Madras High Court
Jaigopal Garodia Foundations vs T.R. Srinivasan, Ias And Ors. on 1 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004CRILJ2420
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: R. Jayasimha Babu, M. Karpagavinayagam
JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. On the writ petition filed as a "Public Interest Litigation" by Jaigopal Garodia Foundations, by its Trust registered under the Indian Trust Act, by its Founder Chairman Jaigopal Garodia, to issue a writ of mandamus, the First Bench of this Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, by order dated 25-4-2001, directed the officials of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Departments (hereinafter referred to as "H.R. & C.E.") of the Government of Tamil Nadu, forbearing them from permitting or allowing the sale or auction of cows by any Temple or endowment of the cows, which have been donated by devotees, so as to avoid being sent to butchery.
2. Despite this order, one of the Temples, namely Arulmighu Sri Ranganathar Temple, Srirangam, which is under the control of H.R. & C.E., allegedly sold several number of cows and handed over them to persons who allegedly sent them to slaughter houses. Hence, seeking for contempt action to be taken against the Commissioner of H.R, & C.E., Secretary of H.R. & C.E. and the Executive Officer of Sri Ranganathar Temple, Srirangam, the respondents herein, the present contempt petition has been filed by Jaigopal Garodia Foundations.
3. Facts in brief, which are relevant to be referred to, are given hereunder :
(a) By G.O. (Na. Ka.), No. 58, Tamil Development Culture and Religious Department, dated 12-3-2001, the Government, through its Secretary, permitted the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. to donate the cows that are not yielding the milk, which are donated to the Temples by donors/devotees, to Goshalas maintained in each and every District as a special case.
(b) In pursuance of the said G.O., the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E. sent a circular dated 21-3-2001 to all the Executive Officers of the Temples under the jurisdiction of H.R. & C.E., intimating the permission granted by the Government to donate the non-yielding cows received as donation by the Temples, to the Goshalas maintained in all Districts, as a special case.
(c) In the meantime, Jaigopal Garodia Foundations, the petitioner herein, heard that the cows and other cattle that are donated by the devotees to the Hindu Temples under the control of H.R. & C.E., are being auctioned after some time and they were subsequently sold to some persons, who in turn send them to slaughter houses or butcheries. Jaigopal Garodia Foundations made several requests to the Temples to stop the sale of cows. Since there was no response, Jaigopal Garodia Foundations filed W.P. No. 12663 of 2000, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to forbear the Commissioner and the Secretary of H.R. & C.E., Government of Tamil Nadu, from permitting or allowing such sales or auction of cows or any other cattle by any Temple or endowment of the cows, which have been donated by the devotees.
(d) During the pendency of the writ petition before the First Bench, the said G.O. dated 12-3-2001 also was brought to the notice of the Court. The First Bench, after realising the necessity and urgency, for proper implementation of the said G.O. dated 12-3-2001, by order dated 25-4-2001, gave strict directions to the respondents, the officials of H.R. & C.E., Department, which reads as follows :
"4. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials on record. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, we direct the first respondent (Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Chennai) to implement the Government Order dated 12-3-2001 scrupulously. We make it clear that the temples can keep with them the cows, which are yielding milk. In the event of stopping the yielding of milk, if they do not want to maintain, them, they can send such cattle to Goshalas, by way of donation, established at every District, with prior intimation to the donors. In any case, such cows should not be sold to third persons either for further selling or to butchery. The Goshala concerned can also request the Government for necessary further funds, if required, for maintenance of such cattle. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of."
(e) Through this order, the First Bench of this Court gave specific directions that :
(i) The Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., shall implement the Government Order dated 12-3-2001 scrupulously.
(ii) The Temples can keep with them the cows which are yielding milk. The cows which are not yielding milk, can be sent to Goshalas by way of donation established in every District with prior intimation to the donors.
(iii) Such non-yielding cows should not be sold to third person either for further selling or to butchery,
(f) On receipt of this order of the First Bench, the Commissioner, H.R.& C.E., the first respondent herein, sent a circular dated 25-6-2001 to all the Joint Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners/Executive Officers of the Temples, directing the officers to maintain the milk yielding cows in the Temple itself and to donate only non-yielding cows to the Goshalas, as per the direction in the order of this Court, by enclosing a copy of the order of this Court.
(g) Sri Ranganathar Temple, Srirangam, which, is a famous Vishnavite Temple, can maintain only 100 cows. But the Temple receives approximately 1,000 cows and cattle in a Fasli year, out of which, more than 100 cows do not yield milk. Rajanayagam, the Executive Officer of the said Temple received a letter from one Raghavan claiming himself to be the President of Sri Kanchi Kamakoti Peeda All India Cow Samrakshna Sangam, Trichy, requesting the Temple to hand over the cows to the Goshala of the said Sangam.
(h) In response to the said request made by Raghavan the Executive Officer of the Temple, the third respondent herein, inspected the Goshala of the Sangam at Thinniam, Lalgudi Taluk on 6-10-2001 in order to decide as to whether the cows could be donated to them. Then, the third respondent submitted a detailed report along with the Trust Board Resolution, to the Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., the first respondent, on 9-10-2001, seeking permission to donate the cows which are not yielding milk to the Goshala of the Sangam run by the said Raghavan.
(i) On the basis of the said report and resolution of the Trust Board, the Commissioner of H.R. & G.E., the first respondent herein, granted permission on 19-11-2001 to the third respondent, the Executive Officer of Srirangam Temple, to hand over the cows which are not yielding milk to the said Goshala of the Sangam, Accordingly, on 28-11-2001, the third respondent donated 70 cows and calves to Raghavan and his assistant Ravichandran. The said Raghavan acknowledged receipt of the same by way of a letter. On 16-12-2001, further about 27 cows and calves were donated to the said Raghavan and his assistant Ravichandran in the same manner. Thus, the third respondent donated 97 cows and calves, hoping that they would be maintained properly in the Goshala of the Sangam, at Thinniyam Village, Lalgudi.
(j) To the shoe and surprise of the third respondent -- Executive Officer of the Temple, on 16-1-2002, he received a letter from the Managing Trustee of the Goshala at Thinniyam, Lalgudi Taluk, Trichy stating that the said Goshala did not receive any cow or calf from Srirangam Temple. He immediately summoned Raghavan and enquired about the same. Then, after enquiry, the third respondent came to know that a fraud had been played upon him to part with 97 cows from the Temple.
(k) On 9-2-2002, the third respondent -- Executive Officer of the Temple gave a police complaint before Srirangam Police Station and the case was registered for criminal breach of trust and cheating in Cr. No. 133 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420, IPC. The accused-Raghavan and Ravichandran were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
(l) During the course of investigation, on 31-7-2002, 59 cows and calves were recovered after obtaining statements from both the accused. In the meantime, a news item appeared in the Tamil bi-weekly magazine, namely Junior Vikatan dated 31-3-2002 relating to the handing over of 97 cows to the person who in turn sold the same to other parties for sending them to butchery. On coming to know that 97 cows were given to a third party without proper verification and also some of the cows were sent to slaughter house, the petitioner thought it fit to bring to the notice of this Court. Hence, this contempt petition has been filed on 16-4-2002.
4. The contempt petition was entertained on 19-4-2002 and the learned Special Government Pleader took notice and undertook to ascertain as to whether the averments made in the contempt petition are correct, and if so, to rectify the same. When "the matter came up for hearing on 1-8-2002, all the contemners appeared before this Court. Subsequently, they have also filed their respective counter-affidavits, as also additional affidavits, on various dates.
5. In the meantime, on 1-3-2003, the petitioner filed an affidavit including two newspaper items dated 4-5-2002 and 8-5-2002, advertising the auction of cattle by the third respondent -- Executive Officer of the Temple. Then, counter-affidavits have been filed stating that the said auction does not relate to the cows, but other cattle.
6. The crux of the counter-affidavits filed by all the three respondents is that they have not committed any contempt. According to them, even before the order dated 25-4-2001 passed by the First Bench in the writ petition, by G.O. dated 12-3-2001, the Government directed the Executive Officers of the Temples to donate the non-yielding cows only to the Goshalas and even subsequent to the order passed by this Court on 25-4-2001, the circular dated 25-6-2001 had been issued intimating about the order of this Court, to all the Executive Officers of the Temples and the handing over of the 97 cows to the said Raghavan on 28-11-2001 and 16-12-2001 was only in pursuance of the permission granted by the first respondent Commissioner of H.R. & C.E., on 19-11-2001, on the basis of the report sent by the third respondent on 9-10-2001 to the first respondent Commissioner and as such, there is no contempt.
7. According to the petitioner, the order passed by this Court on 25-4-2001 in the writ petition, prohibiting the sale of non-yielding cows to third parties through auction, either for further sale or for butchery, has been violated by the third respondent -- Executive Officer of the Temple, by donating the non-yielding cows to the said Raghavan, who claims to be the President of a fake Sangam, and who in turn sold the cows. As such, according to the petitioner, for this contempt, all the three respondents are liable to be proceeded with and punished.
8. As noted above, according to the respondents, only after the permission granted by the first respondent- Commissioner, on the basis of the inspection report of the third respondent -Executive Officer, the third respondent donated 97 cows and calves to the said Raghavan and on coming to know that the said Raghavan obtained the cows and calves from the Temple on a false representation, the third respondent rushed to the Police Station without any delay and filed a complaint against the said Ragahavan and his assistant Ravichandran, which culminated in registration of a case against them and that on investigation, 59 cows out of the 97 cows have been recovered and as such, there is no intention on the part of the respondents to commit any violation of the order of this Court dated 25-4-2001.
9. We directed the learned Special Government Pleader to produce the case diary relating to Cr. No. 133 of 2002. Accordingly, the same was produced and on a perusal of the same, we are of the view that there was no proper investigation. The investigating officer has merely noted in the case diary that some of the cows were recovered and others are missing. While the matter which really requires investigation is as to why several other cows are missing, and what happened to those cows, the investigating officer has not chosen to investigate the same and simply stated in the case diary that the investigation is over and charge-sheet had been filed against the accused --
Raghavan and Ravichandran.
10. In the case diary, it is merely mentioned that some cows were sold and some cows died. The basis for the said conclusion in the case diary is not known. No investigation into the alleged sale, to the person to whom sold, their whereabouts, whether these cows were sold for the purpose of slaughter, what has happened to those cows, and other relevant facts have not been ascertained. It is also brought to our notice that though the charge-sheet was filed, it was not taken on file. Since we were greatly disappointed with the manner in which the matter has been handled by the Police, we directed the Commissioner of Police, Trichy to appear before this Court in order to give further direction to him with reference to effective investigation.
11. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police, Trichy was present before this Court on 17-2-2004, and he represented that the investigation was handed over to some other officer for effective investigation and the same will be done under his supervision and the report will be filed within two weeks.
12. Accordingly, it was reported that one Sundarraj, the Inspector of Police was directed by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy to take up further investigation in Cr. No. 133 of 2002 and in pursuance of the same, he examined 70 witnesses and filed the charge-sheet on 26-2-2004, which has been taken on file in C. C. No. 111 of 2004 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Trichy.
13. Even in the charge-sheet, it is stated that out of 97 cows and calves, only 59 were recovered; 21 died and 17 undetected. The statement of Raghavan would not disclose as to how the 21 cows died and what happened to the 17 undetected cows. Thus, the missing of 38 cows is a mystery, not yet resolved.
14. From these sorry state of affairs, two things are clear, (i) The third respondent, without proper verification of Raghavan about his identity and other background, entertained his request by recommending to donate 97 cows and sent a report to the first respondent-Commissioner, who in turn took into consideration and granted permission and on the basis of the same, all the 97 cows and calves were handed over to the said Raghavan at the Temple premises, (ii) Even after handing over of the cows, the third respondent-Executive Officer had not chosen to verify as to whether the cows and calves that were handed over to Raghavan, reached the Thinniyam Goshala at Lalgudi.
15. However, on the basis of these irregularities, we are not inclined to conclude that the third respondent -- Executive Officer, who is under the jurisdiction and control of the first respondent-Commissioner and the second respondent-Secretary, has committed contempt. All the respondents have specifically stated in their different affidavits that the 97 cows were donated by the third respondent to the said Raghavan on the bona fide belief that Raghavan is the President of the Sangam which is a registered body and that the third respondent was cheated on the basis of the false representation made by the said Raghavan. Further, the moment the third respondent came to know of the misuse of the cows, it is only the third respondent-Executive Officer of the Temple, Rajanayagam, who set the law in motion by giving a complaint to the Police. The investigating officer, who was specially appointed by the Commissioner of Police, Trichy in pursuance of the direction given, also would state in his report that his investigation discloses that Rajanayagam did not receive any monetary consideration or any other form of personal benefits by donating the cows and calves to Raghavan and there was no personal relationship directly or indirectly with Raghavan and Ravichandran.
16. Hence, there would be no need to take contempt action against any of the respondents.
17. The disturbing feature that we could notice is that the cows that are donated by donors to the Temple with the fond hope that they would be maintained properly by the Temple authorities and the milk from the said cows would be used for "Abhishekam" on the deities, have not been actually used for the same. On the other hand, the Temple authorities, in their anxiety to dispose of the large number of cows, tried to find out some person or the other who claimed that he is running the Goshala, who in turn actually received it for personal gains, either by selling them to third parties or by sending them to butchery. It is disheartening to note that this practice is being regularly done in almost all the areas, in spite of the existence of the prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and the rules framed thereunder, as also the Government Orders.
18. The unfortunate fact situation in this case is that in spite of the G. O. passed by the Government on 12-3-2001 and the strict direction given by this Court in the writ petition on 25-4-2001, the Temple authorities are not still careful enough in donating the non-yielding cows to the Goshalas, by verifying the genuineness or otherwise of the Goshalas. Utimately, the cows are being directly transported from Temple to slaughter houses by the persons to whom the Temple authorities handed over the cows. This is a disgrace to the Temple authorities and is an act which is in breach of the religious faith and trust reposed by the donors who are mostly Hindus, worshipping the cow as "Goddess".
19. In this context, it is worthwhile to remember that in the history of India, Hindus believe that the "Cow" is a 'Goddess' and the same is worshipped along with the God. They are keeping the cows and treating them as Mother Goddess the most auspicious domestic animal. Even though the cows are speechless, deaf and dumb cattle, they are worshipped as "Kamadhenu", which came out as 13th Jewel (Ratna) in "Samuthra Manthan" and called as "Gomata", the "third Mata", after the birth-giving "Mata" and the "Bharat Mata".
20. With this faith, people donate cows to the Temple with the expectation that "Abhishekam" would be done with the cows milk. The sentiment is to pray to God through Abhishekam to save them from any calamity. Now, we have to pray that God has to save not only human-beings, but also the speechless poor cows, whose milk is used for Abhishekam in the Temples, from the butcher's hands.
21. Quoting the "Thirukkural" of Saint Thiruvalluvar would be relevant for the facts of this case:
"260. (Vernacular matter omitted...Ed.) Translation:
"Those who refrain from killing animals and abstain from eating its flesh, will receive worship with folded hands from all creatures of this world."
22. Coming to the case filed against the accused, the final report filed by the Police in the form of the charge-sheet before the Court, would disclose that of the 97 cows donated, only 59 were recovered; 21 cows died and 17 cows were undetected. The irresistible inference that we could draw is that the 38 cows (21 + 17) which are missing, must have met their end in the slaughter houses.
23. One of the donors of the cows to the Temple is none else than the present Chief Minister of the State. Admittedly, the donors have not been intimated about the handing over of the cows and calves to the said Raghavan, the alleged cheat and no register has been maintained in the Temples with reference the details of the donors or with regard to the maintenance of the cows and calves.
24. We feel that we must set out some guidelines for proper maintenance of the cows donated to the Temples which cows after they stop yielding milk, should be donated only to genuine Goshalas. We had directed the Government counsel to file an affidavit through the Commissioner of H. R. & C. E. to suggest the guidelines for ensuring proper compliance of the Government Orders as well as the order passed by the First Bench of this Court on 25-4-2001 in the writ petition.
25. We have also invited the learned Advocate General to make further suggestions in this matter.
26. On coming to know that Mr. P. Haridas, learned Senior Counsel practising in this Court, is playing a vital role as Secretary of Gosamrakshan Sangh, we appointed him as a special counsel--"Amicus Curiae", to assist the Court to frame a scheme in formation of guidelines and direction to the authorities concerned, so that atleast in future, these unfortunate things would not happen.
27. Accordingly, on 12-2-2004, Mr. G. Ramakrishnan, I. A. S., Commissioner of H. R. & C. E. has filed an affidavit suggesting ten guidelines, similarly, Mr. P. Haridas, learned Senior counsel has also filed an affidavit stating that the scheme suggested by the first respondent through his affidavit dated 12-2-2004 is workable. In addition to that, Mr. Haridas has also suggested other guidelines.
28. Mr. Haridas, learned Senior Counsel also enclosed along with his affidavit, the 50 recommendations which were submitted on 31-7-2002 to the Prime Minister of India, by the National Commission on Cattle, headed by Justice Guman Mal Lodha, assisted by 15 persons, including Justice Ranganath Misra, former Chief Justice of India and Mr. P. Haridas, (the present Amicus Curiae counsel), Appointed by the Government of India.
29. Our attention has also been invited by Mr. Haridas to the "Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960", more particularly to Section 9(g) thereunder, which obligates the Animal Welfare Board of India constituted under that Act to encourage by the grant of financial assistance or otherwise, the formation or establishment of pinjrapoles, rescue homes, animal shelters, sanctuaries and the like, where animals and birds may find a shelter when they have become old and useless or when they need protection.
30. The note submitted by Mr. Haridas on "Goshalas in Tamil Nadu" would reveal that the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) was established by the Government of India in 1962 as a statutory autonomous body under Section 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. It is a corporate body having perpetual succession and a common seal. All the members of the Board are nominated by the Government of India. At present, the Board is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the present Chairman of the Board is Justice Guman Mal Lodha. In Tamil Nadu, the Board has 115 Animal Welfare Organisations (AWOs), out of which, 15 are Goshalas and AWOs who can receive and maintain cows/cattle which are rescued and which mainly maintain cattle.
31. Mr. Haridas, learned Senior Counsel would further submit that several pinjrapoles or goshalas have registered themselves with the Animal Welfare Board of India, even though such a registration is not mandatory. The registration has the advantage of ensuring co-ordination between the Welfare Board and the concerned Goshalas. It also enables such Goshalas to receive financial assistance.
32. It was further submitted by Mr. Haridas, the Amicus Curiae that there are many extremely well-run goshalas which are not registered with the board, as those Goshalas are not desirous of receiving any financial assistance and that most of the Goshalas registered with the Board receive the financial aid which the board provides. He would further suggest that all other private Goshalas also should be encouraged to register with the Animal Welfare Board of India, even though they may not decide to receive financial assistance, so that their activities as also the activities of the board, could be better co-ordinated. By this Co-ordination, information with regard to Goshalas will be readily available in one place, so that anyone interested in animal welfare, can, through AWB, obtain particulars with regard to the goshalas that are located in different parts of the State and the institutions which run those goshalas. This suggestion, in our view, deserves our appreciation and acceptance.
33. For the purpose of seeking the said co-ordination and clarification with reference to the aforesaid suggestions, we thought it fit to direct Mr. S. M. Deenadaylan, who is the Central Government Standing Counsel, to contact the person in-charge of AWBI Office at Chennai, so that the Court will be apprised of the nature of work currently being carried on by the board, so that proper direction could be given regarding the licence or registration of the Goshalas that exist all over the State.
34. Accordingly, the Secretary of the AWBI Office at Chennai appeared before this Court. He would submit through the Central Government Standing Counsel that Animal Welfare Board is prepared to co-ordinate with all the Goshalas by encouraging private Goshalas to register with the board to achieve the purpose for which the board is constituted and that the Secretary of the board is also ready to comply with the guidelines and directions that may be issued by this Court.
35. We have gone through the recommendations submitted by the National Commission on Cattle to the Prime Minister of India on 31-7-2002 and the guidelines suggested by the Commissioner, H. R. & C. E. through his affidavit dated 12-2-2004, as also the affidavit of Mr. Haridas, learned Senior Counsel.
36. In the light of the above fact situation, we feel that it would be appropriate to frame a scheme giving the following directions to the persons/authorities concerned, in order to protect the cows donated by devotees to the Temples:
(i) The Temples and religious places where the cows are presented by the donors, should be prohibited from selling the same at any cost.
(ii) Proper Registers shall be maintained by every Temple with regard to the cows donated to the Temple. Necessary entries shall also be made in those Registers with the name and address of the donors. Necessary receipts for acceptance of the cows donated to the Temples shall also be issued to the donors.
(iii) Periodical medical check-up shall be given to the cows by appropriate medical officers.
(iv) Proper arrangements should be made for looking after the cows in the cow-sheds maintained in the Temples and they should be kept clean and hygienic.
(v) In the event of the cows stopping the yield of milk, they should be kept separately and looked after properly. Such non-yielding cows should not be sold in public auction for any reason and they should not be donated to anyone, except to the Goshalas which are authorised/registered and maintained by the persons of good prudence.
(vi) Before sending the non-yielding cows to Goshalas, the officials managing the Temples should inspect the Goshalas in person and ensure that the Goshalas are run by the organisations which are duly registered.
(vii) The officials administering the Temples are strictly responsible for transporting the cows to the Goshalas and handing over them at Goshalas, after inspecting the Goshalas and shall also ensure that the Goshalas are being properly run by the persons who are trustworthy.
(viii) The Temple authorities shall invariably have a list of authorised and registered Goshalas in the State for this purpose, The organisations must have been approved by the State/Central Animal Welfare Board.
(ix) Before handing over the cows to Goshalas, necessary undertaking with regard to proper maintenance of the cows, should be obtained from the persons managing the Goshalas. A letter should be taken from the caretakers of the Goshalas in acknowledgement of the cows received by them.
(x) The temple authorities should inspect the Goshalas once in two months to verify as to whether the Goshalas are being managed properly and the cows are taken care of by the Goshalas.
(xi) The Government, through the second respondent - Secretary of H. R. & C. E., shall take primary cattle census of all cows, bulls, bullocks, calves (both male and female), in various Temples as of today, which census shall be taken immediately without any delay.
(xii) After the said census is taken, the dry cows, bulls, bullocks or calves (both male and female), could be sent to various Goshalas.
(xiii) The Government shall ensure that all the Goshalas whether registered or not, shall be instructed to co-ordinate with the Animal Welfare Board of India.
(xiv) The Animal Welfare Board should encourage other private Goshalas also to register their names with the board, irrespective of the fact that they are desirous of receiving financial assistance or not, in order to ensure that the activities of the Goshalas as also the board, could be better co-ordinated, so that any information with regard to the Goshalas that exist in the State of Tamil Nadu, will be readily available in one place, so that anyone interested in animal welfare, can, through the board, obtain the particulars with regard to the Goshalas that are located in different parts of the State and the institutions which run those Goshalas.
(xv) The Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Tamil Nadu is directed to render the Goshalas all assistance and help in respect of veterinary breeding service, preservation of native breeds, etc. from time to time and as and when required by the Goshalas.
37. The above directions/guidelines are given with the fond hope that the same would be scrupulously followed by the officials/authorities/persons concerned.
38. With regard to the criminal case filed against Raghavan and Ravichandran, we are told that the case has already been taken on file in C. C. No. 111 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate-III, Trichy. We deem it appropriate to direct the said Court to go on with the trial after observing all legal formalities and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
39. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, is directed to ensure that as and when the Police machinery receives any report of the sale of cows in violation of this Court's order, by committing the offence(s) under the relevant Section(s) of the Act and the Indian Penal Code, the same is registered and action taken against the persons concerned.
40. At this Juncture, it would be appropriate to mention that after going through the 50 recommendations submitted by the National Commission of Cattle, headed by Justice Guman Mal Lodha, to the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, we are of the view that the Committee has taken pains to collect comprehensive data and made suggestions for being implemented by the Government of India. We would be happy, if those suggestions are accepted and implemented, as the same would be in fulfilment of the obligation under Articles 48 and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India.
41. With the above observations, the contempt petition is disposed of.
42. Before parting with this case, we record our full appreciation for the service rendered by Mr. Haridas, learned Senior Counsel, the Amicus Curiae, Mr. N. R. Chandran, the Advocate General, Mr. S.M. Deenadayalan, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr. Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Secretary of the AWBI at Chennai.