* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13245/2009 Date of decision:11th February, 2010. PALLAN HALDAR ..... Petitioner Through Mr. D.S. Negi, Advocate. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ... Respondent Through Ms. Mansi Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 1. The petitioner seeks release of cattle, which was impounded by the respondent, MCD on 13th May, 2009. The petitioner also claims damages for delay, harassment and mental agony caused to him. 2. It is admitted that the petitioner does not have any licence under Section 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short). The contention raised is that the petitioner does not require licence as he was keeping the said cattle for domestic purpose. The said fact is controverted and denied by the respondent, MCD. Said respondent contends that the petitioner had/has failed to obtain licence as required under Section 417 (b) and (c) of the Act. 3. Stray cattle and the menace caused by them in Delhi has been examined and is subject matter of several directions issued by the High Court in the W.P.(C) 3791/2000 titled Common Cause Society Vs. Union of India and Others. Respondent-MCD has been asked to control the menace of stray cattle, which are abandoned by their owners and allowed to move around in open. The Court observed that the issue of licences would not only make the dairy/cattle owners accountable but ensure that they conform to the minimum standards of hygiene so very essential for the health of the community and the people living in close proximity to such areas. The following passages in the judgment dated 31st May, 2007 141 (2007) DLT 164 (DB) apposite: “4. Five years down the line and dozens of interim orders of this Court later, the problem continues to persist with very little headway made in the direction of effective handling of the same. The result is that stray cattle continue to roam freely on the roads and the citizens continue to suffer official apathy towards the menace. The directions issued by this Court requiring MCD and NDMC to employ sufficient number of vehicles to ferry the impounded cattle, to cancel the licences of the dairy owners in case their cattle and other animals strayed out of the premises in which the dairy is run, to launch prosecution against the defaulting cattle owners and to disconnect electric supply to the unauthorized dairies and dairy colonies with immediate effect have been obeyed more in breach than in compliance. “21. In the course of hearing before us, the Commissioner of MCD had appeared in person and fairly conceded that the provisions of Section 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 were mandatory inasmuch as no person can keep any cattle without a licence from the Commissioner, MCD. Even so the Commissioner, MCD had framed no policy regarding licensing of dairies or keeping of cattle in Delhi. He submitted that the MCD would, within the time allowed by this Court, introduce a proper licensing regime which would inter-alia stipulate the conditions subject to which licences may be granted for keeping of cattle or other quadruped animals or birds for transportation, sale or hire or for sale of the produce thereof. That, in our view, ought to have been done long time back. It is indeed surprising how the MCD could turn blind eye to Section 417 of the Act and allow the activities enumerated therein to go on without proper licences granted by the Commissioner in that behalf. The issue of licences would not only make the dairy/cattle owners accountable but ensure that the conform to the minimum standards of hygiene so very essential for the health of the community and the people living in close proximity to such areas. 4. Counsel for the respondent-MCD has rightly drawn my attention to Section 418 of the Act which stipulates that the Corporation has power to seize the stray cattle, which are kept in premises in contravention to the provisions of Section 417 or are found abandoned, roaming or tethered on any street or public place or on any land belonging to the Corporation. Proviso to sub section 1 states that the owner of the cattle/animal may within seven days of the seizure of cattle get them released by paying all expenses incurred by the Commission in seizing, impounding or removing, feeding and watering such animal or bird and on his producing licence for keeping these animals or birds, issued under the provisions of Section 417. The requirement of proviso, therefore, is that the owner must produce a licence for keeping cattle/animals. Admittedly, in the present case, no licence was produced by the petitioner. 5. The respondents have stated that the cattle was found abandoned and roaming and, therefore, was impounded on 13th May, 2009. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner states that the cattle was in fact tied at the home of the petitioner, when it was impounded. Thus, two contradictory oral averments have been made by the petitioner and the respondent authorities. The respondents have placed on record the seizure report, in which it has been stated that the cattle was impounded outside the Bawana J.J. Colony during routine cattle raid on 13th May, 2009. If, the cattle would have been impounded from the home of the petitioner, there would have been hue and cry and his family members would have opposed and resisted the said action of the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner did not take any step or lodged any complaint till he made an application on 22nd May, 2009. Thus the averment and stand of the respondent- MCD is more acceptable and appears to be correct. 6. As noticed above, the cattle in question was impounded by the respondents on 13th May, 2009 and the petitioner had moved an application for release on 22nd May, 2009, which is beyond the period of seven days. The stand of the petitioner that the cattle was impounded on 18th May, 2009 is not correct, in view of the documents placed on record by the respondent-MCD. 7. The respondents have placed on record policy dated 2nd December 2009 issued by them. As per the said circular, impounded cattle can be released after micro chipping and on fulfilling following terms and conditions:- “i) the cattle were impounded from illegal dairies. ii) the illegal dairy owner who have been allotted plot in Ghogha Dairy and iii) those cattle owner who could not show the proof of allotment of plot during impounding.” 8. In the present case, the petitioner does not satisfy the said conditions. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. FEBRUARY 11, 2010 NA/P