Administrator Municipal Committee vs State of Punjab and Others

K.K. Srivastava, J.—This judgment will dispose of L.P. As Nos. 530 and 539 of 1986. These two L.P.As. have been filed against judgment dated 9.12.1985 of the learned Single Judge disposing of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 4572 of 1985 and 5300 of 1985 by a common judgment delivered in Civil Writ Petition No. 4572 of 1985. Common questions of facts and law are involved in these two appeals and as such, they are being decided by this common judgment.

C.W.P. No. 4572 of 1985 was filed by six petitioners residents of Ferozepur City against State of Punjab through the Director, Local Bodies, Punjab, Municipal Committee, Ferozepur City through its Executive Officer and one Kala son of Ahmed, resident of village Kili Bodla of District Ferozepore. The other connected C.W.P. No. 5300 of 1985 was filed by 78 petitioners, all residents of Ferozepore City against the same set by respondents as in other other Writ Petition No. 4572 of 1985.

The facts of the case, which have been taken from C.W.P. No. 4572 of 1985, stated briefly, are as under:

The petitioners have alleged themselves to be the owners of cattle kept for milch and draught purposes. They have further alleged that whenever their cattle dies, they take the carcass of the dead animals to a, place beyond one km.outside the Municipal limits for being buried under the ground. The main grievance of these petitioners is that the respondent-Municipal Committee, Ferozepore City held public auction on 26.3,1985 for disposal of the carcass animal for the year 1985-86. Respondent No. 3 - Kala was the highest bidder at the said auction having made the highest bid of Rs. 41,000/- and the auction concluded in his favour. The auction was conducted by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee and the same was subject to the approval of the Municipal, Committee which, however, turned down the proposal submitted by its Executive Officer and the said auction was not approved by the Municipal Committee. The matter was taken to the State Government. The State Government took a different view than the one taken by the Municipal Committee and it approved the aforesaid auction concluded in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioners felt aggrieved against the order of the State Government approving the auction held by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee1 in favour of respondent No. 3 - Kala. They have alleged the said auction to be not only sham but contrary to the provisions of the Municipal Committee Act and consequently, invalid, illegal and liable to be quashed. The main contention of the petitioners was that the Municipal Committee did not become the owner of the carcass of the dead animal which is owned by them merely, because death occurs to such animal. According to their contention Section 168 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short the Act 1911) provides about the disposal of the dead animals and it lays down as follows:

"168. Disposal of dead animals.- (1) Whenever any animal in the charge of any person, dies otherwise than by slaughter either for sale or for some religious'' purpose, the person in charge thereof shall within twenty four hours either -

a) convey the carcass to a place (if any) fixed by the committee u/s 154 for the disposal of the dead bodies of animals or to any place at least one mile beyond the limits of the municipality; or

b) give notice of the death to the committee whereupon the committee shall cause the carcass to be disposed of.

(2) In respect of the disposal of the dead body of an animal under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the committee may charge, such fee as the committee may, by public notice, have prescribed.

(3) For the purpose of this section the word "animal" shall be deemed to mean all horned cattle, elephants, camels, horses, ponies, asses, mules, deer, sheep, goats, swine and other large animals.

(4) Any person bound to act in accordance with Sub-section (1) of this section shall, if he fails so to act, be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees."

Section 154 of the Act 1911, which has been referred to in Section 168 of the Act 1911, may also be noticed, which provides as under:

"154. Removal and deposit of offensive matters:-

The Committee may fix places within or, with the approval of the District Magistrate, beyond the limits of the municipality for the deposit of refuse, rubbish or offensive matter of any kind or for the disposal of the dead bodies of animals, and may by public notice give directions as to the time, manner and conditions at, in and under which such refuse, rubbish or offensive matter or dead bodies of animals may be removed along any street and deposit at such places."

The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the petitioners and held that by virtue of the provisions of Section 168 of the Act 1911 the owners of the carcass of the dead animal have a right, if they so choose, to dispose of a carcass by removing it beyond the limits of the municipality and dispose of the same there subject to such conditions regarding the time for taking the carcass and the route that may be prescribed by the Municipal Committee. It is only where the owner of a dead animal abandons the carcass or informs the Municipal Committee regarding the death of the animal and prays for disposal of the carcass of the dead animal that the Municipal Committee can dispose it of as provided u/s 154 of the Act 1911 and charge the requisite fees determined by it u/s 168, Sub-section (2) of the Act 1911. Section 168, Sub-section (4) of the Act 1911 provides that any person is bound to act in accordance with Sub-section (1) of this Section and if he fails so to act, he renders himself punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/-. Resultantly, the writ petitions were partially allowed and it was held that the Municipal Committee and respondent No. 3, the successful bidder had no right to animals whose dead bodies the owners chose to dispose of at places situated one mile beyond the limits of the Municipal Committee. The auction held by the Committee to include even these animals, as referred to above, was held to be totally without jurisdiction and nonest.

The Municipal Committee, Ferozepore- respondent feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge has filed the aforesaid two appeals.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. We have also perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that it is settled law that no citizen has a right to create nuisance. The findings and interpretation recorded by the learned Single Judge holding that the residents can make their own arrangements and dispose of the dead bodies of the animals in any manner they want, would amount to giving a licence to the citizens to create nuisance on the public highways and such an interpretation is not meant to be placed. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid submission of the learned, counsel for the appellant is devoid of any-merit and substance. The reason is quite simple. The Punjab Municipal Act makes specific provision regarding the disposal of dead animals. It is relevant to note that Section 154 of the Act, which has been quoted above in extenso, enables the Municipal Committee to fix places subject to the approval of the. District Magistrate beyond the limits of the municipality for the disposal of the dead bodies of animals and also empowers the Committee to give directions by a public notice as to the time, manner and conditions at, in and under which dead bodies of animals may be removed along any street and deposit at such places.

Section 168 of the Act gives a right to the owner of the animal which dies otherwise than by slaughter either for sale or for some religious purposes, to convey the carcass of the dead animal within 24 hours to a place (if any) fixed by the Committee u/s 154 for the disposal of the dead bodies of the animals or to any place at least one mile beyond the limits of the municipality. In case the owner of the dead animal chooses to give notice of the death, the Committee has to dispose of the carcass and charge such fee as it may, by public notice, have prescribed. For breach of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 168 of the Act, the offender is to be punished with a fine which would extend to Rs. 500/-.

In view of the specific provision contained in the Act, there is no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that if the owners of the dead animal are permitted to take the carcass of the dead animal at their will and disposal, the same would amount to nuisance. If the legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to fix a limit of one mile as an area safe from the place where the inhabitants of the municipal limits resided and the same was not considered to be hazardous for the health of the inhabitants, the same cannot be held to be unreasonable and amounting to creating nuisance. As noted earlier, the Municipal Committee can make and prescribe rules regarding the time, place, route for taking the carcass of the dead animal to a place beyond one mile of the municipal limits. The learned i Single Judge has rightly held that the death of the animal does not, by itself vest the ownership in the Municipal Committee and the owner of the animal is not divested of the ownership of the carcass. There is nothing on record to show that the auction of the carcass of the dead animal, which has been impugned in the writ petitions, was in respect of such dead animals which had been abandoned by their owners or the owners had informed the Municipal Committee for the disposal of the carcass. That being so, the Municipal Committee could not, of its own, assume the ownership rights over the carcass of the dead animals and put them to public auction. We do not find airy infirmity in law and facts in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, Resultantly, these appeals are devoid of merit and are dismissed.