Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the action of respondent No.2 of applying seal to the consignment/container of the petitioner scheduled for export from the Port of Mumbai is absolutely unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary and, that too, on th basis of suspicion of the informant about the container carrying meat of cow and cow progeny, contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. That, this Court as well as the Apex Court in the orders dated 16.2.2012 and 16.4.2012 deprecated such practice by ordering release of the container and even the Apex Court in the order dated 16.4.2012 imposed cost of Rs.50 lakhs upon the appellant and the State of Gujarat and the review application filed also came to be rejected. It is submitted that in I.A. No.2 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.22665 of 2008 in the case of Refrigerated Truck Owners Welfare Association vs. Union of India, the Apex Court made certain observations and issued directions. Therefore, the action impugned in this petition of respondent No.2 of applying seal on the container/consignment of the petitioner containing the meat not of cow or cow progeny to be exported from the Port of Mumbai is, therefore, void ab-initio and illegal and the petitioner is again subjected to sampling/testing/re-sampling/re-testing and the resultant effect would be delay in exporting the meat, causing financial loss and breach of commitment to the parties. It is also submitted that the power exercised by respondent No.2 on the basis of suspicion expressed by the informant is not only without application of mind, but, a retaliatory and vindictive measure and an example of lawlessness and disregard to the orders passed on 16.2.2012 by this Court in Special Criminal Application No.345 of 2012 and the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.661 of 2012 and the direction given in I.A. No.2 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.22665 of 2008 and cognate matters.
To reply the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which, prima-facie, appear to have substance, learned APP seeks time.
S.O.
To 1.5.2012.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top