GOVINDA CH PATRA Vs. CHAIRMAN MAYOR CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Cuttack' which is popularly know as 'Cilver City' of the State has lost its past glory. Blame should go to the public officials in the helm of administration and overall charge of Cuttack Municipal Corporation who by their inaction and indifference have converted the glorious town to cattle sheds. We are constrained to say so because this Court's directions in OJC No. 3176 of 1988 (Madhabananda Pal v. Executive Officer and Ors.), decided on 13th April, 1994, have not been implemented in letter and spirit. In the said case a public spirited person knocked the door of this Court praying for a direction to the Municipal authorities to take appropriate steps to remove the stray bulls, cows and dogs from the public roads within the limit of Cuttack Municipal Corporation. Upon hearing the parties, the writ application was disposed of with the following directions :

(2.) THE writ petitioner alleges that despite the aforesaid directions of this Court no sincere attempts have been made so far by the authorities to check the menace of stray bulls, cows and dogs. The grievance of the petitioner is that be became a victim of attack by a stray cow on 22 -8 -1994 at about 4.30/5 p. m. hear Collectorate while he was returning from, the Court. The cow attacked him from behind by her horns as a result he sustained injuries to his rectum for which he remained under the treatment of an Assistant Professor of Surgery, S. C. 8. Medical College Hospital Cuttack. He asserts that the said incident Happened due to sheer negligence of Cuttack Municipal Corporation and its authorities, the reason being that no steps were taken to remove the stray bulls and cows from the public streets. Since it is the statutory duty of the authorities of the Corporation to ensure safety of the tax payers living in the city, he has prayed for a direction to the Corporation authorities to take immediate measures to remove the stray cattle from public streets and to pay damages to him for the injury that he sustained by the stray cow.

(3.) WE have gone through in great detail the averments made in the writ petition, counter affidavit and documents filed by the parties. The petitioner in support of his assertion that he was attacked by a stray cow resulting injuries to his person has filed prescription and certificate of his treating physician, Annoxure -1 series. Though this part of the petitioner's case has been denied by opp. parties 4 and 2, but we see no reason to disbelieve the same. Why should a tax payer come forward and file a false case against the Municipal Corporation 2nd fight out the same tooth and nail? Considering the petitioner's allegation coupled with doctor's certificate and prescription, we are prima facie satisfied that on 22 -8 -1994 at about 4.30/5 p.m. he was attacked by a stray cow in the public street resulting injuries to his person. It need be reiterated that despite our directions in OJC No. 3176 of 1938 referred to above, the authorities of the Corporation failed to take effective steps to check the menace of stray cattle on the public street. It is no doubt true that the opp. parties 1 and 2 have stated in their affidivit that a committee has been constituted and meetings of the committee are being held, but that will not solve the problem faced by the inhabitants of the town. People are pot concerned with number of meetings convened and discussions held. They are only concerned as to what extent the authorities could be able to eradicate the problem by removing the stray cattle and bulls from the public streets of Cuttack town. If the authorities in the helm of affairs do not involve themselves, any judicial direction will be of no help to the public. We express our anguish for the callousness of the authorities in solving the problem, that is removal of stray bulls, cows and dogs from the streets in accordance with the directions of this Court in the aforesaid writ.