HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28354 OF 2011 Date :15-10-2014 Between :
Animal Welfare Society, Kamalapuri Colony, Phase II Srinagar colony, Hyderabad … Petitioner and Union of India, Rep by its secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi and another … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28354 OF 2011 ORDER:
Petitioner society is registered in the year 2004 and it has engaged required number of professionals in service to run the affairs of the society. Petitioner society was formed with an intention to make available emergency services to animals in distress, prevent cruelty to animals, implementing birth control programmes and other such activities in the field of animal services. Petitioner society claims to have taken animal birth control projects to assist various municipalities, municipal corporations etc in addition to regular animal welfare activities like rescue and help the distressed animals giving veterinary aid etc. Petitioner society claims to have undertaken flood relief activities, sterilization to dogs and monkeys in Srisailam forest range and vaccinated about 72,488 animals between 2006-2010 and rescued large number of animals. The General Secretary of the petitioner society is a veterinary doctor and worked as veterinary doctor and undergone special course in animal welfare conducted by Tamilnadu Veterinary Science University.
2. Indian Parliament brought out Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (Act 59 of 1960) (for short referred to as the Act). Section 4 of the Act, provides for constitution of animal welfare board of India. The Board is vested with the power to regulate the activities in the field of animal welfare. Policy of the Board is to encourage formation of animal welfare organizations. It grants recognition to such organizations. On an application submitted by the petitioner society, recognition was granted to petitioner society in the year 2008. The recognition came into effect from 18.1.2008. Orders were passed by the Board on 15.2.2008. As per the orders dated 15.2.2008, the affairs of the organization are open for inspection by any person nominated by the Board; The Board has right to revoke recognition accorded to the organization. The recognition granted to the petitioner was valid for a period of three years with effect from 18.1.2008. After completion of three years period, petitioner has applied for renewal of recognition on 17.4.2011. No recognition was granted to the petitioner, however, petitioner continued to provide service as it was doing earlier.
3. It appears that an inspection was conducted in the Bangalore unit of the petitioner and having noticed several irregularities in the functioning of the petitioner society, which inspection was conducted with the knowledge of Dr Srinivasulu/General Secretary of the petitioner society and it was warned of severe action. The Board has received further complaints. A notice dated 16.9.2011 was issued by M/s. Integral Law offices, a law firm, who solicit legal advise to the respondent Board, calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation on the allegations mentioned in the notice. Petitioner society submitted a detailed explanation dated 17.9.2011 on the allegations leveled in the said notice.
In consideration of the explanation, a reply dated 8.10.2011 was issued to the petitioner by the law-firm which affirms of the allegations. Thereafter, the order impugned in this writ petition dated 12.10.2011 was passed by the Board.
4. The order dated 12.10.2011 is challenged on the following grounds:
a) The order is ex-facie illegal as it is not preceded by any show cause notice by supplying relevant material and documents which are relied upon in support of the allegations leveled against the petitioner by competent authority.
b) The Board being a delegate of the statute and vested with the power to grant recognition to an animal welfare organization, has to act on its own and it cannot sub-delegate power to take penal action to any other person, more particularly to an outsider.
c) The law firm not being part of the Board, the question of delegating power of calling for explanation, considering the explanation and recording conclusions of guilt, is exfacie illegal.
d) It is further contended that no prior notice was served on the petitioner making allegation of improper functioning of the society and responsibilities entrusted to it. The respondent Board or its delegatee ought not to have relied upon material put up on website which is unauthentic and uploaded by unrecognized persons.
e) It is further contended that as per procedure granting recognition, the Board is competent to take action against welfare organizations only if the welfare organization is funded by the Board, but in the instant case, petitioner society is not funded by the Board and petitioner society is not taking any financial assistance from the Board and therefore Board is not competent to take action against petitioner society.
5. Sri E Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Board submits that Board has received several complaints. A voluntary organization along with associate member of the Board visited the Bangalore unit of the petitioner society three days and inspected facilities offered by petitioner society. The inspecting team noticed several irregularities in the manner in which the animals were being treated, the unhygienic maintenance of premises and non availability of qualified personnel. All this was contrary to the settled principles of law and mandate of the constitution.
Learned senior counsel relied on decision of the Supreme Court in NIMAL
[1] WELFARE BOARD OF INDIA Vs A. NAGARAJA AND OTHERS to
contend that any action of ill treatment of the animals cannot be tolerated. The material documents would disclose that treatment meted out by the petitioner society to the animals was very bad and therefore petitioner is not entitled for any recognition.
6. Learned senior counsel further contended that order of recognition dated 15.2.2008 would show that petitioner society was granted recognition w.e.f. 18.1.2008 valid for a period of three years and recognition expired on 17.1.2011 and thereafter there was no valid recognition and therefore further action taken against the petitioner is only academic and petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in this writ petition. It is further contended that it is open for the petitioner to apply for grant of recognition afresh provided petitioner society correct its functioning and shortcomings pointed out.
7. Before coming to validity of the order impugned, it is to be noted that though the recognition granted to petitioner lapsed on 17.1.2011, petitioner was permitted to render services and action was initiated as if recognition is still valid. Petitioner was not treated as unauthorised organisation.
8. The short question for consideration in this writ petition is can an outsourcing agency more particularly a law-firm can be authorised to act on behalf of the Board to de-recognise the petitioner society.
9. The Act,1960 vests power in the Animal Welfare Board to grant recognition to Animal Welfare Organisations. The recognition was granted to the petitioner by the Board and in terms of the orders of recognition Board alone is vested power to cancel the recognition. Therefore, it is, the Board which has to initiate action and pass orders thereon. The cancellation of recognition results in penal consequences. The Board has also prominently displayed in the website. In the instant case, the show cause notice was issued by the law-firm, explanation was considered by the law firm and based on the conclusions recorded by the law-firm, order impugned in this writ petition was passed by the Board. There was no independent consideration of the issue by the Board. After the report of law firm, no further notice was issued to petitioner. Thus, it is clear that an outside agency has acted on behalf of the Board as per orders of Chairman, which resulted in penalising the petitioner society. When a statute prescribes a particular body to exercise a power, it must be exercised by that body alone and not by others unless such a delegation is permissible. The Act has not envisaged outsourcing of taking penal action. Taking penal action includes calling for explanation, consideration and passing order by duly assigning reasons. Furthermore, as contended by the petitioner, which is not denied, material relied upon was not circulated to the petitioner in advance. Thus, the order impugned in this writ petition is violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and consequential actions of displaying on the website of the Board against petitioner should also be declared as bad.
10. However, the fact remains that the petitioner do not have a valid recognition after 17.1.2011. Therefore, it cannot be permitted to render services to animals as a recognised animal welfare organisation. If the petitioner intends to have recognition granted by the respondent Board, petitioner society has to apply afresh. Learned senior counsel placed on record the guidelines for granting recognition by the Board to the animal welfare organisations. Petitioner society has to apply afresh seeking recognition and said application for recognition shall be considered by the Board in accordance with the guidelines.
11. In the result the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 is set aside. As and when the petitioner society submits an application for recognition the same shall be considered afresh in accordance with law. In the process of consideration of the application, if the respondent Board sought to rely upon any material, such material shall be supplied to the petitioner society and petitioner society be given an opportunity of offering its explanation on such material, before taking final decision. It is made clear that Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Sequel to same, miscellaneous petitions if any stands closed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:15.10.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 28354 OF 2011 Date :15-10-2014
[1] 2014(7)SCC 547