1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 20 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.347 OF 1996. AND CONTEMPT PETITION (MAIN) NO.3 OF 2008. CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 20 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.347 OF 1996. 1. People for Animals, through Mrs. Norma Alvares, Trustee, 826/2, Alto Porvorim,Bardez, Goa. 2. Mrs. Norma Alvares, of major age, Indian Nationa, r/o St. Britto's Apartments, Dattawadi, Mapusa, Goa. ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Goa, through its Chief Secretary having office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 2. The Director, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, Pashusanvardhan Bhavn, Panaji, Goa. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, 2 Panaji, Goa. 4. Shri J. P. Singh, working as Chief Secretary, State of Goa, having office at Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 5. Dr. H. Faleiro, working as Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Government of Goa, Panaji, Goa. 6. Shri Neeraj Kumar, working as Director General of Police, having office at Police Headquarters, Panaji, Goa. .. Respondents Mr. D. J. Pangam, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. W. Coutinho, Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 6. AND CONTEMPT PETITION (MAIN) NO.3 OF 2008. Mr. Vijay Samant .. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Goa Through Chief Secretary, Office at Secretariat, Secretariat, Porvorim, Goa. 2. The Director,Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Pashusanvardhan Bhavan, Panaji, Goa. 3 3. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Panaji, Goa. .. Respondents. Mr. V. Menezes, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. W. Coutinho, Government Advocate for the respondents. CORAM :A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 12 th December, 2008. ORAL ORDER : 1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by the common order since the grievance made in both these petitions, is common. 2. According to the petitioners, the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 20.12.1996 in Writ Petition No.347 of 1996, are being not complied with by the respondents and as such they have committed contempt of this Court. 3. Writ Petition No.347 of 1996 was filed by People for Animals through Mrs. Norma Alvares claiming themselves to be animal lovers and engaged in the welfare of the animals. According to the petitioners, in several parts of Goa, bullfights were being organized, which 4 were in contravention of Section 11(i) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1968 (“The Act” for short). This Court by the judgment and order dated 20.12.1996, allowed the petition and held that bullfights or 'dhirios' were in contravention of the provisions of the said Act and, therefore, were illegal and could not be permitted to be organized. The respondents to the petition, were directed to take immediate steps to ban all types of animal fights including bullfight in the State of Goa and to see that the direction is fully complied with in letter and spirit which The Act seeks to achieve. It is pertinent to note that Special leave to Appeal against the said judgment, was also dismissed by the Apex Court. 4. By filing the present petition, the petitioners seek to bring to the notice of this Court that in spite of the directions given by this Court, bullfights are being organized in certain parts of Goa and no action is being taken by the respondents either to prevent the same or to take appropriate proceedings against the violators. This Court from time to time, has directed the respondents to file affidavits. Pursuant to the said directions, affidavits have been filed by D. K. Sawant, Superintendent of Police, North Goa in C.P. No.20/2006 and by Mr. Shekhar Prabhudessai, Superintendent of Police, South Goa. Shri J. P. Singh, Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, has also filed affidavits pursuant to the directions given by this Court. 5 Perusal of the said affidavits discloses that in spite of the directions given by this Court, bullfights are being organized in certain pockets of Goa but the action has been taken by the officers in-charge of the concerned police stations to prevent bullfights, in case any information is received in advance and in some cases, prosecutions have been launched against those violating the directions given by this Court. Perusal of the affidavits discloses that steps have been taken by the respondents to implement the order passed by this Court. 5. However, from the affidavits filed and materials produced on record, it also appears that some of the police stations within whose jurisdiction, the bullfights are organized, are short of police personnel as a result, when the police, who go to the site, are assaulted since they have to deal with the large mob gathered near the site of bullfight. It is, therefore, expected that the respondent No.1 shall depute adequate staff at the police stations within whose jurisdiction, bullfights are being organized. It is the duty of the respondent No.1 to also protect the police officers, who go to the site to discharge their duties to comply with the directions given by this Court. I hope and trust that the respondent No.1 will take appropriate steps in this regard. 6 6. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitions pending. Needless to mention that in the event the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.347 of 1996, is flouted in future, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings available in law. Accordingly, contempt proceedings against the respondents, are dropped. Both the petitions are disposed of. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA