Bombay High Court
Kansraj Kalicharan Yadav vs J.A. Chougule & Others on 15 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: AIR1999BOM382, 1999(2)BOMCR154, AIR 1999 BOMBAY 382, (1999) 1 ALLMR 727 (BOM), 1999 (1) ALL MR 727, (1999) 2 BOM CR 154
ORDER N.J. Pandya, J.
1. The petitioner is challenging the action of State Authority in form of decision taken by the Licensing Officer of the Office of the Controller of Cattle, Goregaon (East), Bombay 400 063 as per order dated 19th September, 1996.
2. The petitioner admittedly was having a stable of buffaloes. There being eight buffaloes in number house in it as on the date of the controversy. He came to be served with Show Cause Notice, Exh. A, Page 21 and thereafter the impugned order at Exh. B, page 23 came to be passed.
3. The matter was carried in appeal before the Appellate Authority without any success. The dismissal order of appeal is Exh. D, page 28.
4. The petitioner is having on one hand running battle with his landlord in the form of rent suit filed in the Small Causes Court, it being Suit No. 940 of 1995. He also faced notice proceedings under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, calling upon him to remove the stable which he succeeded in getting vacated when he could make out a case that the stable in question has been existing prior to the cut off date i.e. 1-4-1962.
5. In this background, if one turns to the notice Exh. A, page 21 of the three grounds, the two grounds at Clauses (c) and (d) would not stand a moment scrutiny. Clause (c) refers to cow dung and refuse creating foul smell and Clause (d) refers to stable being in thickly populated area. If it has been existing prior to the said cut off date, obviously this grounds are not available to the authority.
6. This leaves only remaining grounds of stable being in dilapidated condition i.e. Clause (d) at page 21. In the affidavit in reply, the authorities have also relied on that aspect of the matter.
7. However, it is to be noted that except for referring it to as dilapidated stable, the authorities are not specifying the nature and extent of the repair required to make it a safe stable.
8. If at all, therefore they want to make the petitioner to carry out necessary repairs to the stable within two weeks from today they shall serve the petitioner of the notice giving detailed requirements of the repairs and then only they be permitted to rely upon this ground of dilapidated condition of the stable provided of course the petitioner does not carry out the necessary repairs. By very nature, stable housing buffaloes in Jogeshwari area of the city have acquired a character of their own because they have been in existence much prior to 1-4-1962. The repairs, therefore, that may be called upon to be done by the petitioner shall be in keeping with the requirements insisted upon so far in relation to other stable owners in the area are called upon and nothing beyond the said requirement will be insisted upon by the Corporation or authority under the Maharashtra Keeping and Movement of Cattle in Urban Area Contract Act, 1976.
9. The result is that the petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. The licence is restored subject of course to the petitioner carrying out repairs as and when called upon to do so. The repairs to be called upon shall be in keeping with the observations made above.
10. Copy of this order authenticated by the Associate of this Court be given to the parties.
11. Petition allowed.