1 4
Page of
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) (PIL) No.5 of 2024
Ms. Paramita Sen, resident of Vill-Malaynagar, P.O. Renters, Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin-799004.
.........Petitioner(s);
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Principal Secretary, Animal
Resources Development Department, New Capital Complex, P.O. & P.S. -
N.C.C. District-West Tripura, PIN-799010.
2. The Secretary, Tripura State Animal Welfare Board, Animal Resources
Development Department(ARDD), Prani Sampad Bikash Bhawan, Pandit
Nehru Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O.- Kunjaban, PIN-799006, West
Tripura.
3. The Principal Secretary, Govt. of Tripura, Department of Home Affair,
New Capital Complex, P.O. & P.S. - N.C.C. District-West Tripura, PIN-
799010.
4. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Tripura, Police Head Quarters,
Fire Brigade Chowmuhani, P.O.-Agartala, West Tripura, PIN-799001.
5. District Magisatrate & Collector (D.M.), Ex-Officio Chairman of SPCA,
Unakoti District, Kailashahar, Unakoti Tripura, PIN-799277.
6. Superintendent of Police(SP), Unakoti District, PO-Gournagar,
Kailashahar, PIN-799277,
7. Officer-in-Charge (O.C.), Kailashahar police Station, PO-Kailashahar,
PIN-799277.
...Respondent(s).
…
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Paramita Sen, Petitioner-in-Person.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.M. Chakraborti, Advocate General,
Mr. K. N. Bhattacharyya, G.A.,
Ms. P. Chakraborty, Advocate.
APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
BISWAJIT PALIT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
ORDER
19/12/2024
Heard Ms. Paramita Sen, learned petitioner-in-person and Mr.
S.M. Chakraborty, learned Advocate General together with Mr. K.N.
Bhattacharyya, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-
State.
2 4
Page of
Petitioner, a legal practitioner of this Court and an animal right
activist working in the field of animal welfare activities as a member of the
has sought to draw
NGO “Society for Welfare of Animal and Nature (SWAN)”
attention of this Court to an incidence which occurred on 25.07.2024 at about
03:00 pm at Kamrangabari, Kailashahar, Unakoti District in respect of a vehicle
bearing No.TR02HI553 which was intercepted transporting cattle including
cows, claves and bulls illegally in an inhumane manner in violation of the
“Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, “Transport of Animals
Rules, 1978”, “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of
Case Property Animals) R the .
ules, 2017” and “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ”
According to the petitioner, despite information by a local activist,
who is also member of Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Unakoti
and a written complaint in the Kailashahar Police Station under the provisions
of the said Act, the cattle and the vehicle seized were released by the police
without following the prescribed procedure under the Act of 1960. This matter
was also brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Police, Unakoti through
an Email on 27.07.2024 with a copy to the District Magistrate, Unakoti to take
appropriate steps. Petitioner contends that the complainant was also being
influenced to withdraw the compliant. Being aggrieved by such violation of law
specially in relation to animals, the petitioner had to approach this Court in the
present writ petition in nature of a Public Interest Litigation.
When the matter was taken up on 18.09.2024, learned Government
Advocate sought time to seek instruction as regards the compliance of the Act
of 1960 and the guidelines framed thereunder in the matter of release of cattle
3 4
Page of
as alleged to have been apprehended while being transported in poor condition
by the petitioner-in-person.
Learned Government Advocate on instructions submits that
adequate action has been taken against the concerned inspector, Sri Sukanta
Sen Choudhury after issuance of show-cause notice by imposing a
„final
for such negligent act with a direction not to repeat such act in near
warning‟
future by the Superintendent of Police, Unakoti District, vide Office Order
No.391/2024 dated 22.11.2024.
Learned Government Advocate submits that the respondent-
authorities are obliged to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1960
and the Rules framed thereunder. Respondent-authorities have assured that all
such precautions would be taken in future to ensure that the letter of the law in
this regard is duly complied with.
Upon hearing the stand of the respondent, learned petitioner-in-
person submits that so far as the instant case of irregular release of cattle is
concerned, since adequate action has been taken by Superintendent of Police,
Unakoti, therefore, the petitioner would not like to press the charge further.
However, she submits that direction may be issued to the respondent-authorities
to ensure that in future strict compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1960
and the Rules framed thereunder be carried out in matters of seizure and release
of such seized animals.
4 4
Page of
We are of the considered view that the Act of 1960, the Rules
framed thereunder and the guidelines issued from time to time by the statutory
authorities do need to be observed scrupulously at all levels by the concerned
authorities. The concerned respondents would also ensure that such guidelines
be once again circulated to the officers in the field so that cases of non-
compliance of the provisions of the Act of 1960 and Rules framed thereunder
by the officers at the ground level are not repeated again.
Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(BISWAJIT PALIT), J (APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Munna