MOHD SAEED Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Inspector General of Police, Zone Varanasi and Superintendent of Police, Chandauli not to restrain the trucks loaded with buffaloes, sheep and goats from entering the District Chandauli while carrying it to other places in U. P. and New Delhi. According to the petitioner, he is engaged in the trade of purchasing and selling of buffaloes, sheep and goats. He purchases them in the cattle fair held in different parts of the country and sell them in the cattle fair at other places within the State of U. P. He also supplies the old and unproductive buffaloes to the meat processing export company situate at New Delhi and Kanpur. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 for the last few weeks is not permitting transportation of the animals on one ground or the other and the trucks are being detained and the drivers are being implicated on false charges under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Vide order dated 3-12. 2008, learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions. He has obtained instructions and has stated that the allegation regarding demand of illegal gratification is wholly misconceived and without any basis. He further submitted that the animals are being transported in utter disregard and in violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and therefore, cases are being lodged against defaulting persons. He also produced before the Court details of various cases lodged against various persons, copy of which be taken on record. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to not create any hindrance in the entry of the trucks carrying animals in the State of U. P. provided there is no violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 or any other Act. In case there is any violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 or any other Act, the respondent Nos 2 and 3 may take appropriate action including detention and seizure of the vehicles, goods and animals. They can also check the vehicles for this purpose. It is made clear that we have not adjudicated the allegation of illegal gratification against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The writ petition is disposed of. .