C.R No. 1495 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 1495 of 2008 Date of decision : March 12, 2008 Darshan Singh & another, ...... Petitioners through Mr.Tribhawan Singla, Advocate v. Nagar Council, Dhanaula, ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** RAJIVE BHALLA,J The petitioners impugn the orders, dated 13.4.2007, and 9.2.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, and the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala, dismissing the injunction application, and the appeal respectively. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent-Nagar Council, Dhanaula from interfering and creating any obstruction in their ancestral work of disposing of carcasses of dead animals. The petitioners filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C praying for grant of an injunction. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, vide order, dated 13.4.2007, dismissed the application. The appeal, filed by the petitioners, also met with the same fate. C.R No. 1495 of 2008 ::2:: Counsel for the petitioners contends that the Nagar Council has assigned the contract to collect and dispose of dead animals to a private contractor. The petitioners have been disposing of dead animals for generations and, therefore, the Nagar Council cannot prevent them from performing their legitimate business. It is submitted that Sections 154 and 168 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short herein after referred to as “the Act”) do not place any impediment on the petitioners' rights to collect and dispose of dead animals. The Nagar Council has no jurisdiction to place any impediment on the petitioners' rights to pursue their ancestral avocation by auctioning the right of collecting and disposing of dead animals. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders. As held by the learned Courts below, the Nagar Council requires the services of persons to remove abandoned animal carcasses. Further-more, the Act places a duty upon the Nagar Council to maintain health and hygiene within its limits. The attempt by the Nagar Council to streamline the disposal of abandoned animal carcasses, cannot be faulted and the rights, if any, of the petitioners would be determined during the course of the trial. The Courts below rightly held that the Nagar Council is obliged, where the owners abandon animals' carcasses, to ensure their proper disposal, as provided under Section 154 of the Act and charge a requisite fee, in accordance with law. For achieving the said purpose, the Nagar Council has awarded a contract. The petitioners cannot prevent the Nagar Council from discharging its duty by asserting age-old customs. The judgment, relied upon by counsel for the petitioners, in C.R No. 1495 of 2008 ::3:: Fakira Tejaji and others vs Municipal Committee, Javad, AIR 1954 Madhya Bharat 71, does not, in any manner, advance the case, set up by the petitioners. There can be no dispute with the proposition that if a private owner entrusts the task of removing animal carcasses to a person other than the contractor, appointed by the Nagar Council, such a person cannot be prevented from disposing or dealing with the carcasses, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law as would warrant interference, the present revision petition is dismissed in limine. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) March 12, 2008. JUDGE `kk'