IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.401 OF 2010 DATED:01.6.2010 Between: Gurrala Chandra Reddy and another … Appellants And The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, A.P. and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.401 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) 1. A writ petition seeking a direction against the official respondents to prevent respondent No.5 from rearing of sheep, having failed, consequently writ appeal on hand. Responding to a pointed query regarding the law that prohibits rearing of sheep, the learned counsel for the appellants referred to clause (b) sub-section (1) of section 133 Code of Criminal Procedure, reproduced hereunder. In addition to that we would also like to extract a few more clauses being relevant to the contention; 133. Conditional order for removal of nuisance.- (1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers— (a) … … …; (b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation or the keeping of any goods or merchandise; is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated; or (c) … … … (d) … … … (e) … … … (f) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of, such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupation, or keeping of any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owing or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order – (i) … … … (ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed; or (iii) … … … (iv) … … … (v) … … … (vi) to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal in the manner provided in the said order; or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute. 2. Sub clause (ii) and clause (b) need to be read together to understand the real scope of the provision supra. A plain reading whereof unveils the power of the Magistrate, be it a person of District Magistrate, Sub- divisional Magistrate or Executive Magistrate, to prevent carrying on a trade or occupation or keeping of goods or merchandise which is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community. Sub clause (ii) also provides for an alternative mode by regulating the keeping of the goods or merchandise instead of removal. Be that as it may exercise of power under the above said provisions if called for, can be exercised only by due adherence to the statute. But in the case on hand invocation of the said provisions is out of question because of two fold reasons, one that it is not the case of the appellant that respondent 5 conducts trade in sheep, the other that a specie of sheep does not fall within the ambit of goods. Thus we find no fault with denial of relief by the writ court to the petitioner. 3. Next that needs to be noticed is that although reliance is restricted by the learned counsel for the petitioner to clause (b) only yet we would like to address ourselves to clauses (f) and (g) as well reproduced hereinabove which speak of power of the Magistrate to deal with the animals but again of no relevance to the facts of this case because provision refers to an animal which is dangerous, a kind, sheep does not belong to. a. For what is said above, interference with the impugned judgment of the writ court is declined. As corollary Appeal fails and is dismissed. SANJAY KUMAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 01-6-2010 B. Narsinga Rao