Madras High Court
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious And ... vs Jaigopal Garodia Foundations, By Its ... on 20 April, 2005
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam, C. Nagappan
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. The Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 1.4.2004 framed a Scheme giving certain directions to the authorities in order to prevent the cattle from being taken to butchery after getting purchased through public auction.
2. There are 15 guidelines framed by this Court. The Clause 12 is as follows:
"After the said census is taken, the dry cows, bulls, bullocks or calves (both male and female), could be sent to various Goshalas."
3. In pursuance of this direction, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments issued a circular to all the temples concerned and other officials directing them to follow the guidelines framed in the Scheme. In view of Clause 12 of the Scheme, the temples are restrained from bringing bulls and bullocks or calves (both male and female) from public auction, thereby incurring loss of major income to the temples. In view of loss of income, the temple could not be managed and meet expenses for the temple.
4. Though the entire order of the Division Bench refers to milky cows and non milky cows to be sent to the Cashless, this Court included bulls and bullocks or calves and directed the temples to send them also to Goshalas. The Goshalas in Tamil Nadu being lesser in number are not in a position to accept all the bulls and bullocks as they do not have available funds and space.
5. In view of the above circumstances, the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. has filed this application in Sub Application No. 327 of 2004 seeking for the modification of the order dated 1.4.2004 passed in Contempt Application No. 245 of 2002 by excluding the words 'bulls and bullocks or calves' (both male and female) referred to in Clause 12 in paragraph 36 of the order.
6. Notice was issued to the parties concerned in the application.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties including Amicus Curiae at length, this Court directed the petitioner, viz., Commissioner, H.R.& C.E. to convene a meeting inviting various organisations and analyse the various views expressed by the participants of those organisations and then offer the remarks of the Department with reference to the modification. Accordingly, the meeting was held on 22.3.2005.
8. In the meeting convened by the Commissioner, the petitioner herein, on 22.3.2005, suggestions were invited by the Commissioner from various representatives. At last, all the parties concerned accepted the suggestions and agreed to place them before this Court to incorporate in the order. Accordingly, a memo has been filed by the petitioner through the Special Government Pleader, H.R. & C.E. The learned Advocate General representing the Special Government Pleader would request this Court to consider these suggestions and pass an order as the parties including the Commissioner can accept and follow the suggestions if this Court directs the parties to follow the same.
9. The suggestions made in the memo dated 11.4.2005 placed before this Court are as follows:
(i) The cattle including bulls and bullocks and calves received by the temples as offerings by the devotees are not to be sold in public auction.
(ii) There are 17 goshalas approved by the Animal Welfare Board at present. These goshalas are financially viable to receive and maintain any number of cattle. The number of approved goshalas can be considerably increased so as to accommodate more number of cows and various other cattle by the Animal Welfare Board.
(iii) Temples receiving the cattle, should take immediate steps to send them to the nearest approved goshalas for maintenance.
(iv) The Animal Welfare Board may consider increasing the grant-in-aid now being made to the goshalas, taking into consideration the increased number of cattle to be maintained by them in appropriate cases.
(v) In maintaining the cattle received by the goshalas from the temples, the Farmers' Associations having linkages with the goshalas may also be involved. The bulls, bullocks can be handed over to such Farmer's Association identified by the Animal Welfare Board.
(vi) Major temples receiving cattle can themselves take steps for running goshalas if they have adequate land and financial resources.
(vii) Goshalas which are in existence in the temples may be located in a conspicuous place in the temple premises, so as to be easily seen by the devotees. This will encourage them to provide fodder feed etc. to the cattle, voluntarily, i n the goshalas.
(viii) Temples incurring loss of income in view of stopping of the auctioning of the cattle, may be compensated by contributions from temples having surplus funds.
(ix) Temples receiving the cows in large number may distribute them to the nearby temples under the control of HR & CE at the rate of at least one cow to the temple directly for proper maintenance. The cow may be maintained by the Priest/Poojari and the milk thereof may be used for pooja and abishegam purposes.
(x) Animal Welfare Board may consider preparing a project report in co-ordination with the HR & CE Aministration Department, for making profitable use of the cow dung. It was informed that Vibuthi and Panja Kavya can be prepared on large scale for the use of the temples. The cow dung can also be made use bio-fertilizer. This can be considered for implementation by the Goshalas as well as temples receiving cattle as offering.
10. Accordingly, these suggestions are hereby recorded and in the light of the above suggestions, the parties are directed to follow the suggestions.
11. If there is any practical difficulty in an individual case for sending the bulls, bullocks and calves either to Goshala or Farmer's Association or to maintain in the temple itself, the petitioner or any party may approach this Court and seek permission for suitable direction whenever necessary.
12. The learned Advocate General would submit that though the Goshalas registered with the Animal Welfare Board would state that they will receive cattle without any restriction or reservation, there were instances in the past about their refusal to receive the cattle for want of space. However, in the meeting held on 22.3.2005, it was informed on behalf of the Animal Welfare Board and the Goshalas that there would not be any resistance or refusal by the Goshalas in accepting the cattle including the bulls and bullocks sent by the temples. As requested by the learned Advocate General, on the basis of the reference made in the memo dated 11.4.2005, the above statement made by the Animal Welfare Board and the Goshalas that there would not be any resistance on their part in accepting the cattle including the bulls and bullocks is hereby recorded.
13. The learned Advocate General would also submit, by referring to the temples which mainly depend on the revenue by way of auctioning the cattle for their sustenance, that the Animal Welfare Board and the individual participants assured in the meeting that the Goshalas would receive any number of bulls, bullocks and calves and the Animal Welfare Board also agreed to release the additional grants to the Goshalas for the maintenance, if necessary. As requested by the learned Advocate General, this statement is also recorded for the compliance of the said statement by the Animal Welfare Board.
14. In the light of the above stand taken by the H.R. & C.E. Board as expressed in the memo and also through the oral submissions made by the learned Advocate General and also the submissions made by the other counsel, the modification with reference to Clause 12 would become unnecessary. The authorities who are the parties before this Court are directed to scrupulously follow the suggestions made in the order dated 1.4.2004 and also the suggestions which are agreeable by all the parties concerned mentioned above. The matter is disposed of accordingly.
15. Before parting with this case, this Court is constrained to refer to a painful feature. As indicated above, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order framing a Scheme containing 15 guidelines including Clause 12 with reference to the sending of the bulls, bullocks and calves to the Goshalas without public auction. In pursuance of the specific direction given by the Division Bench dated 1.4.2004, a circular was issued framing the guidelines as directed by the Division Bench.
16. Unfortunately, one Sampath claiming himself as the staunch follower of Vishanvite and is an ardent devotee of Lord Kallazhagar at Kallazhagar Koi, has filed the writ petition in W.P.25180 of 2004 challenging the circular, especially Clause 12 of the circular on the ground that the bulls and bullocks contained in Clause 12 will be of no use to the temple and hence, prohibition of sale of bulls and bullocks in public auction is unsustainable, seeking for the Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the Clause 12 of the circular made in S.R. No. 32222/2002-1/N1 dated 6.5.2004and direct the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., the second respondent to frame the proper rule after taking into consideration of all other and various factors relating to the issue.
17. The matter came up on 3.9.2004 before the learned Single Judge. Even though the Government Pleader appearing for H.R. & C.E. Brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the circular was issued in pursuance of the Division Bench order, Mr. K. Jayaraman, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that even though the said circular was issued on the basis of the Division Bench order, the Clause 12 caused real and substantial loss of revenue to the temple and as such, there shall be stay of the operation of the Clause 12. Accordingly, stay was granted in respect of the Clause 12 of the impugned circular so far as it relates to bulls and bullocks.
18. When the Sub Application No. 327 of 2004 has been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court filed by the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E. Seeking for modification, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the order of this Court and the Clause 12 of the circular issued on the basis of the order of this Court has been stayed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 25180 of 2004. Therefore, this Court directed the said writ petition also has to be posted along with the modification petition.
19. When the matter was taken up, it was represented by the counsel for the respondent that both the petitioner and the counsel Mr. Jayaraman having known fully well about the order passed by the Division Bench have filed this W.P. No. 25180 of 2004 seeking for quashing of the Clause 12 of the circular and also to give a further direction framing a new Scheme which would amount to contempt of the Court.
20. At this stage, Mr. K. Jayaraman, the counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 25180 of 2004 would sincerely state with tinge of regret that he has done a grave blunder by having filed such a writ petition on the basis of the instruction given by his client and when he filed the writ petition, both himself and his client knew about the order of the Division Bench and even then without realising the blunder that he committed and also without understanding the consequences of the same had argued before the learned Single Judge and obtained stay order. He would submit that he is practising in the High Court for long number of years and in his longstanding, he has never misled the Court, but for the first time, he committed the grave mistake of filing writ petition before the learned Single Judge seeking for the stay and quashing of the circular issued on the basis of the Division Bench order.
21. According to him, he has now realised his mistake and he is prepared to file affidavit tendering unconditional apology and also willingly to accept any punishment that is given by this Court. He has also filed an affidavit sworn to by the petitioner tendering unconditional apology. According to him, he did not file any modification in the order of the Division Bench, since he is bona fidely thought that a fresh writ petition alone could be filed with a view to get better revenue for the temple and since he is a layman, he has committed the mistake of filing the writ petition against the Division Bench order without understanding the legal consequences and as such, he may be pardoned after accepting his sincere apology.
22. It is quite unfortunate to see that the petitioner Sampath in W.P. No. 25180 of 2004 is trying to escape from the proposed contempt proceedings by claiming himself a layman. The petitioner may be a layman, but Mr. Jayaraman being a Law knowing man having a number of years practice in the High Court, known for his thorough preparation and proper presentation before this Court, ought not to have stooped the level of advising his client who is a layman to file a writ petition and choose to obtain stay of the Division Bench order from the learned Single Judge.
23. Originally, this Court thought of initiating contempt proceedings against both Sampath and Jayaraman. However, this Court invoking sympathy had decided to impose costs on both the counsel and the petitioner for having abused process of the Court and also for having caused inconvenience to the Court. Mr. K. Jayaraman having fully realised his mistake, would submit that he is prepared to pay any amount of the costs that may be imposed by this Court.
24. In view of the realisation and also of the affidavit sworn to by the party tendering unconditional apology and also of the sincere apology tendered by the counsel, it would be appropriate to direct both the counsel and the petitioner jointly to pay Rs. 50,000/- as costs. This Court is of the view that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner in W.P. No. 25180 of 2004 and the counsel Mr. K. Jayaraman is to be used for a proper cause. So, the petitioner and the counsel are directed to pay the costs of Rs. 50,000/-( Rupees Fifty Thousand) as donation and deposit the same with the Animal Welfare Board in the name of Dr. R. Balasubramanian, Secretary, Animal Welfare Board of India, Ministry of Environment & Forests, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. On payment of such deposit, the Animal Welfare Board is directed to distribute the same to various Goshalas who are in need of funds for maintaining the Goshalas.
25. With this observation, the Sub Application No. 327 of 2004 in Contempt Application No. 245 of 2002 is disposed of.
26. The petitioner through his affidavit prays to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. Accordingly, the writ petition in W.P. No. 25180 of 2004 is dismissed as withdrawn.
27. Mr. W.C. Thiruvengadam, the counsel for the appellants in W.A. No. 3952 of 2004 would submit that the writ appeal becomes infructuous. Accordingly, recording his statement, the writ appeal is dismissed as infructuous.