BAL KISHAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the death of an animal cause ownership of its carcass vesting in the Municipal Committee, is the significant question which has cropped up in these two writ petitions C. W. P. Nos. 4572 and 5300 of 1985.

(2.) Six petitioners in one case and seventy-eight in the other are residents of Ferozepore town and claim to be owners of cattle kept for milch and draught purposes. They claim that whenever any animal of theirs dies, they cause disposal of its dead body by removal to a place one kilometre outside the municipal limits to be buried under the ground. The grouse of the petitioners is that the Municipal Committee on 26-3-1985 observed a sham public auction for disposal of the dead bodies of animals for the year 1985-86 declaring Kala respondent 3 as the highest bidder for Rs. 41,000/-. Since the auction was conducted by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee, the auction obviously was submitted to the latter for approval. The Committee turned down the proposal and did not approve the auction. The State Government, however, differed with the Committee and endorsed the view of the executive officer. The petitioners' attempt in these petitions is to cut the auction at the very roots on the strength of S. 168 of the Punjab Municipal Act which reads as follows :-

(3.) A joint ruling of the two sections, but predominantly to discern the object and attainment of S. 168, discloses that a sensible Municipal Committee would normally fix a place for the disposal of dead bodies of animals and may by public notice give directions as to the time, manner and conditions at, in and under which such dead bodies of animals may be removed along any street and deposited at such places. These places, subject of course to the approval of the District Magistrate, can be within or without the municipal limits. Amongst other matters, directions can include that while removing dead bodies of animals what routes are to be observed, what timings and transport and by what means, covered or uncovered. All these matters have, as the title of the Chapter suggests, sanitation in view and other decencies and desirabilities. S.168, however, expresses the concern of the town-living flock that a carcass should not remain at the place of its demise for more than twenty four hours and the primary responsibility for its removal to a place, as fixed under S.154, is that of the person who was in charge of that animal. In case he fails and neglects to carry out this direction, sub-sec.(4) of S.168 exposes him to criminal action and he can be punished with a fine which may come to Rs.500/-. The section also envisages that if such a person, in charge of the animal rendered carcass, may, for one reason or the other, find it difficult to dispose of the dead animal, then alternative is given to him in sub-cl.(b) of sub-sec.(1) of S.168 to give notice of the death of the animal to the Committee, whereupon the Committee, duty bound as it is, would cause the carcass disposed of and for such disposal it is entitled to a fee as prescribed in sub-sec.(2) of S.168. It is obvious from such scheme of things that the Committee, when it takes upon itself to dispose of the carcass under sub-cl.(b), would utilise the place earmarked for the purpose under S.154. Failure to report attracts penal action under sub-sec.(4). So far as these obligations of the person in charge of the animal turned carcass and the Municipal Committee are concerned, there is no quarrel. Equally, there is no quarrel to the right of the Municipal Committee disposing of dead animals which have been deposited at the place earmarked by it under S.154. It is obviously reasonable to infer such right, if a carcass has been deposited at a place earmarked under S.154 or a carcass has been brought by the Committee to that place in discharge of its statutory obligations. In either situations, the owner of the carcass by conduct has forsaken ownership of it by its deposit at the fixed place or permitting its removal to that place. I see no difficulty then the Municipal Committee, being in charge of the fixed place under S.154, assuming the ownership of the carcass and disposing it of singularly per piece or on future expectancies by open auction to a private contractor, as has been done in the instant case. As I have been able to understand the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, he does not dispute such a right of the Municipal Committee for carcasses deposited at the places of disposal under S.154. And if the auction held in favour of respondent 3 is meant to confine to that place or places, the petitioners seemingly have no grievance.