IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.4128/2019 (LB-RES) PIL BETWEEN:
AKHILA KARNATAKA KULUVA MAHA SANGHA # 159, GANGA COMPLEX 2ND MAIN, S.C. ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, B.S.ANAND KUMAR EKALAVYA ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADV.) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE CITY CORPORATION, OPP. RAILWAY STATION, OLD P B ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE - 577 001 3. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (UDD), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA,.
BANGALORE – 560 001 5. THE COMMISSIONER SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 6. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER DISTRICT BHAVAN, INDUSTRIAL AREA, DAVANAGERE - 577 004 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.D.NAGARAJA, AGA FOR R2-R6; SRI.G.M.CHANDRASHEKHAR, ADV. FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.10.2018 ISSUED BY R-1 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-D; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO COMPENSATE THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER ORGANIZATION FOR THE PIGS ILLEGALLY AND UNLAWFULLY CAPTURED UNDER THE IMPUGNED ORDER; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE SAFE ENCLAVES/SHELTERS WHERE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER ORGANIZATION CAN REAR THEIR PIGS.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 12.03.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This is a writ petition filed by an organization namely, Akhila Karnataka Kuluva Maha Sangha, representing Korama – Korava – Koracha communities, who are involved in pig-rearing avocation, by way of public interest litigation, challenging the order bearing No.Daamapaa/Aasha/B.Pra.Ni./CR-23/2018-19 dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Respondent No.1, to direct the respondents to compensate members of the petitioner organization for the pigs illegally and unlawfully captured and to direct the respondents to provide safe enclaves/shelters, where members of the petitioner organization can rear their pigs and such other reliefs.
2. It is case of the petitioner that petitioner is a non-profit organization registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 working for the welfare and development of Korama – Korava – Koracha communities. It is their case, they have traditionally earned their livelihood from crafts and have in recent years become entirely dependent on pig-rearing. In July, 2018, the Government of Karnataka included these communities in the list of nomadic/semi-nomadic communities entitled to protection of State Government, particularly in respect of revival of their traditional livelihood. The annual budgetary outlay, Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) reserves Rs.10.03 crores for the purpose, inter alia, for granting units of 10 pigs to members of pig-rearing communities.
3. While this is the state of affairs, the respondent No.1 issued an order dated 26.10.2018 directing capture and destruction of stray pigs in Davangere City, which is arbitrary, unlawful and without application of mind. Unlike goats, sheep or cows, pigs cannot be reared inside homes, they are traditionally left to roam at large and have always played an important role in sanitization of towns and villages with their contemporary demonization. The respondent authorities not only have the resources but are also under an obligation to provide safe enclaves/shelters for the pigs which are very means of livelihood of these communities. The respondent authorities are instead engaging in willful denial of livelihood to these communities. The respondent authorities are under an obligation to reconcile the competing interests of sanitation and economic protection of these depressed castes, instead of resorting to poorly thought through illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional measures. The right to livelihood is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 and the State Government is under constitutional mandate of Articles 38 & 39 to secure economic justice for and empowerment of these depressed castes. The wanton cruelty and violence indulged in by the Respondent No.1 authority in capturing pigs belonging to members of these protected communities is violative of, and are punishable offences under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
4. The Korama – Korava – Koracha – Handi Jogi communities are the poorest of the poor in the State and have been explicitly identified as being in need of protection from the State Government. The failure of the respondent authorities to fulfill their constitutional and legal obligations to these communities has left the petitioner organization with no recourse. Hence petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. The respondent No.1 has filed statement of objection and contended that petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the impugned order. The respondents No.2 to 5 extended various schemes proposed to be undertaken for the social and economical empowerment of Korama-Korava/Koracha communities. The pig-rearers cannot leave pigs for stray, failing which it would spread various diseases and it will be a nuisance to the citizen of Davangere City. Pig-farm being an industry, shall be conducted only after obtaining licence from respective corporation as provided under Sections 344, 345 & 346 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as `the Act’. The present organization intends to favour owners of stray pigs thereby filing this false petition. The present petitioner’s organization just intended to care about the owners of stray pigs.
6. It is stated that the following diseases are spread due to stray pigs viz., Salmonellosis Ring Worm, Hepatatis-E, Streptococcus-suits, Tetanus, H1N1 – Influeneza-A, B, C Nipha Virus Swine Flu Swine Influenza – Virus J.E – Japanese Encephalaitis, Brucellosis, Chicken Gunya Campulobacteriosis, Yersiniosis, Cysticercosis, Erysipeloid, Toxoplasmosis, Trichnellosis, Taenia Solium, Tenia Saginata, Tuber Culosis, Anthrax, Malaria, Dengue etc., 7. It is stated, the pig rearers leave them to roam at large and it amounts to nuisance to the public at large throughout. Around 25,000 pigs owned by few persons are roaming and transmitting various diseases and causing nuisance everyday to civilians in Davangere City limits. The citizen of Davangere city approached respondents No.1 & 2 with a complaint that pigs in Davangere city are rushing into hospitals, schools and colleges including court premises and judges’ quarters causing nuisance and trouble. It was brought to the notice of owners of stray pigs and insisted to shift them within a stipulated time and also Assistant Director, Health Section of respondent No.1 convened a meeting of those owners of the pigs for taking cautious action. The respondent No.2 insisted the respondent No.1 to shift said stray pigs and cattle on the basis of the complaints lodged to the said authority.
8. The respondent No.1 with the insistence of respondent No.2 as well as in terms of provisions of the Act, started shifting operation and shifted around 400 to 500 stray pigs from Davangere City and dropped them about 60 K.Ms. away from Davangere own way to Chitradurga. The high handed owners strongly opposed for the said stray pigs shifting operation and assaulted officials of respondent No.1 and finally succeeded in restraining stray pig operation. The stray pig owners lodged complaint against officials and sought for legal action against the officials and hence the respondent No.1 made an explanation to the said complaint and requested to drop the said complaint proceedings.
9. In the stray pigs shifting operation, one Parasappa, the Corporator/stray pigs owner along with other 3-4 persons have assaulted and gave threat to officials who were in shifting operation and hence the Assistant Director, Health Section of Respondent No.1 lodged a complaint in Basavanagara Police Station, Davangere. In order to give effect to provisions of the Act, again Respondent No.1 made a request to the District Superintendent of Police and sought for police protection during stray pigs operation.
10. It is stated, the petitioner/organization suo-motu cannot file the present petition on behalf of the pig-rearers and the organization itself cannot put itself into the shoes of pig owners and challenge the orders of respondents as petitioner is not an aggrieved party. There is no public interest involved.
The respondent No.1 rightly intended to implement the scheme of the Act. The Respondent No.1 has taken action within the scope and ambit of the Act. Thus the respondent No.1 prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
11. We have heard the arguments of the parties and perused the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized failure on the part of the respondent authorities in discharging the constitutional obligation to uplift members of the petitioner and on the contrary, their very livelihood is taken away by arbitrarily shifting the pigs from Davangere City. Instead of taking proper measures to address the complaint said to have been made to the respondent authorities, they have taken steps to eradicate the very pig- rearing community for no fault of theirs. The action is without application of mind and arbitrary. In the guise of shifting the stray dogs, some interested persons have traded the pigs and made money out of it, which cannot be permitted. There is neither any material placed on record nor it is shown to the Hon’ble Court that shifting the pigs is alone the solution for all the complaints made by or to the respondent authorities. Therefore, the petitioner prays for allowing the writ petition as prayed for.
12. On the contrary, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that they have taken action in terms of provisions of the Act. The pig-rearers were given opportunity to shift the pigs but they did not voluntarily shift the stray pigs and therefore the order was passed. The petitioner is not an aggrieved person and therefore has no locus standi to file the present petition. Thus they pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
13. Before going to merit of the matter, it is necessary to refer some of the decisions where duties of the State and respondent authorities has been dealt with in providing social and economic justice to unorganized and socially depressed class of people.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagwant Kaur Kesarsing Dang & others v. The State of Bombay, reported in A I R 1952 Bombay 461 has held in Para-4 as follows:
“4….Under Article 46 the State is enjoined to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the scheduled caste does not mean that the State is permitted to discriminate in favour of Harijans so as to contravene the fundamental right conferred upon citizens by Art.15(1). It is because this difficulty was realized that the Constitution had to be amended, and the amendment to Art. 15 provides that nothing in Art.15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially backward class of citizens or for the scheduled tribes. We dare say that after the amendment it would be possible for the State to put up a Harijan colony in order to advance the interest of the backward class…”
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 385 Para- 14 has held as follows:
“14. Under the scheme of the Constitution, the Scheduled Tribes as a class require special protection against exploitation. The very existence of Scheduled Tribes as a distinctive class and the preservation of their culture and way of life based as it is upon agriculture which is inextricably linked with ownership of land, requires preventing an invasion upon their lands. The impugned Act and similar measures undertaken by different States placing restrictions on transfer of lands by members of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes are aimed at the State Policy enshrined in Art. 46 of the Constitution which enjoins that “The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and in particular of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation". One has only to look at the artlessness, the total lack of guile, the ignorance and the innocence, the helplessness, the economic and the educational backwardness of the tribals pitted against the artful, usurious, greedy land grabber and exploiter invading the tribal area from outside to realize the urgency of the need for special protection for the tribals if they are to survive and to enjoy the benefits of belonging to the 'Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic' which has vowed to secure to its citizen 'justice, social, economic and political' 'assuring the dignity of the individual'. The great importance which the Founding Fathers of the Constitution attached to the protection, advancement and prevention of exploitation of tribal people may be gathered from the several provisions of the Constitution.”
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sadhuyram Bansal v.
Pulin Behari Sarkar & others (AIR 1984 SC 1471 has held in Para-29 as follows:
“29….There is no ritualistic formula or any magical charm in the concept of social justice. All that it means is that as between two parties if a deal is made with one party without serious detriment to the other, then the Court would lean in favour of the weaker section of the society, Social justice is the recognition of greater good to larger number without deprivation of accrual of legal rights of anybody. If such a thing can be done then indeed social justice must prevail over any technical rule. It is in response to the felt necessities of time and situation in order to do greater good to a larger number even though it might detract from some technical rule in favour of a party.”
17. In Consumer Education & Research Centre & others v.
Union of India & others, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 42, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Para-19 as follows:
“19. In a developing society like ours steeped with unbridgeable and ever widening gaps of inequality in status and of opportunity, law is catalyst, rubican to the poor etc. to reach the ladder of social justice, Justice K. Subba Rao, the former Chief Justice of this Court, in his "Social Justice and Law' at page 2, had stated that "Social Justice is one of the disciplines of justice and the discipline of justice relates to the society." What is due cannot be ascertained by absolute standard which keeps changing depending upon the time, place and circumstance. The constitutional concern of social justice as an elastic continuous process is to accord justice to all sections of the society by providing facilities and opportunities to remove handicaps and disabilities with which the poor etc. are languishing to secure dignity of their person. The Constitution, therefore, Mandates the State to accord justice to all members of the society in all facets of human activity. The concept of social justice embeds equality to flavour and enliven practical content of 'life'. Social justice and equality are complementary to each other so that both should maintain their vitality. Rule of law, therefore, is a potent instrument of social justice to bring about equality in results.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., & another v. Union of India & others, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 104 has held in Para-13 & 21 as follows:
“13. Social justice is the comprehensive form to remove social imbalances by law harmonizing the rival claims or the interests of different groups and /or section sin the social structure or individuals by means of which alone it would be possible to build up a welfare State. The ideal of economic justice is to make equality of status meaningful and life worth living at its best removing inequality of opportunity and status – social, economic and political.
21. Article 38 of the Constitution enjoins the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, the social order in which justice – social, economic and political-shall, inform all the institutions of the national life striving to minimize inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, opportunities amongst individuals and groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different avocations. As stated earlier, agriculture is the mainstay of rural economy and empowerment of the agriculturists. Agriculture, therefore, is an industry. To the tiller of the soil, livelihood depends on the production and return of the agricultural produce and sustained agro- economic growth. The climate conditions throughout Bharat are not uniform. They vary from tropical to moderate conditions. Tillers of the soil being in unorganised sector, their voice is scarcely heard and was not even remotely voiced in these cases. Their fundamental right to cultivation is as a part of right to livelihood. It is a bastion of economic and social justice envisaged in the Preamble and article 38 of the Constitution.”
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta & another v. State of U.P & others, (1997) 5 SCC 201 has held as follows:
“26. It is now settled legal position that social justice is a fundamental right and equally economic empowerment is a fundamental right to the disadvantaged.”
20. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits the State to deny any person equality before law and equal protection of law within the territory of India. When these people are not equal to other main stream of population, then in order to fulfill, aspiration of Article 14 of the Constitution, the State is under the constitutional obligation to provide special protection and facilities to these people. Article 46 of the Constitution directs that State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitations. Mere providing provisions either under the Constitution or in any other enactment itself is not an end, but it has to be taken as a means to achieve the goal. Though some schemes are floated, providing financial aid and free piglets for those people to rise itself would not be sufficient, unless they are provided infrastructure to keep the pigs in a particular habitation, the State cannot achieve the expected result so far as the scheme in question. In the instant case, on one side they are provided financial assistance to uplift them on the main stream of the national life and on the other side, the action of the respondents in destroying the pigs or shifting them is violation of Article 46 of the Constitution.
21. As a measure of economic upliftment, the Government has provided monetary assistance by providing 10 piglets to each of the members and also provided loan with subsidized rate of interest. The members of the petitioner organization traditionally nomadic and semi nomadic tribes and they have for their survival occupied this pig rearing. By the impugned order their very livelihood is at stake, thereby the petitioner propagated their cause as the individual members are not in a position to vindicate their grievance. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. Accordingly, the contention of the respondents that petitioner is not an aggrieved person and has no locus to file the petition is rejected.
22. It is case of the petitioner that action of the Corporation in catching the stray pigs and shifting them outside is denial/deprival of livelihood. The method adopted by the respondent authorities to shift the stray pigs is unscientific and an arbitrary action. The preamble of the constitution is to secure to all its citizens justice, social and economic and equality of status on trade and assuring dignity of the individual. The said persons who by their occupation, they are socially, economically and educationally deprived sections of people since time immemorial and they needed State’s actions in providing financial assistance. The State of Karnataka by its annual budget for the year 2018-19 earmarked about 2377 crores of rupees for animal husbandry. Out of this, Karnataka Scheduled Castes Sub-Plan and Tribal Sub-Plan for the year 2018-19 earmarked an amount of Rs.10.03 crores for the purpose of, inter alia, granting units of 10 pigs to members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes engaged in pig rearing. The Government Order dated 04.07.2018 issued to include Korama, Koracha and Korava communities in the list of nomadic/semi- nomadic castes requiring special protection from the State for their welfare and development and also, in particular, in respect of reviving their traditional livelihood and empowering them economically. In order to give social justice and also to provide equal opportunity of status, the Government has taken efforts. However, the action of the respondents in shifting the pigs outside the area as stray animals has resulted in contravention of preamble of the Constitution.
23. Article 21 of the Constitution is for protection of life and personal liberty. It further elaborates, no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Right to life is explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in various levels that any denial of their protection results in violation of Article 21. One way the Government of Karnataka floated various schemes by earmarking crores of rupees for their development with a view to protect their life but on the other hand, the departments of the Government including the Corporation is destroying the pigs by shifting outside on the pretext that they create health hazards and nuisance to the people which is unacceptable in the absence of materials in respect thereof and the impugned action is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
24. Article 38 of the Constitution is to secure social order for the promotion of welfare of people and further direct the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, in order to bring these sections to the national life. In particular, it shall be the duty of State to strive to minimize inequality and income and endeavour to provide facilities and opportunities not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas who are engaged in different vocations. These nomadic and semi nomadic people whom the petitioner represents, they have got their own way of life. The said protection is required in order to fulfill aspirations of preamble of the constitution and also fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and also it shall be the duty of the State under Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 38(1) & (2). When such being the aims and objectives of the Constitution, the Government has to fulfill the aspirations of the Constitution. But quite contrary to the same, the respondents acted in a manner to deprive the efforts made by the Government resulting the act becoming unconstitutional.
25. In the Statement of Objections, the respondents have stated that members of the petitioner have been given notice to keep the animals in captivity and otherwise they will be shifted outside is per se illegal and unconstitutional. When it is permissible for the State to provide special care as it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to, by erecting space to keep these pigs, instead the Corporation permitted the outsiders to come and catch and move them to different place. It is unscientific and it has been done with an evil eye only to make profit out of it. We have said this with all care and caution on the basis of materials placed on record. In order to catch these animals what the Corporation did was, it got outsiders that too from Tamil Nadu as it is reflected in the news letter and they have caught these animals and it is said, they are released them about 60 k.ms. away from Davangere towards Chitradurga, which is again a District Head Quarter. If the pigs are nuisance to Davangere and creating health hazard, then they would create same thing in Chitradurga also. Therefore, the logic is ununderstandable. It is said, the pigs are released in hilly region of Chitradurga, which cannot be believed because the hills to some extent have also been covered with thick population. The distance between Davangere and Chitradurga, it is about 60 k.ms. As per the say of the respondents, if it is 60 k.ms from Davangere, they must have released the pigs into Chitradurga head quarters only. But no materials are placed as to where those pigs were released and with all responsibility, we infer that those who were involved in shifting those animals made monetary benefit out of it. One side those pigs were taken away from Davangere and shifted outside to make profit. As already said, catching these animals and shifting outside without permission of the owners amounts to deprival of right under Article 21 of the Constitution right to life of those sections of people. Though the respondents were directed to indicate who all had been engaged in the service, except stating that some of the health unit officials were engaged, nothing has been made available. But from the photographs it looks that the people engaged, they are not localites but from outside, virtually they were carrying the pigs on their shoulder and loaded them to vehicle. This shows the pigs have been taken outside to make profit out of it.
26. In the statement of objections at Para No.3, it is stated that pig farm is an industry, the same shall be conducted only after obtaining licence from the respective Corporation as provided under Sections 344, 345 and 346 of the Act and further it is stated as per the medical department as many as 20 diseases noted above, pigs are responsible. In order to fortify the same, no medical documents are produced. Here we have to keep in mind that in compliance of preamble of the Constitution and Article 38(1) & (2), state has provided in crores of rupees to help those sections. When these amounts have been allocated in the budget, the respondents’ officials, should have thought these pigs have been provided at the instance of the government for which the provisions are not required. When the provisions of the Corporation Act clashes with provisions of the Constitution, then provisions of Constitution would prevail and not the Corporation Act. There is no medical opinion or report so as to demonstrate that the diseases to which they made a reference, the pigs are solely responsible. If these pigs are making health hazard, then they should have sought permission from the Government or from the Medical Department, found out ways and means to control spreading of diseases by taking proper measures. Without making any such effort, steps to eradicate the pigs themselves, is nothing but an arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. We are not recommending or expressing our opinion that pigs are not spreading those diseases. But such materials could have been produced to know that pigs are alone responsible for spreading of the said diseases and there are no other ways to stop it. If really the pigs inside cities spread such diseases, then State should have taken proper steps for their habitation. The members of the petitioner and tribals, initially they were in the small villages and away from City. When the cities grow and spread, they come within the City or town and became part of City or town and naturally their traditional occupation of pig-rearing is within the City only and unless and until medical report is made available that the pigs create health hazards and there are no other way to stop it, the respondents could not have taken such steps to shift them outside the City.
27. It is stated in Para-8 of the statement of objection that they have shifted around 400 to 500 stray pigs in Davangere City towards Chitradurga hilly region. This shows that pigs have been shifted from Davangere and released in Chitradurga which is unbelievable. According to the respondents, in order to protect the people, they have shifted about 400 to 500 pigs and released at a distance of about 60 k.ms. towards Chitradurga, which means to say they have been transported outside to make monetary benefit, which is discouraging the constitutional obligations for which the Respondent Corporation is directly responsible and liable for the loss caused to those sections. There are no provisions which enable the Corporation to destroy their right to life. Virtually pigs alone are not stray animals like any other animals.
28. Social justice and economic justice it is a part of the constitution. Unless the social justice is provided in order to reach economic justice and achieve political justice, it would be a failure in action. This is very fundamental step to provide justice to all the people more particularly the deprived population.
29. In the light of the above facts, provisions and judgments, the case of the respondents has been examined and it is found that action is unconstitutional and arbitrary and it is violative of provisions of constitution including right to live. Hence the same is to be held as bad in law and unconstitutional.
30. Further the pigs which are transported outside Davangere, said to be dropped at a distance of 60 k.ms. towards Chitradurga for which there is no material. As already noticed in the earlier paragraphs, those animals are engaging people from outside and they are transported outside and they made money out of it depriving the people their very livelihood. The cost involved in bringing people from outside to catch the animals and shift them outside City of Davanagere could have been utilized to provide a proper place for pigs habitation and train the persons involved in rearing the pigs from the Universities established for the said purpose like farmers getting training from Agricultural Universities. From the materials placed before us, we have noticed that some vested interest persons have captured those animals systematically to shift to unknown place and made profit. Those persons have to be compensated for which the Corporation has to value the pigs they have shifted and make good the amount to the affected people by constituting a committee. The said amount shall not be taken from the budget or allocated fund but to be borne from the personal money for which the Commissioner is directly responsible to pay the entire value for which he is permitted to deduct from salary income of the persons who participated in such action and the amount made good to the concerned people shall be reported to this Court by way of an affidavit.
31. Before parting with this matter, it is made clear that the Corporations/Municipalities etc in the State are directed to earmark public place with all facilities including water, hygenity and allow those people to keep their animals and efforts to be made to educate them by deputing them to concerned Universities for education purpose as agricultural farmers do and after providing facilities like this, steps to be taken to govern movement of such animals.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE akd