GOPALAK GOSHI SAMAJ SEWA SAMITY Vs. NAGAR PARISHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dt. 16.08.1999, dismissing the appellant's writ petition, on the interpretation of Section 92(2)(c) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act.

(2.) THE facts of the case are, that the petitioner filed the writ petition before this Court, alleging inter alia, that the petitioner is a registered association, and wrote many letters, asked permission to remove the carcasses of their own cattle, which was given by the State, the petitioner deposited Rs. 10,000/ -. However, the non -petitioners No. 1 and 2 restrained the servants of the petitioner from removing the carcasses. Thereupon the petitioner filed writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3895/91, which is pending. It is alleged, that on 08.08.1990 the Municipal Council Bikaner wrote a letter to the Director, Local Bodies, mentioning, that according to Section 92(2)(c) all the carcasses are the property of the Municipality. The Director did not agree with this view, and issued permission mentioned above, which is Annex.1. According to the petitioner, the Municipality thereafter issued an advertisement, to give contract for removal of carcasses, for the period 01.10.1991 to 31.03.1992. Copy of the agreement, entered into pursuant thereto, was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges to have filed a criminal case on 01.11.1991 under Section 379 IPC. The petitioner then referred to Section 246 of the Municipalities Act, and submitted, that the carcasses are the property of their owners, therefore, the non -petitioners, being the Municipality, or the contractor, has no right to take it without permission of the owner, and the petitioner is removing carcasses according to Section 246, which the Municipality did not allow, which interference is arbitrary. Inter -alia with this, it is prayed, that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued, directing the non -petitioners to allow the petitioner to dispose of their own carcasses of dead animals, and not to interfere in such disposal.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge found, that it appears, that the petitioner is not able to make up mind, that what writ it wants from this Court, and such vague relief cannot be granted. Then Section 92(2)(c) has been reproduced, and it has been concluded, that from this provision it is clear, that it is right of the Municipality only to remove the dead body of the animals from the houses, privies, sewers, cesspool or elsewhere. Thus, no substance was found in the writ petition, and the writ petition was dismissed.