(2015) 404 KLW 192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
W.P.(C)Nos. 25231, 29051 & 29052 OF 2014
Dated this the 8th April, 2015
PETITIONERS
1. CATTLE RACE CLUB OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIPIN.U RESIDING AT NEAR S.V.TEMPLE, WEST YAKKARA PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. KERALA HEREDITARY AGRICULTURIST ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOIDEEN KUTTY CHUKLI AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.CHEKKU HAJI, RESIDING AT MANASAM, PERUVALLUR POST MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673638.
3. K.V.MOHAMMED
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.) SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH
RESPONDENTS
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SEFRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM-1.
2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001.
3. EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE AND TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD-678001.
4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUZHALMANNAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679533.
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676503.
6. THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRD C WARD VALMEKI NAGAR, THIRUBANIYOOR, CHENNAI-600 001.
7. THE SECRETARY OF PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SPCA), IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERAPPUZHIKKARA BUILDING, PALA ROAD, THODUPUZHA-685584.
R1 -R 5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM R6 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R7 BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
J U D G M E N T
Whether the ban imposed by the Central Government as per the Notification dated 11.07.2011, issued in exercise of the power conferred under
Section 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960
declaring that bulls (along with five other animals) shall not be exhibited or trained as performing animals; and the recent verdict passed by the Apex Court upholding the validity of the said Notification banning 'Jallikattu' or 'Bullock - Cart race' in the State of Tamilnadu or elsewhere in the country, in
Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Nagaraja [(2014) 7 SCC 547]
could be pressed into service to ban 'Kaalapoottu ' and 'Kannupoottu' in the northern parts of Kerala or 'Maramadi' competition in the southern parts of Kerala, is the subject matter of consideration in these writ petitions.
2. The above writ petitions have been filed by the concerned Club/Associations/Individuals, being aggrieved of the notice/communication issued by the concerned respondents prohibiting the proposed 'Kaalapoottu'/'Kannupoottu' /Maramadi competitions on the scheduled dates, referring to the verdict passed by the Apex Court as mentioned above. The crux of the case of the petitioners is that 'Kaalapoottu'/'Kannupoottu'/Maramadi, is different from 'Jallikattu' or 'Bullock-cart race' prohibited as per the decision of the Apex Court and hence stands on a different footing. It is stated that the instances involved herein do not come within the prohibited activity under any statute or notification and that no exhibition or training is being conducted/imparted nor is there any sale of tickets in the course of such performance. It is also pointed out that no beating or whipping or any other instance of cruelty is meted out to the Bulls and that the event is being performed only as part of festival of agriculturists, to energize and re-vitalise the idle cattle and men, after the Monsoon /Onam and before the agricultural operations commence.
3. The pleadings and proceedings are referred to, as given in W.P.(C)25231 of 2014 for convenience of reference, except where it is mentioned otherwise separately.
4. The petitioners are individuals or associations of Agriculturists in the Northern/Southern part of the State and are actively taking part in the traditional cultural fests, of which Kalapoottu/Kannupoottu (as known in northern districts) and maramadi (as known in southern districts) is part of such festival. It is stated that the event has been conducted from time immemorial and the event takes place between September/January, ie., immediately after the Onam and after the Monsoon, but before commencement of agricultural operations. It is also stated that even though the apparent object may be as a sport, the real intent is to ensure that, both the idle cattle and men are rejuvenated and kept in good physical health and spirits and it has become a part of tradition. No ill-treatment is stated as done to animal, nor is there any death or injury to be caused either to the spectators, participants or the cattle. The spectators are never being charged and the animals are not let loose without control, unlike 'Jallikattu' or 'Bullock - Cart race'. As a matter of fact, two Bulls, with a yoke in between, mounted by the agriculturists perform the race, one at a time, in the field /'Kandam' and the timing is recorded . Prize is awarded to the fastest by giving trophy, medal, certificate etc as the case may be and there is no danger either to the public, participants or Bulls. It is also stated that, it is more akin to a Horse race, except that the Bulls are not mounted. The animals are not fed anything in particular for the event, nor is there any special preparation, either for the men or for the animal and there is no training. Sufficient number of veterinary doctors are engaged to ensure that the animals are not put under the influence of alcohol or any ill-treatment/cruelty is extended. No rider is permitted to consume alcohol, which is being regularly checked and they are not permitted to use stick, whip or even chords of any kind, but for permission to hold the tails of the animal in such a manner that it does not injure or cause pain to the animal. It is contended that the participants bring their own Bulls which they have reared in their houses and as such, they treat the animals with utmost familiarity and kindness they deserve, which is totally different from 'Jallikattu', where the Bulls are unleashed on strangers with serious consequences. The petitioners also contend that 'Kalapoottu/Kannupoottu /Maramadi' is not only benign , but also conducted in a systematic and scientific manner ensuring that no infringement of any of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 is resulted. The event is stated as being sponsored by various Governmental agencies /Bodies namely Grama Panchayath, Block Panachayath, Jilla Panchayats, Co-operative Banks etc. by sponsoring Trophies and that representatives of the people, both at the local level and State level are actively involved, which has got sponsorship of the Department of Tourism as well.
5. It was in the above background that the petitioners were taking all preparations for conducting the event on the relevant dates. But on a fine morning, the impugned notice was issued by the SI of Police/Executive Magistrate/competent authority, prohibiting the event stating that it is contrary to the relevant provisions of law and the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Nagaraja (2014 (2) KLT 717 (SC) (cited supra). This made the petitioners to approach this Court by filing these writ petitions.
6. When W.P.(C)No.25231 of 2014 came up for consideration before this Court, the attempt to interfere with such competitions in the earlier years and the verdict passed by this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment permitting 'Kannupoottu/Kalapoottu' and 'Maramadi' competitions holding that it did not amount to cruelty to animals, (subject to specific conditions incorporated therein), was brought to the notice of this Court. Based on the said verdict, similar conditions were incorporated and an interim order was passed on 01.10.2014 permitting the event to be conducted . Later, on completion of service of notice, respondents entered appearance and filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent /Animal Welfare Board of India (which is stated as an organ of Central Government), it is stated that the writ petitions are not maintainable in view of declaration of law by the Apex Court in crystal clear terms, vide the decision reported in (2014) 7 SCC 547. The 7th respondent/ Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has filed a counter affidavit producing a copy of the notification dated 11.07.2011 issued by the Government of India as Ext.R7(b). A copy of the judgment dated 12.03.2012 rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, with reference to the scope of the said Notification has been produced as Ext.R7(c). Another decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 30028 of 2009, preventing 'Kalapoottu', 'Kannupoottu' or 'Maramadi' stands produced as Ext.R7(a) and a copy of the order dated 13.12.2012 in W.P.(C)29135 of 2012, declining interim relief to hold such festival has been produced as Ext.R7(d). It is contended that the 7th respondent is a Society established under Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules, 2001, functioning under the 6th respondent- a statutory board established under the Government of India for prevention of cruelty to animals and for the welfare of the animals and also for protecting the animals from being subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering. It is also stated that the 7th respondent is established to aid the 6th respondent Board as well as the Government and the local authorities . It is further stated that, as per Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Rules, 2001, if any person has committed an offence under the Act, against any animal, the 7th respondent/SPCA or their authorised person is empowered to take preventive measures in accordance with law. The crux of the counter affidavit is that, by virtue of the notification issued by the Government and the law declared by the Apex Court, no relief, as sought for by the petitioner, can be granted under any circumstance.
7. Petitioners have filed separate reply affidavits in response to the counter affidavit filed by the 6th and 7th respondents . It is stated that the notification dated 11.07.2011 is not applicable, as there is no exhibition or training involved in 'Kannupoottu' or 'Kalapoottu', as already held by a Division Bench of this Court vide Ext.P5 judgment and attempts to draw a distinction with Ext.R7(c) verdict passed by the Bombay High Court. Reliance is sought to be placed on the interim order dated 15.12.2014 in W.P.No.54470 of 2014 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, permitting the holding of 'Kambala' (similar to Kannupoottu) in the State of Karnataka, seeking to distinguish the case dealt with by the Apex Court in (2014)7 SCC 547.
8. Separate statements have been filed by the 4th and 5th respondents as well, to the effect that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the event was conducted peacefully and no untoward incident was reported during the cattle race. On bringing up the factual and legal position to the notice of the learned Judge of this Court, that the interim order passed by this Court was in fact contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court as per the decision in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Nagaraja ( cited supra), the matter was heard at length and the said interim order was recalled as per a detailed common order passed on 14.11.2014. It was thereafter that all these matters were listed together and as agreed by the parties, they were heard in detail .
9. Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued the matter vehemently, in terms of the pleadings raised in the writ petitions, to persuade this Court to hold that the notification issued by the Central Government and the verdict passed by the Apex Court in (2014)7 SCC 547 do not place any hurdle in conducting 'Kannupoottu' , 'Kalapoottu or 'Maramadi' competitions , which allegedly stands on a different footing unlike the 'Jallikattu' or 'Bullock - cart race'. The alleged stand of the State Government as it appeared in some News Item, pointing out that 'Kannupoottu', 'Kalapoottu' or 'Maramadi cannot be prevented, being traditional events is also sought to be relied on. The prayers are however vehemently opposed from the part of the respondents, particularly by Mr. Jaju Babu, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent /Board supported by Mr. Brijesh Mohan, the learned Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.
10. The stand of the State Government was explained by learned Government Pleader with reference to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said affidavit filed on behalf of the State are relevant and is extracted below:
"3. The 1st petitioner namely Cattle Race Club of India is understood to be in function in Palakkad District during some years back but no action of the said Organization is seen now a days. It is respectfully submitted that no Societies or Association of any nature have been registered with the Animal Welfare Board of India under the provisions of Animal Registration Rule, 2001. The 2nd petitioner is only a simple letter head Organization. The conduct of events by the petitioners come under the provision of the prohibition orders contained in the judgment in Animal Welfare Board of India. The events proposed by the petitioners are also similar to that of “Jellikettu”, Bullock cart race, etc which clearly violates the Section 3(11)(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. The Government of India has clearly banned “Jellikettu”, Bullock Cart, “Kannupoottu malsaram” etc. as they clearly come under the provision of performing nature. It is clearly understood that there is no “Kalapoottu malsaram” in the northern districts in Kerala. The object of the Act is to protect and improve natural environment including forests, lakes, river and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures. The petitioners made request before the District Collector and Executive Magistrate, Ponnani vide letter dated 05.09.2014 and 08.09.2014. The request of the petitioners wherein already rejected, since their request violated provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned above are still pending.
4. It is stated that “Kalapoottu”, “Jellikettu” or Bullock Cart Race are of the same nature and they are performing the race resulting hard and harmful injuries to the animals participated in the events. Usually, a small knife is connected to the whip with which the animals are awarded and thus their act makes a clear violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The arguments of the petitioner that the “Jellikettu”, “Kalapoottu malsaram” are immemorial are not correct. We are hearing about this only very recently ie. just about 30 or so. The another contention of the petitioners that the event providing ensurance of good health to cattle is absolutely incorrect and hence denied. As far as “Kalapoottu malsaram” is concerned, it is giving much hardship to the poor animals which are participated in the events. The spectators will be roused in seeing this kind of event or race. Any how the race is conducted for winning a trophy in the race. That means competition makes rivalry and enthusiasm for winning the race. Consequently all sorts of humiliation will be applied by the rider on the animal for the purpose of achieving the goal. That means the animal would be made to win the game. This tantamounts much hardship or pain and suffering to the poor animals participated in the events. This is clear violation of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Honourable Supreme Court has laid down very stringent and clear cut measures to ensure the welfare of the animals as laid down in the provisions of the PCA Act, 1960. Moreover, the Ministry of Environment & Forest vide notification on 11.07.2011 has banned the exhibition, training and performing of animals including bulls in the competition or other events. Hence the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Ponnani ordered to serve notice, evidenced by Exhibit P1 to prevent the illegal cattle race event known as “Kannupoottu malsaram” organised at Ayilakkattu. This Honourable Court has granted interim order allowing the parties to conduct race, events on 12.10.2014. Restriction contained in the interim order dated 01.10.2014 has not been violated and complied by the petitioners. No law and order issues happened in connection with “Kalapoott Malsaram” held at Ayilakkad and other place.”
11. Going by the contents of Ext.R7(b) notification dated 11.07.2011 issued by the Central Government, no Bull can be exhibited or trained as a performing animal and the validity of the said notification has been upheld by the Apex Court as per the decision in (2014) 7 SCC 547(cited supra). Inspite of the notification as above, 'Jallikattu' was being conducted in the State of Tamilnadu with reference to the provisions of the Tamilnadu Regulation of Jallikattu Act, 2009. After meticulous analysis of the facts and figures and the relevant provisions of law, the Apex Court held that the State enactment passed by the Tamilnadu Government was repugnant to the provisions of The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Rules made thereunder. Hence the State law was held as hit by Article 254 of the Constitution of India and it was declared ultra vires to the Constitution. The Apex Court observed that the issue raised before the Court had to be examined, primarily keeping in mind the welfare and well-being of animals and not from the stand point of organizers, Bull tamers or Bull racers /participants or respective States or the Central Government, as the Court was dealing with a welfare legislation.
12. The origin of 'Jallikettu' was referred to, where jallichalli = coins were tied in "kettu" = package on the Bulls' horns and people were made to fight to get money tied around the Bulls' horns, which was depicted as an act of bravery. Later, it became a sport for entertainment. Various instances of cruelty; the manner in which animals were made to perform; cruel practices in violation of law including biting or twisting of Bulls' tails; poking Bulls with knives and sticks; usage of irritants rubbed into eyes, noses or anus of Bulls were discussed in detail with reference to various instances of adverse consequences resulted in different places. Similar reference was made to Bullock -Cart race in Maharashtra as well. It was also observed by the Apex Court that all animals are not anatomically designed to be 'performing animals' and that Bulls are basically Draught and Pack animals (to pull heavy loads in connection with ploughing, agricultural operations/transportation etc.) Reference was also made to Rule 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Transportation of Animals on Foot) Rules 2001, which says that no person shall use a whip or a stick in order to force the animal to walk or to hasten the pace of their walk. The nature of adaptivity was also highlighted to the effect that Bulls are 'cloven footed' (two digits) animals and the two digits in each leg can comfortably bear weight only when they are walking and not running, unlike Horse, which is having a solid single hoofed legs , fit for riding and also good as a draught animal. It has been observed that Bulls cannot be a performing animal, anatomically not designed for that, but are forced to perform, inflicting pain and suffering in total violation of Section 3 and Section 11 (1) of the PCA Act.
13. During the course of hearing, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that the Performing Animals Rules , 1973 define the term "performing animal' to mean any animal which is used at, or for the purpose of any entertainment, to which public are admitted through sale of tickets. It is stated that no sale of tickets is involved in the instant case and as such 'Kalapoottu', 'Kannupoottu' or 'Maramadi' competitions does not come within the purview of objectionable activities. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Jaju Babu, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, the answer to this question is very much discernible from the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 36 of the aforesaid judgment [(2014)7 SCC 547= 2014(2) KLT 717 (SC)]. In the said case, one of the contentions raised was that 'Jallikattu'/Bullock -cart race was conducted without sale of tickets and Section 22 of the PCA Act would not apply, so also the notification dated 11.07.2011. The Apex Court categorically made it clear that The Court did not find any substance or logic in that submission, holding that when Bull was specifically prohibited to be exhibited or trained for performance, the question whether such performance , exhibition or entertainment is conducted with sale of tickets or not, was irrelevant from the point of application of Sections 3 and 11 (1) of the PCA Act..
14. The conclusions made by the Court, with the declaration and directions are discernible from 'paragraph 77' of the decision in Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Nagaraja [2014(2) KLT 717(SC)] are as given below:
“77. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT AWBI IS RIGHT IN ITS STAND THAT JALLIKATTU, BULLOCK-CART RACE AND SUCH EVENTS PER SE VIOLATE SS.3, 11(1)(A) AND 11(1)(M) (II) OF PCA ACT AND HENCE WE UPHOLD THE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.7.2011 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, CONSEQUENTLY, BULLS CANNOT BE USED AS PERFORMING ANIMALS, EITHER FOR THE JALLIKATTU EVENTS OR BULLOCKCART RACES IN THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, MAHARASHTRA OR ELSEWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. WE, THEREFORE, MAKE THE FOLLOWING DECLARATIONS AND DIRECTIONS:
(1) WE DECLARE THAT THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO THE BULLS UNDER SS.3 AND 11 OF PCA ACT READ WITH ARTICLES 51A(G) & (H) ARE CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY OR CURTAILED, EXCEPT UNDER SS.11(3) AND 28 OF PCA ACT.
(2) WE DECLARE THAT THE FIVE FREEDOMS, REFERRED TO EARLIER BE READ INTO SS.3 AND 11 OF PCA ACT, BE PROTECTED AND SAFEGUARDED BY THE STATES, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, UNION TERRITORIES (IN SHORT “GOVERNMENTS”), MOEF AND AWBI.
(3) AWBI AND GOVERNMENTS ARE DIRECTED TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO SEE THAT THE PERSONS-IN-CHARGE OR CARE OF ANIMALS, TAKE REASONABLE MEASURES TO ENSURE THE WELL-BEING OF ANIMALS.
(4) AWBI AND GOVERNMENTS ARE DIRECTED TO TAKE STEPS TO PREVENT THE INFLICTION OF UNNECESSARY PAIN OR SUFFERING ON THE ANIMALS, SINCE THEIR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN STATUTORILY PROTECTED UNDER SS.3 AND 11 OF PCA ACT.
(5) AWBI IS ALSO DIRECTED TO ENSURE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.11(1)(M)(II) SCRUPULOUSLY FOLLOWED, MEANING THEREBY, THAT THE PERSON-IN-CHARGE OR CARE OF THE ANIMAL SHALL NOT INCITE ANY ANIMAL TO FIGHT AGAINST A HUMAN BEING OR ANOTHER ANIMAL.
(6) AWBI AND THE GOVERNMENTS WOULD ALSO SEE THAT EVEN IN CASES WHERE S.11(3) IS INVOLVED, THE ANIMALS BE NOT PUT TO UNNECESSARY PAIN AND SUFFERING AND ADEQUATE AND SCIENTIFIC METHODS BE ADOPTED TO ACHIEVE THE SAME.
(7) AWBI AND THE GOVERNMENTS SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO IMPART EDUCATION IN RELATION TO HUMAN TREATMENT OF ANIMALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.9(K) INCULCATING THE SPIRIT OF ARTICLES 51A(G) & (H) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
(8) PARLIAMENT IS EXPECTED TO MAKE PROPER AMENDMENT OF THE PCA ACT TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENT TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND FOR VIOLATION OF S.11, ADEQUATE PENALTIES AND PUNISHMENTS SHOULD BE IMPOSED.
(9) PARLIAMENT, IT IS EXPECTED, WOULD ELEVATE RIGHTS OF ANIMALS TO THAT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AS DONE BY MANY OF THE COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, SO AS TO PROTECT THEIR DIGNITY AND HONOUR.
(10) THE GOVERNMENTS WOULD SEE THAT IF THE PROVISIONS OF THE PCA ACT AND THE DECLARATIONS AND THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS COURT ARE NOT PROPERLY AND EFFECTIVELY COMPLIED WITH, DISCIPLINARY ACTION BE TAKEN AGAINST THE ERRING OFFICIALS SO THAT THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF PCA ACT COULD BE ACHIEVED.
(11) TNRJ ACT IS FOUND REPUGNANT TO PCA ACT, WHICH IS A WELFARE LEGISLATION, HENCE HELD CONSTITUTIONALLY VOID, BEING VIOLATIVE OR ART.254(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
(12) AWBI IS DIRECTED TO TAKE EFFECTIVE AND SPEEDY STEPS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF PCA ACT IN CONSULTATION WITH SPCA AND MAKE PERIODICAL REPORTS TO THE GOVERNMENTS AND IF ANY VIOLATION IS NOTICED, THE GOVERNMENTS SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO REMEDY THE SAME, INCLUDING APPROPRIATE FOLLOW-UP ACTION. ”
15. It is true that a declaration was made by a Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P5 verdict to the effect that 'Kalapoottu', 'Kannupoottu' or 'Maramadi' competitions in no way amount to any cruelty to animals and accordingly permission was granted to perform the event, subject to the specific conditions stipulated therein. But, when the said judgment was rendered on 12.11.2010, Ext. R7(b) notification was yet to be issued by the Central Government and as such, the Bench did not have any occasion to see the notification or to examine the scope of the said notification. Validity of the said notification was considered and upheld by the Apex Court as per the decision in
Animal Welfare Board of India vs. Nagaraja[[(2014)7 SCC 547= 2014(2) KLT 717(SC)]
Based on the said notification, the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification on 24.08.2011, imposing a ban on exhibition/training/public performance of the said animals including Bulls. But subsequently, another notification was issued on 12.09.2011 whereby it was stated that the ban as per the earlier notification would be applicable only in respect of 'Non- Castrated Bulls'. A Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Mumbai High Court contending that Castrated Bulls are also Bulls and the Central Government Notification does not make any micro distinction of "Bulls" as "Castrated" and "Non-castrated"; thus challenging the Notification dated 12.09.2011 issued by the State of Maharashtra. The contention was upheld and the said Notification dated 12.09.2011 drawing a distinction/making a classification virtually watering down the scope of Central Government Notification, was struck down by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court as per Ext.R7(c) judgment dated 12.03.2012. This Court fully concurs with the finding and reasoning given therein. The contentions raised by the petitioners to the contrary are only to be repelled and it is ordered accordingly.
16. Before concluding, this Court also finds it necessary to mention that, chances for extending cruelty to animals in the case of 'Kalapoottu', 'Kannupoottu' or 'Maramadi' competition very much exist even going by the admitted version of the petitioners. When the petitioners contend in 'paragraph 12' of the writ petition that there is no beating or whipping and that riders are not permitted to use even chords of any kind, they very much concede that the tails of the animals could be held by the riders in such a manner that it does not cause injury or pain to the animal. But it has to be borne in mind that there must be a purpose for holding the tail of the animal and why the tail is held by the rider is not explained anywhere in the writ petition. It has to be presumed that, it has got some connection with navigation or speed or pace of the animal . But how the idea of the rider is conveyed to the animal through its tail, is a matter of concern, which necessarily may involve twisting of tail, causing injury to the animal.
17. This Court finds that the issue is squarely covered by the verdict passed by the Apex Court in "Animal Welfare Boards' case (cited supra), which is the law of the land and is applicable throughout the country by virtue of the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. There is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the writ petitions. Interference is declined and all the writ petitions are dismissed.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE
lk