Kerala High Court
Satjeev Karuna Parivar Trust vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2016
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
FRIDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 6381 of 2016 (W)
--------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------------
SATJEEV KARUNA PARIVAR TRUST,
C/202, GURU GOVIND SINGH NAGAR, LODHA HERITAGE,
ACHOLE ROAD NALLASOPARA (EAST),
DIST: THANE PIN CODE:401209,
MAHARASHTRA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY REENA RICHARD,
AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2E/406, N.G.SUNCITY,
PHASE-II, THAKKUR VILLAGE, KANDIVALI (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 101.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL
SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.
4. THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001.
5. MR. KOCHOUSEPH CHITTILAPILLY,
CHAIRMAN, "STRAY DOG FREE MOVEMENT" KCF TOWER,
THRIKKAKARA P.O, KAKKANADU, COCHIN - 682 021.
R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.K.SHERIN
R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC,
R4 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
PJ
WP(C).No. 6381 of 2016 (W)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE TIMES OF INDIA ON
18TH, FEBRUARY 2016
P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2016
P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 13.02.2016
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
NIL.
/ TRUE COPY /
P.S. TO JUDGE
PJ
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 6381 of 2016
==================
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The writ petition is filed for seeking following reliefs:
i. to issue writ of mandumus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents 1,2 and 3 to initiate immediately action to stop the hunger strike called on by the 5th Respondent, which is scheduled on 20.02.2016 at L.M.S Ground, Thiruvananthapuram and, ii.to grant such other relief's as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case.
2. The writ petitioner is a trust. It appears from the pleadings that the trust is constituted to resist the cruelty against the animals and to treat the sick and needy animals. The petitioner approached this Court seeking an action against the hunger strike, which relates to stray dog menace in Kerala, called on by the 5th respondent.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, by hunger strike, the 5th respondent is attempting to give a wrong message and false promise to the general public that he will wipe out the stray dogs menace from Kerala. It is contended W.P.(C).No. 6381 of 2016 - : 2 :-
that any such call for hunger strike would amount to violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 and the 5th respondent is trying to take the law in his own hands to encourage people to violate any law.
4. The protest has to be differentiated from actual commission of offence. Any omission or commission, which according to law, is punishable or otherwise considered as a violation. Certainly, the law set its machinery to act against the offenders. The protest by any person in any manner, unless it amounts to violation of law, cannot be treated as an offence. If the 5th respondent has committed any offence or violated any of the statutory provisions, certainly, the petitioner has every right to bring it to the notice of any machineries, which are otherwise empowered to take action against such offenders.
5. The petitioner cannot prevent another person from holding protest. The right to hold protest is part of cardinal principle of freedom of speech and expressions. So long as the protest remains in peaceful manner and not in violation of any provisions of law enabling any machineries to take action, that W.P.(C).No. 6381 of 2016 - : 3 :-
can be allowed. No doubt, if the 5th Respondent commits any offence or violate any provisions of the law, the petitioner is at liberty to bring it to the notice of any law machineries, which is vested with the power to implement such law. Therefore, this Court cannot direct the official respondents to take action against hunger strike called on by the 5th Respondent. It is made clear that, if the 5th Respondent's action amounts to violation of any law, the petitioner is free to approach any appropriate law machineries to take action against the 5th respondent in accordance with the law.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above liberty.
sd/-
sab A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
W.P.(C).No. 6381 of 2016 - : 4 :-