLY, I HAVE TAKEN UP THIS MATTER AS PIL IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

- NOTICE ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENTS, REGARDS, NARESH KADYAN, CHAIRMAN - PFA

HARYANA www.pfaharyana.in