SAMELAL Vs. CHAIRMAN DISTRICT ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE, RAIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the resolution (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 - District Animal Welfare Committee, Raigarh by which respondent No. 3 has been directed and authorized for effecting recovery of Rs. 10/- per animal as animal welfare fee for the purpose of welfare of animals. Counsel for the petitioner submits that animal registration fee has already been fixed by Nagar Panchayat, Sarangarh under the Municipalities Act under which different rates have been prescribed for different categories of animals. He submits that in case of sale of any such animal the fee prescribed by Nagar Panchayat has to be paid by the purchaser. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the so-called District Animal Welfare Committee has absolutely no right to charge any animal welfare fee because the same has not been prescribed in the Municipalities Act. He submits that so-called Animal Welfare Committee is not empowered to impose any such fee without there being any legislative mandate. Resolution passed by the said Committee, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is not in consonance with the provisions of law and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents/State submits that pursuant to the policy decision taken by the then State of Madhya Pradesh dated 11.2.1999 (Annexure R-1/1) all the respective Collectors of the State were asked to constitute Rogi Pashu Kalyan Samiti for the purpose of welfare of cattle/animals and thereby indirectly helping the poor persons. He submits that a proforma has also been provided by the State Government for the purpose of registration of Societies in respective districts pursuant to which for Raigarh district such committee was formed and registered on 12.5.2000. Specific bylaws of the committee vide Annexure R-1/3 were also framed wherein very wide powers have been given to the committee in respect of taking decision for the welfare of animals. He submits that from a bare reading of the object of the committee it is revealed that the same is only in the interest of animals and thereby indirectly benefiting the villagers. State counsel submits that the committee is headed by Collector who is ex-officio Director of the Committee and all other senior officers of the district are the members of said Committee. He submits that the bylaws of the Society have empowered the Society to take any such decision in the interest of animals and for this purpose only a resolution was passed to charge Rs. 10/- towards animal welfare fee in respect of sale transaction of each animal. He submits that very meager animal welfare fee is being charged and therefore it should not be objected to by the petitioner as it will enable the Society to administer its duty and pious object framed by the Government. In addition to supporting the submissions of the State Government, it has been argued by counsel for respondent No. 3 that respondent No. 3 is merely a collecting agency of the Society and it is only implementing the resolution passed by the Committee.

(3.) The questions involved in the present writ petition may be formulated thus: