EAPEN CHACKO Vs. COLLECTOR OF KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the lessee of an estate in Malabar and at whose instance a cattle-pound was established with the sanction of the District Collector accorded under S.4 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, seeks to quash Ext. P-7, by which the Collector ordered its abolition. It appears, that on complaints received, a notice, Ext. P6, dated February 6, 1959, was issued to the petitioner, to show cause why the pound should not be abolished. An enquiry was wade, and abolition was ordered after the enquiry.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection, that the order impugned is purely executive and ought not to be interfered with, under Art.226. The objection is well founded. In Bir Bikras Deo v. Secretary of State for India, ILR 39 Cal. 615 at page 662, the Privy Council observed, that the

(3.) The objection taken on the merits, by the petitioners counsel was, that remedies have been provided by Chap.5 of the aforesaid Act, and that therefore the abolition of the pound was not warranted. Chap.5 deals with illegal seizure or detention of cattle, but on a perusal of Ext. P-6 it is seen, that although the charges are, for the most part, against the petitioner described as pound-keeper, the grounds of complaint are not restricted to those dealt with in Chap.5. I come to the conclusion, that Chap.5 does not take away the power of the District Collector, who can direct abolition of the pound. The last point was, that the abolition can be, only with the approval of the State Government. This argument was founded upon the language of S.4 which reads: