IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2011 / 20TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17077 of 2011(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- CATTLE WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SUKUMARAN, REG.NO.Q.356/10, PLACHERY, KALAYANDU, PUNALUR,KOLLAM-31. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,KOLLAM-691 001. 4. THE ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 3C WARD NAGAR, VALMEEKI NAGAR, THIRUVANIYOOR, CHENNAI-01. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH R4 BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY XAVIER, CGC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17077/2011 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER'S ASSOCIATION. P2: COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER PASSED 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF WRIT PETITION N 2227/09. P4: COPY OF THE BILL INTRODUCED IN TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 17077 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P2, an order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner, for conducting “Kannu Poottu Malsaram”. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that the permission sought for by the petitioner was rejected mainly relying on the judgment of this court in WPC 2227/09. 2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out, that subsequently in the judgment in Raghunath v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2011 (1) KLT 132) this court permitted a similar petition imposing stringent conditions. It is stated that it was without taking note of the judgment referred to above, that Ext.P2 order was passed. W.P.(C) No. 17077 OF 2011 :2 : 3. I heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. From Ext.P2 itself it is evident that the attention of the 2nd respondent was not invited to the judgment referred to above and in that view of the matter, I quash Ext.P2 order and dispose of the writ petition with the following directions. 4. It is directed that orders will be passed on Ext.P1 application, subject to conditions agreed by him in the application. In addition, permission to be granted will also carry the following conditions which were imposed by this court in the judgment referred to above which reads as follows. “(1) No stick, whether of metal or wood or cane will be used during the race, but only whip chord made of cotton or synthetic fibre of moderate size and length, with handle, will be permitted, if necessary. W.P.(C) No. 17077 OF 2011 :3 : (2) The cattle/oxen are not given alcohol before participation in the race. If any oxen/cattle is found fed with alcohol, it should not be allowed to participate in the race. (3) The participants are not allowed to consume alcohol. (4) None of the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals by riders are not allowed.” 5. In addition to the above it is also ordered that if the Animal Welfare Board of India or the SPCA has any specific reason to point out the requirement of any additional conditions, such additional condition will also be imposed. Further, it will be open to the authorities to impose such additional conditions in the permission to be granted, as are necessary in the circumstances. 6. Taking note of the submission of the petitioner that the “Kannu Poottu Malsaram” is now scheduled to be W.P.(C) No. 17077 OF 2011 :4 : held on 24.7.2011, it is directed that fresh orders on Ext.P1 application will be passed by the authorities as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 7. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition and a copy of the judgment referred to above before the concerned authority for appropriate action. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-