V VIJAYA RAGHAVALU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The constitutionality of Tamil Nadu Animals & Birds in Urban Areas (Control & Regulation) Act, 1997 (Act 46 of 1997), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the consequential notifications issued thereunder are in challenge in this batch of writ petitions.

(2.) Before coming into force of the Act, the keeping of animals and birds was being regulated by issuance of licences under Sections 282 and 283 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, hereinafter referred to as the CCMC Act. In fact, no such strict regulation was being enforced and it can be taken that the Chennai Corporation has never bestowed any attention or deemed it serious about the requirement of licences for keeping the animals or birds, as the case may be. While the Municipal Corporations Act is a general enactment, the Act in question is a special one relating to animals and birds in urban areas and it prevails over the Acts under which the local authorities function.

(3.) Even though arguments have been advanced that the licences have to be issued only under the CCMC Act, there is no force in this contention, as, so long as the provisions of the Act operate, no conflicting provisions in the CCMC Act can prevail.