( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.111 OF 2005 APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.111 OF 2005 APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.111 OF 2005 People for Elemination of Stray Troubles by its Convener Dr.Rosario Menezes & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s State of Goa by its Chief Secretary & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WITH WITH APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8120 OF 2007 APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8120 OF 2007 APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8120 OF 2007 S.A.Mohite (Col.) & Others .. Petitioners V/s The Secretary, Union Department of Culture Govt.of India, New Delhi & Others .. Respondents WITH WITH WITH APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3069 OF 2007 APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3069 OF 2007 APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3069 OF 2007 Ayurvarta Prabodhini .. Petitioner State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WITH WITH APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6257 OF 2006 APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6257 OF 2006 APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6257 OF 2006 People for Elimination of Stray Troubles Through its Convenor Dr.Rozario Menezes & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WITH WITH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.447 OF 2007 ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.447 OF 2007 ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.447 OF 2007 All India Animal Welfare Association .. Petitioner V/s Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Anr. .. Respondents WITH WITH WITH ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1432 OF 2004 ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1432 OF 2004 ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1432 OF 2004 In Defence of Animals .. Petitioner V/s Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents WITH WITH WITH ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1596 OF 1998 ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1596 OF 1998 ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1596 OF 1998 Viniyog Parivar Trust & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay & Ors. .. Respondents ( 2 ) APPEARANCE APPEARANCE APPEARANCE W.P.(PIL) No.111 of 2005 W.P.(PIL) No.111 of 2005 W.P.(PIL) No.111 of 2005 Mr.Jaydeep S.Deo for Petitioners. Mr.Subodh Kantak, Advocate General with Mr.Manish Salkar, AGP, and Mr.B.V.Phadnis for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ms.Norma Alvaris for Resp.Nos.5, 6 & 7. Mr.Raj Panjwani, Amicus Curiae. Mr.G.E.Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India with Mr.Vinod Joshi, Mr.Rajiv Chavan and Mr.Anurag Gokhale for Respondent No.47 - Union of India. Mr.V.R.Dhond with Mrs.S.R.Kumbat for Respondent No.48. Mr.V.Gurumurthy for Intervener- People for Animals, Mumbai and All India Animal Welfare Association. Mr.J.P.Cama, Senior Counsel i/by Mrs.Ranjana Todankar for S.P.C.A. Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Counsel with Mr.Zal Andhyarujina i/by M/s.Rustomji & Ginwala for Intervener- Welfare of Stray Dogs. Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.S.K.Chinchlikar for Respondent-State. W.P.No.8120 of 2007 W.P.No.8120 of 2007 W.P.No.8120 of 2007 Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mr.G.E.Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India with Mr.R.Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr.Rajiv Chavan, Vinod Joshi, Devadatta Kamat, Mr.A.M.Sethna, Ms.Rutuja Ambekar, Mr.Anuraj Gokhale, Mr.R.F.Lambay and Mr.Vikas K.Singh for Respondent No.1. Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, and Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for Respondent No.2. Mr.R.G.Ketkar for Respondent No.3. Mr.A.S.Doctor i/by Smt.Rekha Rajgopal for Respondent No.4. Mr.Ashok Tajane for Respondent No.5. W.P.No.3069 of 2007 W.P.No.3069 of 2007 W.P.No.3069 of 2007 ( 3 ) Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar with Mr.H.V.Kode for the Petitioner. Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, & Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent No.1 & 5. Mr.G.E.Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India with Mr.R.Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr.Rajiv Chavan, Vinod Joshi, Devadatta Kamat, Mr.A.M.Sethna and Ms.Rutuja Ambekar & Mr.Anuraj Gokhale for Respondent No.2. Mr.K.K.Singhvi, Senior Counsel with Mr.D.H.Mehta and Ms.Shobha Ajithakumar for Respondent No.3. Mr.Ram Apte for Respondent No.4. W.P.No.6257 of 2006 W.P.No.6257 of 2006 W.P.No.6257 of 2006 Mr.Jaydeep Deo for the Petitioner. Mr.G.E.Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India with Mr.R.Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr.Rajiv Chavan, Vinod Joshi, Devadatta Kamat, Mr.A.M.Sethna and Ms.Rutuja Ambekar & Mr.Anuraj Gokhale for Respondent No.1. Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP, for Respondent No.2. Mr.V.R.Dhond with Mrs.S.R.Kumbhat for Respondent No.3. Mr.Subodh Kantak, Mr.Manish Salkar, AGP with Mr.B.V.Phadnis for Respondent No.4-State of Goa. Mr.K.K.Singhvi, Senior Counsel with Mr.D.H.Mehta and Ms.Shobha Ajithakumar for Respondent No.5. W.P.No.447 of 2007 W.P.No.447 of 2007 W.P.No.447 of 2007 Dr.Jigeesha Thakore, Hon.Secretary of the Petitioner-in-person, present. Mr.K.K.Singhvi, Senior Counsel with Mr.D.H.Mehta and Ms.Shobha Ajithakumar for Respondent No.1 & 2. Writ Petition (L) No.1432/2004. Writ Petition (L) No.1432/2004. Writ Petition (L) No.1432/2004. Mr.Rahul Thakur i/by Mr.Anil Zodpe for Petitioner. Mr.G.E.Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India with Mr.R.Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr.Rajiv Chavan, Vinod Joshi, Devadatta Kamat, Mr.A.M.Sethna and Ms.Rutuja Ambekar & Mr.Anuraj Gokhale for ( 4 ) Respondent No.1 & 6. Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP for Respondent No.2-State of Maharashtra. Mr.K.K.Singhvi, Senior Counsel with Mr.D.H.Mehta and Ms.Shobha Ajithakumar for Respondent No.3 & 4. Mr.V.R.Dhond with Mrs.S.R.Kumbhat for Respondent No.5. W.P.No.1596 of 1998 W.P.No.1596 of 1998 W.P.No.1596 of 1998 None for Petitioner. Mr.K.K.Singhvi, Senior Counsel with Mr.D.H.Mehta and Ms.Shobha Ajithakumar for Respondent No.1 & 2. Mr.R.M.Kadam, Advocate General with Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP for Respondent No.3-State of Maharashtra. Mr.Gulam Vahanvati, Solicitor General of India with Mr.R.Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr.Rajiv Chavan, Mr.Vinod Joshi, Mr.Devadatta Kamat, Mr.A.M.Sethna and Ms.Rutuja Ambekar & Mr.Anuraj Gokhale for Respondent No.4 & 6. Mr.V.R.Dhond with Mrs.S.R.Kumbhat for Respondent No.5. ...... CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, D.B.BHOSALE, AND D.B.BHOSALE, AND D.B.BHOSALE, AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJJ. Date of reserving the Judgment: 17th October, 2008 Date of reserving the Judgment: 17th October, 2008 Date of reserving the Judgment: 17th October, 2008 Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 19th December, 2008. 19th December, 2008. 19th December, 2008. JUDGMENT: (Per Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J.) JUDGMENT: (Per Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J.) JUDGMENT: (Per Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J.) 1. In the above, the following questions have been referred to us by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice:- (1) Whether in the circumstances and seriousness of the problem, the danger posed and the menace caused by the stray dogs, resort can be had to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the relevant provisions of the Bombay Municipalities Act, Maharashtra Municipalities Act and the Goa ( 5 ) Municipalities Act and other enactments? (2) Whether inspite of the aforesaid provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and other Acts referred to above, the killing of the stray dogs has to be totally prohibited? 2. Before answering the aforesaid two questions a little background would be necessary to understand the same. A Division Bench of this Court by a Judgment and Order dated 5th October, 1998 had laid down various guidelines to deal with the problem of stray dogs. The above order was passed with the consent of all the parties, including Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the intervenors. The same was called Comprehensive Guidelines for Dog Control and Management. Under the aforesaid Guidelines, rabid dogs, critically ill dogs and fatally injured dogs could be put to sleep, by humane methods. 3. In the aforesaid Guidelines, it is clearly spelt out that the primary objective was to evolve means to control the population of dogs to achieve its gradual reduction and stabilise the same on a long term basis and thereby to control and reduce the incidents of rabies. 4. In the preamble of the aforesaid Guidelines, it categorically mentions that the indiscriminate destruction of stray dogs to minimise the incidents of ( 6 ) rabies and controlling their population has not succeeded. The aforesaid Guidelines were framed in view of the need to evolve a more effective, result oriented guidelines for dog control and management. 5. The aforesaid Guidelines lay down that no stray dogs shall be kiled as a rule, subject to the exception of critically ill, violent, fatally injured or rabid dogs. It also lays down that violent, diseased and incurably ill and mortally wounded dogs and those capable of transmitting diseases as identified and diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian be killed, shall be euthanised by a humane manner. 6. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai approached the Supreme Court of India against the above order. However, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Municipal Corporation sought leave to withdraw the same with liberty to move this Court by way of a Review Petition. 7. Accordingly, the said Review Petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of our Court on 25th June, 1999. In the said order, it is categorically held that the order does not call for any review or modification except clarification in respect of certain clauses. In the said order it is observed that in case of any genuine difficulties in implementing the same, the same ( 7 ) can be solved in the meeting of the Monitoring Committee. The above order also reiterates that the emphasis is that the dog management shall be in such a manner that putting dogs to sleep may be the last resort and in that respect, if necessary, the approach of the Corporation shall also change. In the said order, certain clarifications were issued regarding capturing of stray dogs. Finally the said Review Petition was disposed of with the remark, subject to the aforesaid clarifications, all concerned shall make sincere attempts to implement the scheme in the spirit in which the Guidelines were framed. 8. Thereafter, the Bombay Municipal Corporation started implementing the above Guidelines with full vigour and was also allocating funds in their annual budgets, for the purpose of controlling stray dogs by adopting sterilization methods. 9. The figures of Bombay Municipal Corporation would indicate the effectiveness of sterilization methods in controlling the stray dog population and lesser incidences of rabid dog bite deaths. 10. Thereafter another Division Bench heard another Writ Petition in the Goa Bench of our Court, and felt that the Guidelines issued in the order dated 5th October, 1998 was not a judgment and was more in the ( 8 ) nature of a consent order. Over and above, the above Division Bench also felt that the earlier Division Bench had not taken into account the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, especially Section 11 thereof and the relevant provisions of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, Maharashtra Municipalities Act and Goa Municipalities Act. The above Division Bench felt that in the light of the aforesaid legal provisions the concerned Municipal Commissioners will have the power to kill the stray dogs, to control the stray dog problem. In the light of the above order dated 7.1.2003 the matter has been referred to us to answer the above two questions. 11. In the meanwhile, the Central Government has framed the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules 2001 Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules 2001 Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules 2001 (hereinafter called as ABC Rules for brevity sake) under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Relevant Rules, viz.Rules 3, 5(b), 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 read as under:- Rule 3: Classification of dogs and their Rule 3: Classification of dogs and their Rule 3: Classification of dogs and their Sterilization:- Sterilization:- Sterilization:- (1) All dogs shall be classified in one of the following two categories; (i) pet dogs, (ii) street dogs. (2) The owner of pet dogs shall be responsible for the controlled breeding, immunization, sterilization and licensing in accordance with these rules and the law for the time being in force within a specified local area. ( 9 ) (3) The street dogs shall be sterilized and immunized by participation of animal welfare organizations, private individuals and the local authority. Rule 5(b): Rule 5(b): Rule 5(b): The Committee constituted under Rule 4 shall be responsible for planning and management of dog control programme in accordance with these rules. The Committee may authorize veterinary doctor to decide on case to case basis the need to put to sleep critically ill or fatally injured or rabid dogs in a painless method by using sodium pentathol. Any other method is strictly prohibited. Rule 6: Obligation of Local Authority: Rule 6: Obligation of Local Authority: Rule 6: Obligation of Local Authority: (1) The Local Authority shall provide for:- (a) establishment of a sufficient number of dogs pounds including animal kennels/shelters which may be managed by animal welfare organizations; (b) requisite number of dog vans with ramps for the capture and transportation of street dogs; (c) one driver and two trained dog catchers to be provided for each dog van; (d) an ambulance cum clinical van to be provided as mobile center for sterilisation and immunization. (e) incinerators to be installed by the local authority for disposal of carcasses. (f) periodic repair of shelter or pound. (2) If the Municipal Corporation or the local authority thinks it expedient to control street dog population, it shall be incumbent upon them to sterilize and immunize street Dogs with the participation of animal welfare organizations, private individuals and the local authority. (3) The animal welfare organizations shall be reimbursed the expenses of sterilization/ immunization at a rate to be fixed by the Committee on fortnightly basis based on the number of sterilization/immunization done. Rule 7: Capturing/ sterilization/ immunization/ Rule 7: Capturing/ sterilization/ immunization/ Rule 7: Capturing/ sterilization/ immunization/ release: release: release: ( 10 ) (1) Capturing of dogs shall be based on: (a) Specific complaints (for which the local authority in consultation with the Monitoring Committee shall set up a dog control cell to receive complaints about dog nuisance, dog bites and information about rabid dogs) and (b) General: (i) On receipt of specific complaint about nuisance or dog bite the same shall be attended on priority basis, irrespective of the area from which the complaint comes. On receipt of such complaint the details such as name of the complainant, his complete address, date and time of complaint, nature of complaint etc. shall be recorded in a register to be maintained for permanent record. (ii) Capturing for general purpose will be on such dates and time to be specified by the Committee. (2) The dog capturing squad shall consist of: (i) The driver of the dog van, (ii) Two or more trained employees of the local authority who are trained in capturing of dogs, (III) One representative of any of the animal welfare organization. Each member of the dog squad shall carry, a valid identity card issued by the local authority. The dog capturing squad will be accompanied by a representative of an Animal Welfare Organisation nominated for the purpose. (3) On receipt of specific complaint or for capturing dogs in normal course the dog squad will visit the concerned area, capture the dogs identified by the complainant in case of complaint oriented capturing and other dogs in case of general capturing. All the dogs caught will be tagged for identification purposes and to ensure that the dogs are released in the same area after sterilization and vaccination. Only stipulated number of dogs, according to the Animal Birth Control Program target, shall be caught by the van. A record of dogs captured shall be ( 11 ) maintained in a register, mentioning therein the name of the area/locality, date and time of capture, names of persons in the dogs squad on that particular day and details about dogs captured such as number of male dogs, number of female dogs, number of puppies etc. (4) The dogs shall be captured by using humane methods such as lassoing or soft loop animal catchers suah as those prescribed under the provisions of Prevention of Cruelty (Capture of Animals) Rules 1979. (5) While the dogs are being captured in any locality the representative of the local authority or of the animal welfare organization accompanying the dog squad will make announcements on a public address system that dogs are being captured from the area for the purpose of sterilization and immunization and will be released in the same area after sterilization and immunization. The announcement may also briefly educate the residents of the area about the dog control programme and solicit the support of all the residents reassuring them that the local authority is taking adequate steps for their safety. (6) The captured dogs shall be brought to the dog kennels /dog pounds managed by the Animal Welfare Organizations (AWOs). On reaching the dog pounds all the dogs shall be examined by the veterinarians and healthy and sick dogs should be segregated. Sick dogs should be given proper treatment in the hospitals run by Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)/ other institutions and only after they are treated they should be sterilized and vaccinated. The dogs will be sterilized/vaccinated under the supervision of the veterinarians of the hospital run by the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Animal Welfare Organization or other dog shelters. After necessary period of follow up, the dogs shall be released at the same place or locality from where they were captured and the date, time and place of their release shall be recorded. The representative of Animal Welfare Organizations (AWOs) shall accompany the dog squad at the time of release also. (7) At a time only one lot of dogs shall be brought for sterilization, immunization at one dog kennel or dog pound and these dogs shall be from one locality. Two lots from different areas or localities shall not be mixed at the same dog pound or dog kennel. ( 12 ) (8) The dog kennel must have sufficient space for proper housing and free movement of dogs. The place should have proper ventilation and natural lighting and must be kept clean. Adults and puppies must be housed separately and amongst the adults the males and females also should be housed separately. Adequate arrangement for drinking water and food shall be made for dogs while in captivity. (9) Female dogs found to be pregnant shall not undergo abortion (irrespective of stage of pregnancy) and sterilization and should be released till they have litter. Rule 9: Euthanasia of Street Dogs: Rule 9: Euthanasia of Street Dogs: Rule 9: Euthanasia of Street Dogs: Incurably ill and mortally wounded dogs as diagnosed by a qualified veterinarian appointed by the committee shall be euthanised during specified hours in a humane manner by administering sodium pentathol for adult dogs and Thiopental Introperitoneal for puppies by a qualified veterinarian or euthanized in any other humane manner approved by Animal Welfare Board of India. No dog shall be euthanised in the presence of another dog. The person responsible for euthanising shall make sure that the animal is dead, before disposal. Rule 10: Furious or dumb rabid dogs: Rule 10: Furious or dumb rabid dogs: Rule 10: Furious or dumb rabid dogs: (1) On the receipt of complaints from the public to the Dog Control Cell of the Local Authority or on its own, the dog squad of the Local Authority would catch such dogs, suspected to be rabid. (2) The caught dog would then be taken to the pound where it would be isolated in an isolation ward. (3) The suspected rabid dog would then be subjected to inspection by a panel of two persons i.e. (i) a veterinary surgeon appointed by the Local Authority and (ii) a representative from an Animal Welfare Organization. (4) If the dog is found to have a high probability of having rabies it would be isolated till it dies a natural death. Death normally occurs within 10 days of contracting rabies. Premature killings of suspected rabid dogs therefore prevents the true incidence of rabies from being known and appropriate action ( 13 ) being taken. (5) If the dog is found not to have rabies but some other disease it would be handed over to the AWOs who will take the necessary action to cure and rehabilitate the dog. Rule 11: Disposal of Carcasses: Rule 11: Disposal of Carcasses: Rule 11: Disposal of Carcasses: The carcasses of such euthanised dogs shall be disposed of in an incinerator to be provided by the local authority. Rule 13: Application of rules where local bye-laws Rule 13: Application of rules where local bye-laws Rule 13: Application of rules where local bye-laws etc., exist; etc., exist; etc., exist; If there is in force in any area to which these rules extend, any Act, rule, regulation or bye-law made under any law for the time being in force by the State or the Local Authority in respect of any of the matters for which provision is made in these rules, such rule, regulation or bye-law shall to the extent to which - (a) it contains provisions less irksome to the animal than those contained in these rules, shall prevail; (b) it contains provisions more irksome to the animal than those contained in these rules, be of no effect. . The above ABC Rules were brought into force on 24.12.2001. 12. The relevant provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 read as under, including the Preamble:- (i) Preamble:- (i) Preamble:- (i) Preamble:- An Act to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals. (ii) Section 11(1) (l): (ii) Section 11(1) (l): (ii) Section 11(1) (l): ( 14 ) If any person mutilates any animal or kills any animal including stray dogs by using the method of strychnine injections in the heart or in any other unnecessarily cruel manner he shall be punishable in the case of a first offence, with fine which shall not be less than ten rupees but which may extend to fifty rupes, and in the case of a second or subsequent offence committed within three years of the previous offence, with fine which shall not be less than twenty five rupees but which may extend to one hundred rupees or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with both. (iii) Section 11(3) (b): (iii) Section 11(3) (b): (iii) Section 11(3) (b): Nothing in this Section shall apply to the destruction of stray dogs in lethal chambers or by such other methods as may be prescribed. (iv) Section 38(1): (iv) Section 38(1): (iv) Section 38(1): Power to make rules - The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. (v) Section 38(2) (ea) (v) Section 38(2) (ea) (v) Section 38(2) (ea) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing power, the Central government may make rules providing for all or any of the following matters namely; (a)..... (aa).... (b)..... (c)..... (d)..... (e)..... (ea) the other methods of destruction of stray dogs referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 11. (vi) Section 38A (vi) Section 38A (vi) Section 38A Rules and regulations to be laid before Parliament- Every rule made by the Central ( 15 ) Government or by the Committee constituted under section 15 and every regulation made by the Board shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each house of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation, as the case may be, or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation, as the case may be, should not be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation. 13. Mr.Jaydeep Deo appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition