Ram Karan vs State of U.P. and Others

M. Katju, J.—The Petitioner is alleging that the Respondents are interfering in the transportation of bullocks and animals and had detained them which were said to be transported to the Mela as specified in paragraph 2 of the writ petition for sale. The similar question was dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1545 of 1996 which was disposed of on April 24, 1996, by a Division Bench. By the said order, it was held that there is no Justifiable reason to issue a mandamus. However, law was well settled that the transportation of catties within the State for sale by itself would not constitute any crime for which no action could be taken by the Respondents in the matter of transportation. Therefore, it was observed that the Respondent authority will act in accordance with law and will not intervene in the transportation of the animals within the State from one place to another, if carried for sale only. We do not find any reason to deviate from the said order. We, therefore, also find that no specific allegation of detention or interference has been made out in the writ petition. Therefore, it is not necessary to issue any mandamus in this regard. However, it is expected that the Respondents authority will act in accordance with law and will not interfere in the transportation of animals by the Petitioner if carried for sale in the Mela to be held on the dates mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, unless there is violation of specific provision of law.

With these observations, this petition is disposed of finally. However, there will be no order as to costs.