ABULA SESHAIAH Vs. CHALLA RANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By notice dated 13th December, 1979, the petitioners were directed not to allow their pigs to move about indiscriminately on the roads as it is learnt that the disease of Encephalitis which is very prevalent in the neighbouring districts is to a large extent caused by the pigs and that if the movement of the pigs is not restricted within 24 hours, the pigs will be burnt to death. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the validity of this notice.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. A. Hanumantharao contended that the notice is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. He contends that the said notice purported to be issued under sections 254 and 255 of the Act which has no application at all. There is no power in the Municipal Commissioner to restrict the movement ot the pigs and the proposed action to burn the pigs to death amounts to deprivation of the property of the petitioners. Further, the time granted namely, 24 hours for complying with the notice is arbitrary. I do not find any substance in these contentions . It is a well known fact that the disease of Encephalitis is widely spreading in some of the districts of Rayalaseema apart from other districts. The notice issued is only to restrict the movement of the pigs by not allowing them to stray on the roads as the virus disease of Encephalitis is said to be spreading through pigs. It is also common knowledge that this dangerous disease is claiming many lives and is spreading rapidly. In order to prevent this calamity, the respondent has issued the notice asking the petitioners to restrict the movement of the pigs and confine them to their sheds without allowing them to roam about indiscriminately on the roads. This measure is taken in public interest and safety. Under any circumstances, I feel that this is not a case in which the High Court should interfere in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even if any irregularity or illegality is alleged or established.

(3.) Even on merits, I do not find any force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. Section 254 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act restrains any person from keeping any animal on his premises so as to be dangerous to the public. Section 255 of the Act confers power on the Municipal Commissioner to notify the public by a notice that unlicensed pigs or dogs straying within specified limits will be destroyed. Reading these sections together, it cannot be said that the notice given by the respondent is without any jurisdiction or authority of law. Mr, A. Hanumantharao contends that under the Act, there is nothing like unlicensed pigs and section 260 of the Act requires only an owner of a stand or shed or other place in which animals are kept for profit to take a licence. The licence is only in respect of the place where the animals are kept and not in respect of the animals themselves. I do not find any substance in this contention. The use of the word "unlicensed pigs" in section 255 read with section 260 makes it clear that an owner or occupier of a place or shed where animals are kept, has to take out a license in respect of the said animals. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that unlicensed pig can only mean a pig in respect of which no tax is paid under section 113 of the Municipalities Act cannot be accepted. The further contention that in the instant case, no tax was levied as the Municipal Council has not determined the tax to be payable on animals. I have no doubt in my mind that section 113 has no application to the facts of the present case. Under the said section, the Municipal Council is empowered to determine the tax to be levied on animals and the Municipal Commissioner is vested with the power to levy the said tax yearly on the animals which are kept or used within the Municipality. Section 113 does not deal with licenses at all. The section which deals with the licenses is section 260 and as already stated by me, section 260 read with section 255 makes it clear that animals in respect of which no licence is taken by the occupier of a place where they are kept for profit can be prevented from straying within specified limits and if the said direction is contravened by the owner or occupier of the place where the animals are kept the said animals can be destroyed.