IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA Order XVI Rule 4(1) (a)

CIVIL APELLATE JURISDCTION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (Civil) (CC) of 2016

[Petition for Special Leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the final judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in W.P.(C) No. 200/2016 ]

(PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

IN THE MATTER OF :

Naresh Kadyan …Petitioner

Vs

State of Haryana & Ors. …Respondents

With

PAPER BOOK For Index Kindly See Inside

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER –

INDEX S. NO. Particulars Page No. 1. Office report of limitation A

2. Listing Performa A1- A3

3. Synopsis and List of Dates B-I

4. Copy of judgment and final 1-

Order Dated 08.01.2016 Passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in W.P.(C) No. 200/2016 ]

5. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit

6. Annexure P-1 32-33

The Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act,

2015

Copies of minutes of meeting and Notification of

Other States are appended herewith as Annexure

P-5 and P-6. Copy of chart to show hide of cow is

appended herewith as Annexure P-4. Import of

Cosmetic tested on animals prohibited is appended

herewith as Annexure P-3. the Haryana

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972-2

Details of Rashtriya Gokul Mission” National

Kamdhenu Breeding Centres

SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES The petitioner is moving the present Special Leave

Petition against the judgment and order dated

08.01.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab

& Haryana in W.P.(C) No. 200/2016 titled as “Naresh

Kadyan Vs State of Haryana & Ors” by the Hon’ble

Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice

Harinder Singh Sidhu whereby the Hon’ble High Court

completely and out rightly in clandestine manner with

which the respondents are proposing to change in ____

post and highlights the complete arbitrariness,

19-11-2015 The respondents have re-

notified/introduced Haryana Gauvansh

Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act,

2015 for prohibition of cow slaughtering

and beef is completely banned but in this

Act instead of framing new Rules the

respondents have adopted previous

defected rules of Haryana Prohibition of

Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972, which are

totally contrary to the New Act, 2015.

------------ From many eras the cow is animal which

is professed as a holy creature and is

worshiped throughout in the country of

India. This is agriculture animal and

various products and medicines are

prepared from its urine, whereas milk

have A2 variety of beta casein

protein, Various States in India have

declared their agriculture animals as

State Animals like State of Bihar has

declared “OX” as their State Animal.

State of Rajasthan has declared “Camel”

their State Animal along with Chinkara.

Thus, cow which is supposed to be holy

creature and thus “Cow Progeny” should

also be declared as State Animal of

Haryana without disturbing the status of

Black Buck. Minutes of State Committee

for Slaughter Houses, Department of

Urban and Local Bodies (Govt. of

Haryana), meeting was held in this

regard under the chairmanship of

Additional Chief Secretaries and Urban

Local Bodies and this Agenda of

petitioner as non official member was

kept and approved therein, but no action

has been taken till date, whereas

Department of Animal Husbandry

confirmed that declaration of Cow as

state animal of Haryana, not in the

purview of them hence taking up this

matter with the Govt. of Haryana. It

would also be pertinent to mention here

that as per article 48 of Indian

Constitution, which prohibit slaughtering

of cow.

---------- As per section 35 of the Prevention to

Animal Cruelty Act, 1960, Infirmaries

were established to keep safeguard the

seized animals but none of the

infirmaries are functional till date.

-------- as per section 2.5.1(a) of The Food

Product Standards and Food Activities,

Regulations, 2011 “animals” means

animal belonging to any of the species,

specified as (1) Ovines (2) Caprines (3)

Suillines (4) Bovines. As per the said Act,

2011, the slaughtering of any animal,

other than the species mentioned above

are not permissible. It is pertinent to

mention here that the 4th species

mentioned above “Bovine” and as per

said Act, 2011 Indigenous Cow Progeny

is comes in the Bovine species.

Therefore, it is necessary to exclude the

Cow Progeny from Bovine species in the

said Act, 2011 and this species is

required to be redefined, in case of

Haryana, keeping in view the Gauvansh

Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act,

2015, which prohibit slaughtering of cow

progeny in Haryana.

------- That the Cow, being agriculture animal is

required to be protected keeping in view

the provision mentioned in our

Constitution of India. Article 48 of the

Constitution of India says that

Organisation of agriculture and animal

husbandry The State shall endeavour to

organise agriculture and animal

husbandry on modern and scientific lines

and shall, in particular, take steps for

preserving and improving the breeds,

and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows

and calves and other milch and draught

cattle. But the respondents despite all

these provisions are failed to protect

these animals, keeping in view the

Prohibition of Cow Slaughtering Rules,

1972 endorsed in original, which permit

cow progeny slaughtering under license,

their beef and its products can be

consumed as diet, due to medicinal

values, whereas no research has been

made, confirming the medicinal values in

beef.

05.12.2015 The writ petition filed before the Hon’ble

High Court and dismissed by the Hon’ble

High Court.

.02.2013 Hence the present Special Leave Petition

IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA

Order XVI Rule 4(1) (a) CIVIL APELLATE JURISDCTION

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Special Leave Petition (Civil) (CC) OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF :

BETWEEN POSITION OF PARTIES In the High In this Court Hon’ble

Court

Naresh Kadyan Petitioner Petitioner s/o Sh. Om Parkash Kadyan, R/o C-38, Rose Apartment, Sector 14, Prashant Vihar Extension, North West Delhi, Rohini, Delhi - 110085 Vs.

Contesting Contesting 1.State of Haryana Respondent, Respondent

Through No. 1 No. 1 Its Principal Secretary to Haryana Government, Law and Legislative Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2. Principal Secretary to Contesting Contesting Haryana Government, Respondent, Respondent

Animal Husbandry No. 2 No.2

Department,

Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh. .

3.Haryana Gausewa Commission Contesting Contesting

Through its Chairman, Respondent Respondent

Mansa Devi Road, No. 3 No. 3 Panchkula

4. Chairman, Contesting Contesting

Haryana Animal Welfare Board Respondent Respondent

Through its Member No. 4 No.4

Secretary, Pashudhan

Bhawan, Sector 2,

Panchkula

5. Principal Secretary- Contesting Contesting

Cum-Chairman, Respondent Respondent

Urban Local Body, No. 5 No.5

Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh

To, The Hon’ble Chief Justice India and his Companion Justice of the Supreme Court of India At New Delhi

The humble Petition of the above Named petitioner:

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner has filed the accompanying

Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the

Constitutional of India against the impugned and

final judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 passed

by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in

W.P.(C) No. 200/2016.

2. QUESTION OF LAW:-

The following questions of law arise for

consideration by this Hon’ble Court:-

(i) Whether adopting previous defected

rules i.e. Haryana Prohibition of Cow

Slaughter Rules, 1972 as mentioned in

section 20(2)(3) of the Haryana

Gauvansh Sanrakshan and

Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 is wrong,

illegal, against the Constitution of India

and Principles of natural justice?

(ii) Whether Haryana Gauvansh

Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan act,

2015 is having constitutional value and

new rules are liable to be framed there

under forthwith?

(iii) Whether Article 51-A(g) has been

violated/ignored?

(iv) Whether grave and manifest injustice is

being done to the petitioner?

(v) Whether beef and their products have

medicinal values and consumed as diet?

(vi) Whether cow progeny can be slaughter

for their beef purpose as medicinal

values?

(vii) Whether any licensed or Authorised

slaughter houses are functional in

Haryana, keeping in view the Prevention

of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter Houses)

Rules, 2001?

(viii) Whether any preventive measures

introduced, to stop the violations of the

rules made out under section 19 of the

Gauvansh Sanrakshan and

Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 because

offenses against these rules like

Prohibition of Cow Slaughtering Rules,

1972 are non cognizable and bailable

offenses in legal terms without any

punishments?

(ix) Whether cow progeny can be offered for

any experimentation, when import of

cosmetics, tested on animals are

prohibited, likewise experimentation of

animals are also not allowed in India?

(x) Whether animal rights are being

protected as defined in the recent

judgment of Supreme Court order

dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C) No.11686

of 2007?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 4(2):-

The Petitioner states that no other Petition seeking

leave to appeal has been filed by him against the final

judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in W.P.(C)

No. 200/2016.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 6:-

The Annexure P-1 to P- produced along with the

Special Leave Petition are true copies of pleading/

documents which formed part of the records of the

case in the court below against whose order the leave

to appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS:-

A. Because at the Respondents have re-

notified/introduced a new

Act called The Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and

Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 vide Haryana

Government Gazzette Notification No. Leg. 27/2015

dated 19th November, 2015. Section 20 of the said

Act (Copy of which is appended herewith as

Annexure P-1) is read as under:-

“20. (1) The Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter

Act, 1955 (Punjab Act No.15 of 1956) as applicable

to the State of Haryana is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or

any action taken under the repealed Act and the

rules made there under, shall be deemed to have

been done or taken under this Act.

(3) The Haryana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter

Rules, 1972 framed under the said shall be deemed

to have been framed under this Act till new rules

are framed under this Act.”

B. Because the from bare perusal of section 20 of the

Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and

Gausamvardhan Act, 2015, it would reveal that re-

notifying this Rules is having no constitutional

validity as on one hand the Haryana State

Government is publishing and broadcasting at large

that they have introduced this time very strong Act

with regard to protection and safeguard of Animals

i.e. Haryana Gauvansh Sanrakshan and

Gausamvardhan Act, 2015 under which Act the beef

is totally banned and the person(s) found indulged

in commission of offence under this Act shall be

liable to be prosecuted with rigorous imprisonment

of 10 years and liable to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac

whereas on the other hand the respondents are

sheltering the cow slaughtering by adopting the

previous Rules i.e. the Haryana Prohibition of Cow

Slaughter Rules, 1972 (Copy of which is appended

herewith as Annexure P-2), which is totally

contrary to the New Act, 2015.

The definition given under section 2 of the

Haryana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972 would

reveal that

1. “Act” means the Punjab Prohibition of Cow

Slaughter Act, 1955.

2. “Form” means a Form given in the Schedule

to these rules.

3. “Licensing Authority” means the District

Magistrate or any other officer authorized by

him to perform the function of the licensing

authority under these rules.

4. “Competent Authority” means the District

Animal Husbandry Officer or Veterinary

Assistant Surgeon of the area.

5. “Medical Purposes” means the use of beef

products in the diet of patients or for

medicines as may be notified by the State

Government.

6. “Local Authority” includes Gram Panchayat,

Panchayat Samiti, Municipal Committee and

Cantonment Board, and

7. Words and expression used but not defined in

these rules shall have the meanings assigned

to them in the Act.”

Thus, section 2(e) of Haryana Prohibition of

Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972 permits use of beef or beef

products in the diet of patients or for medicines as may

be notified by the State Government, likewise section 7 of

these Rules permitted experimentation on cows, Whereas

as per section 135-B of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945

- Import of Cosmetics tested on animals prohibited – No

Cosmetic tested on animals shall be imported. Keeping in

view these rules, cow progeny can’t be offered for

experimentation, like wise 148-C of the said Rules

“Prohibition of testing of cosmetics on animals – No

person shall use any animals for testing of cosmetics”.

C. Because the few more sections of the said

new Act, 2015 are against the Constitution of India as

well as existing rules for protection of animals as well as

prohibition of cow slaughtering:-

(i) Section 4: (1) Nothing contained in

section 3 shall apply to the

slaughter of a cow where a

certificate has been issued in the

prescribed from by the Registered

Veterinary Practitioner of the

department in the area for a cow:-

1. xx xx

2. xx xx

3. who is subjected to experimentation in

the interest of medical, veterinary and

public health research.

(2) xx xx

(3) The removal of skin and hide from dead

cows, other than slaughtered cows, by the

authorized contractor shall not be construed

as cow slaughter:

Provided that the authorized contractor

engaged in removal or transportation of skin

and hide from the dead cows, other than

slaughtered cow, shall obtain the

authorization to this effect from the

competent authority”

REASON TO SET ASIDE:

Section 4(1) (c) mentioned above is against the law

framed under the Constitution of India because it

does not speak anything as to whether the skin,

bones, tallow and hide of dead cow would be from

natural dead cow or killed cow and what

measurement would be taken to identify the same.

It is important to mention here that after intensive

efforts by People for Animals (PFA) Haryana, United

Nation affiliated “International Organisation for

Animal Protection” : OIPA in India and others, the

Indian Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has

made an announcement that will save millions of

animals from being blinded, poisoned and killed in

cruel and useless tests for products sold to India’s

billion-plus population. Experimentation on animals,

like rat, mice and gunny pigs are replaced with

alternatives and no one can test cosmetics on

animals, likewise cosmetics tested on animals, also

not allowed to import in India. The Act says that

…..authorized contractor engaged in removal

or transportation of skin and hide from the

dead cows, other than slaughtered cow, shall

obtain the authorization to this effect from

the competent authority…… but no

measurement has been taken as to when any

authorized contractor is transporting of removed

skin and hide of Cows to identify it as to whether

skin/hide is taken from natural dead cow or it is

from slaughtered cow. Copy of draft rules inserting

section 135-B and 148-C, – Import of Cosmetic

tested on animals and cosmetics testing on animals

prohibited is appended herewith as Annexure P-3.

Section 4 (3) allows removal of skin and hide from

naturally dead cow to the authorized contractor and

with the permission same can be transported by

them. But this section is totally silent about horn,

tallow and bones of naturally dead cows as to how

and where the horn, tallow and bones of dead cow

would be utilized or kept. Whereas there are so

many products like “bone-china” are being used as

utensils and horn and bones are used as raw

material, tallow also being used as raw materials by

soap manufacturers, whereas there is no

mechanism introduced by the State Government to

identify whether these raw materials are being

procured from the source of slaughter house or any

dead cow progeny. Besides it, sugar is purified

using phosphorus and bone powder. The same

mechanism is required for this purpose as well.

Likewise, hides of cow are being used by the

Leather Shoe Industries and this product is being

used by the general public without knowledge of

leather they are wearing as to whether raw material

of this leather came from dead cow animal or

slaughtered cow animal. Copy of chart to show hide

of cow is appended herewith as Annexure P-4.

(ii) The Section 8: “Notwithstanding

anything contained in any other

law for the time being in force, no

person shall directly or indirectly

sell, keep, store, transport or offer

for sale or cause to be sold beef or

beef products except for such

medicinal purpose and in such form

as may be prescribed”

REASON TO SET ASIDE:

Section 8 of the said Act, allowed beef products, for

medicinal purposes and in such form as may be

prescribed, whereas neither beef have medicinal

qualities nor prescribed by any Authority.

Moreover, beef of natural dead animal (cow) is/can

not eatable and if beef is taken from killed animal

(cow) then it is not permissible even as per this

New Act, 2015. Slaughter of a cow, which is

objected to experimentation in the interest of

medical and public health research, would not be

permissible. Likewise section 8 of the Haryana

Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Rules, 1972, allowed

license to sell or transport beef and beef products

for medicinal purpose, on FORM “F”. Moreover, as

per section 10 of Haryana Prohibition of Cow

Slaughter Rules, 1972, which are adopted as per

section 20(2)(3) of the New Act, 2015, feeding

charges are fixed Rs. 20/- which is very less, hence

not feasible.

(iii) Section 12:: (1) The Government

shall establish laboratories for

differentiation of beef from that of

the meat of other species of

animals, testing and identification

of various constituents of milk and

milk products and testing and

differentiation of A1 and A2 milk

for providing incentives for

wholesome production of milk and

milk products

Explanation – For the purposes of this sub

section A1 and A2 milk means the milk

obtained from cows having A1 and A2 genetic

variant of the beta-casein milk protein

respectively

(2) The analyasis report of such laboratories

established under sub section (1) shall be

used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other

proceeding under this Act.”

REASON TO SET ASIDE:

Section 12 of the said Act allowed establishments of

laboratories for testing of milk, differentiation of

beef from the meat of other species of animals. But

it is pertinent to mention here that no provision or

mechanism has been developed yet nor any such

provision has been provided in the said New Act,

2015 to identify as to whether skin and hide from

natural dead animal or it is from killed animal.

Before testing and experimentation on skin/hide of

cow it is necessary to be identified as to whether it

came from naturally dead cow animal or

slaughtered cow animal. Whereas this section

speaks only identification of milk and milk products

along with the confirmation of beef only.

(iv) Section 16.(1) Any police not below

the rank of Sub Inspector or any

person authorized in this behalf by

the Government, with a view to

secure compliance with the

provisions of this Act or for

satisfying himself that the

provisions of this Act have been

complied, may –

(a) Enter, stop and search any vehicle

used or intended to be used for the

export of cows;

(b) Seize cow in respect of which he

suspects that any provisions of this Act

has been, is being or is about to be

contravened along with the vehicle in

which such cow is found, and thereafter

take all measures necessary for securing

the production of the cow so seized, in a

Court and for the safe custody pending

such production

(c) Enter and search any premises

used or intended to be used for the

slaughter of cow and seize any

document regarding activities related to

slaughter and export of cow

(2) The provisions of section 100 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of

1974), relating to search shall, so far as may

be, apply to search and seizure under this

Act.

REASON TO SET ASIDE:

Section 16 doesn’t not speak as to whether any

common citizen, except police official/officer, can

perform their fundamental duties, as defined under

article 51 A (g) of The Indian Constitution to protect

the life of animals or not. Article 51-A of The

Constitution of India is read as under:-

“Article 51A in The Constitution Of India

1949

51A. Fundamental duties It shall be the duty

of every citizen of India

(a) to abide by the Constitution and respect

its ideals and institutions, the national Flag

and the National Anthem;

(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals

which inspired our national struggle for

freedom;

(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty,

unity and integrity of India;

(d) to defend the country and render

national service when called upon to do so;

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of

common brotherhood amongst all the people

of India transcending religious, linguistic and

regional or sectional diversities; to renounce

practices derogatory to the dignity of women;

(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage

of our composite culture;

(g) to protect and improve the natural

environment including forests, lakes,

rivers and wild life, and to have

compassion for living creatures;

(h) to develop the scientific temper,

humanism and the spirit of inquiry and

reform;

(i) to safeguard public property and to

abjure violence;

(j) to strive towards excellence in all

spheres of individual and collective activity so

that the nation constantly rises to higher

levels of endeavour and achievement PART V

THE UNION CHAPTER I THE EXECUTIVE The

President and Vice President.”

(v) Section 17. (1) Whenever an

offence punishable under this Act

has been committed, any vehicle

used in the commission of such

offence shall be liable to be

confiscated by a police officer not

below the rank off sub-inspector or

any person authorized in this

behalf by the Government

(2) where any vehicle referred to in sub-

section (1) is confiscated in connection with

the commission of any offence punishable

under this Act, a report about the same,

without unreasonable delay, be made by the

person seizing it to the competent authority

and whether or not a prosecution is instituted

for commission of such offence, the

competent authority, having jurisdiction over

the area where the said vehicle was

confiscated, may, if satisfied that the said

vehicle was used for commission of offence

under this Act, order confiscation of the said

vehicle;

Provided that before ordering

confiscation of the said vehicle, reasonable

opportunity of being heard shall be afforded

to the owner of the said vehicle.

(3) Whenever any vehicle as referred to in

sub section (1) is confiscated if connection

with commission of an offence under this Act

then notwithstanding anything contained in

any other law for the time being in force, no

Court, Tribunal or other authority, except the

competent authority, shall have jurisdiction

to make order with regard to the possession,

delivery, disposal, release of such vehicle

(4) where the competent authority is of the

opinion that it is expedient in public interest

that the vehicle, as referred to in sub-section

(1), confiscated for commission of offence

under this Act be sold by public auction, he

may at any time direct it to be sold;

(5) Any person aggrieved by an order made

by the competent authority under sub section

(2) or sub section (4) may, within a period of

thirty days from the date of such order prefer

an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of the

District concerned

(6) Any order of confiscation made by the

competent authority shall not prevent the

infliction of any punishment to which the

person affected thereby is liable under this

Act.

REASON TO SET ASIDE:

Section 17 provides three opportunities to the owner

of confiscated vehicle of the accused found indulged in

the offence under the said New Act, 2015, i.e. one

before order of confiscation, second at the time of

disposal of confiscated vehicle and third to the Deputy

Commissioner at the time of appeal against the order

of confiscation, which makes this section invaluable,

toothless and meaningless.

D. Because as per section 15, which defined an

offenses under section 13 are the cognizable and

non bailable in legal terms, hence all rules, to be

made under section 19 to be non cognizable and

bailable in legal terms, meaning hereby section 3,

4, 5 and 8 be cognizable and non bailable in legal

terms, whereas offenses against rest sections of the

said Act are non cognizable and bailable in legal

terms and no punishments defined for the violation

of the rules made out under section 19 of the said

Act.

E. Because likewise Section 19 (2)(a to d) of the

said Act, 2015 allowed to make rules for cow slaughter,

as defined under section 4, whereas experimentation on

cows, seems to be objectionable. Section 19 (2)(f)

allowed, to make rules for beef or beef product can be

sold under section 8, whereas no need to frame any rules

for this purpose, without any scientific reports and

recommendations about medicinal values of beef, as

explained above. Section 19 (2)(i) allowed to make rules

and under this legal provision, rules can be made for cow

transportation, either by road, rail and on foot, whereas

cow can be shifted in ISI specified vehicles, as per their

shape and size, after obtaining pre transport clearance

about vehicles, as per Central Motor Vehicle (Fourteenth

Amendment) Rules, 2015 read with the section 96 of the

Cattle Transport Rules, 1978 amended in 2001.

F. Because the last so many eras, Cow is

deemed to be holy creatures and is worshiped in entire

country of India. Many voices have been raised together

to make this animal as state animal. Minutes of 4th

meeting of State Committee for the Slaughter House held

on 25.7.2014 took place under the chairmanship of the

Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Local Bodies, Haryana

at Chandigarh in which it was Agenda No.7 that State

Committee should recommend the case to the

Government of Haryana to declare the “cow progeny” as

“state animal” of Haryana in domestic animal category,

for which the committee agreed but no action till date has

been taken by the respondents. Besides it, Haryana

Gausewa Commission also took this matter, whereas per

section 19 (2)(i) authorized Govt. to declare cow as state

animal of Haryana, Likewise the Government of Bihar

adopted Ox as State Animal of Bihar State. Recently the

Government of Rajasthan State has also adopted Camel

as State Animal of Rajasthan sharing with wild Animal

Chinkara. No doubt cow progeny has special status being

holy creatures in Hindu Religion. The government of

Haryana gave special status to the species. Likewise the

state government of Punjab also introduced Prohibition

on Cow Slaughter. Hence, to protect this indigenous cow

progeny being the interest of natural justice it is

necessary to declare this Cow progeny as state animal of

Haryana. Copies of minutes of meeting and Notification of

Other States are appended herewith as Annexure P-5

and P-6.

In furtherance to above, for development and

conservation of indigenous cattle and buffalo breeds, the

following initiative have been taken up

“Rashtriya Gokul Mission” launched with the aim to

conserve and develop indigenous bovine breeds.

Details are available on website

www.dahd.nic.in.guidelines.large ruminants. Copy

of the same is Annexure P-7.

National Kamdhenu Breeding Centres are being set

up one in north and one in south and will serve as

repository of indigenous breeds. Details are

available on website

www.dahd.nic.in.guidelines.large ruminants. Copy

of the same is Annexure P-8.

Furthermore, the Animal Cow is deemed to be

holy and religious animal and is worshiped in whole

country. 24 States in India and 5 union territories have

banned the cow slaughtering being holy and religious

animal, therefore, this animal deserves to be declared as

State Animal of Haryana State without disturbing the

status of Black Buck in Haryana, as per legal provisions

under section 19 (2)(i) of the Gauvansh Sanrakshan and

Gausamvardhan Act, 2015.

G. Because as per section 35 of the Prevention

to Animal Cruelty Act, 1960, Infirmaries were established

to keep the seized animals, during court trials for

treatment, care and shelter. Section 35 is read as under:-

“Section 35 in The Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals Act, 1960

35. Treatment and care of animals.—

(1) The State Government may, by general or

special order, appoint infirmaries for the treatment

and care of animals in respect of which offences

against this Act have been committed, and may

authorise the detention therein of any animal

pending its production before a magistrate.

(2) The magistrate before whom a prosecution for

an offence against this Act has been instituted may

direct that the animal concerned shall be treated

and cared for in an infirmary, until it is fit to

perform its usual work or is otherwise fit for

discharge, or that it shall be sent to a pinjrapole, or,

if the veterinary officer in charge of the area in

which the animal is found or such other veterinary

officer as may be authorised in this behalf by rules

made under this Act certifies that it is incurable or

cannot be removed without cruelty, that it shall be

destroyed.

(3) An animal sent for care and treatment to an

infirmary shall not, unless the magistrate directs

that it shall be sent to a pinjrapole or that it shall be

destroyed, be released from such place except upon

a certificate of its fitness for discharge issued by the

veterinary officer in charge of the area in which the

infirmary is situated or such other veterinary officer

as may be authorised in this behalf by rules made

under this Act.

(4) The cost of transporting the animal to an

infirmary or pinjrapole, and of its maintenance and

treatment in an infirmary, shall be payable by the

owner of the animal in accordance with a scale of

rates to be prescribed by the district magistrate, or,

in presidency-towns, by the commissioner of police:

Provided that when the magistrate so orders on

account of the poverty of the owner of the animal,

no charge shall be payable for the treatment of the

animal.

(5) Any amount payable by an owner of an animal

under sub-section (4) may be recovered in the

same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

(6) If the owner refuses or neglects to remove the

animal within such time as a magistrate may

specify, the magistrate may direct that the animal

be sold and that the proceeds of the sale be applied

to the payment of such cost.

(7) The surplus, if any, of the proceeds of such sale

shall, on application made by the owner within two

months from the date of the sale, be paid to him.”

But, to ill luck would have it, none of the

infirmaries established under the above said Act is

functional, therefore, this is big problem to keep safe the

seized animals when they are recovered from the accused

while transporting illegally.

H. Because as per section 2.5.1(a) of The Food

Product Standards and Food Activities, Regulations, 2011

“animals” means animal belonging to any of the species,

specified as (1) Ovines (2) Caprines (3) Suillines (4)

Bovines. As per the said Act, 2011, the slaughtering of

any animal, other than the species mentioned above is

not permissible. It is pertinent to mention here that the

4th species mentioned above “Bovine” and as per said Act,

2011 Indigenous Cow Progeny is comes in the Bovine

species. Therefore, it is necessary to exclude the Cow

Progeny from Bovine species in the said Act, 2011 and

this species is required to be redefined.

I. Because the Cow animal, being agriculture

animal is required to be protected keeping in view the

provision mentioned in our Constitution of India. Article

48 of the Constitution of India is concerned which is read

as under:-

“Article 48 in The Constitution Of India 1949

48. Organisation of agriculture and animal

husbandry The State shall endeavour to organise

agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and

scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for

preserving and improving the breeds, and

prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and

other milch and draught cattle”.

J. Because animal rights are being protected as

defined in the recent judgment Extracts of some Paras

of Supreme Court order dated 7.5.2014 in SLP (C)

No.11686 of 2007 reproduced as below:

Para “77. We, therefore, hold that AWBI is right in

its stand that Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such

events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and

11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act and hence we uphold the

notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the

Central Government, consequently, Bulls cannot

be used as performing animals, either for the

Jallikattu events or Bullock-cart Races in the State

of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the

country. We, therefore, make the following

declarations and directions:

(1) We declare that the rights guaranteed to the

Bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act read with

Articles 51A(g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or

curtailed, except under Sections 11(3) and 28 of

PCA Act.

(2) We declare that the five freedoms, referred to

earlier be read into Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act,

be protected and safeguarded by the States,

Central Government, Union Territories (in short

“Governments”), MoEF and AWBI.

(3) AWBI and Governments are directed to take

appropriate steps to see that the persons-in-charge

or care of animals, take reasonable measures to

ensure the well-being of animals.

(4) AWBI and Governments are directed to take

steps to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain

or suffering on the animals, since their rights have

been statutorily protected under Sections 3 and 11

of PCA Act.

(5) AWBI is also directed to ensure that the

provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii) scrupulously

followed, meaning thereby, that the person-in-

charge or care of the animal shall not incite any

animal to fight against a human being or another

animal.

(6) AWBI and the Governments would also see that

even in cases where Section 11(3) is involved, the

animals be not put to unnecessary pain and

suffering and adequate and scientific methods be

adopted to achieve the same.

(7) AWBI and the Governments should take steps to

impart education in relation to human treatment of

animals in accordance with Section 9(k) inculcating

the spirit of Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the

Constitution.

(8) Parliament is expected to make proper

amendment of the PCA Act to provide an effective

deterrent to achieve the object and purpose of the

Act and for violation of Section 11, adequate

penalties and punishments should be imposed.

(9) Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights

of animals to that of constitutional rights, as done

by many of the countries around the world, so as to

protect their dignity and honour.

(10) The Governments would see that if the

provisions of the PCA Act and the declarations and

the directions issued by this Court are not properly

and effectively complied with, disciplinary action be

taken against the erring officials so that the purpose

and object of PCA Act could be achieved.

(11) TNRJ Act is found repugnant to PCA Act, which

is a welfare legislation, hence held constitutionally

void, being violative of Article 254(1) of the

Constitution of India.

(12) AWBI is directed to take effective and speedy

steps to implement the provisions of PCA Act in

consultation with SPCA and make periodical reports

to the Governments and if any violation is noticed,

the Governments should take steps to remedy the

same, including appropriate follow-up action.”

6.GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

The Petitioner is seeking interim relief inter-alia on

the following grounds:-

a. Because the petitioner has a very good

prima facie case in their favour and

balance of convenience also lies in his

favour.

b. Because the petitioner suffered

irreparable loss, if the Hon’ble Court

not stayed the impugned order dated

08.01.2016 passed in WP (C) no.

200/2016 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court of Punjab & Haryana.

7.MAIN PRAYER:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-

1. Grant Special Leave to Appeal

against the final judgment and

order dated 08.01.2016 passed

by the Hon’ble High Court of

Punjab & Haryana in W.P.(C) No.

200/2016

ii. issue a direction to the respondents to

set aside sub section (2) and (3) of

Section 20 of The Haryana Gauvansh

Sanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act,

2015, re-notified vide Haryana

Government Gazzette Notification No.

Leg. 27/2015 dated 19th November,

2015; AND

iii. further issue a direction to the

respondents to adopt and declare Cow

Progeny as “State Animal of Haryana”;

iv. further issue the direction to make all

the infirmaries functional which were set

up under section 35 of the Prevention to

Animal Cruelty Act, 1960.

v. further issue direction the respondents

to exclude completely the “Cow

Progeny” from the definition of “Bovine”

species, defined under The Food

Product Standards and Food Activities,

Regulations, 2011, as per which

“Indigenous cow” are accepted for

slaughtering purpose as food for human

being and redefine the definition of

“Bovine” under said Regulations, 2011;

vi. further issue the direction to

respondents protect the “Cow” as

guaranteed under Article 48 of the

Constitution of India, keeping in view

the decreasing the census of said animal

day by day;

vii. Issue directions, not to offer beef and

their products, to consume as diet on

medicinal purpose, without any scientific

reports and recommendations.

viii. Issue directions to the respondents, to

restrict the offer of cow for

experimentation, to introduce

mechanism, to identify the skin and hide

of cow naturally dead or slaughtered,

besides it disposal of horn, bones and

tallow also needs mechanism for their

disposal.

ix. To issue directions about classification

of punishment for the violations of rules

made out under section 19 of the said

Act.

x. Any other relief which this Hon’ble

Court deems fit and proper may also be

passed in favour of the petitioner and

against the respondents.

8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased

to grant:-

(a) ex-parte stay of the operation

of the judgment and order

dated 08.01.2016 passed by

the Hon’ble High Court in WPC

No. 200/2016, And

(b) Ex party stay on the Haryana

Prohibition of Cow Slaughtering

Rules, 1972

(c) Any other relief which this

Hon’ble Court deems fit and

proper may also be passed in

favour of the petitioner and

against the respondent.

DRAWN BY FILED BY

Rajender Yadav, Adv, (

Advocate for Petitioner

DRAWN ON: /02/2016

FILED ON: /02/2016

IN THE SUPRME COURT OF INDIA Order XVI Rule 4(1) (a)

CIVIL APELLATE JURISDCTION

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (Civil) (CC) /2016

IN THE MATTER OF :

Naresh Kadyan …Petitioner

Vs

State of Haryana & Ors. …Respondents

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only

to the pleadings before the Court and the documents

relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts

documents or ground have been taken or relied upon in

the Special Leave Petition. It is further certified that the

copies of the documents/ annexures attached to the

Special Leave Petition are necessary or to make out

grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for the

consideration of the Hon’ble Court. This certificate is

given on the basis of the instructions given by the

petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of the Special

Leave Petition.

DRAWN BY FILED BY

(R.P. Goyal)

Advocate for Petitioner

DRAWN ON: /02/2016

FILED ON: /02/2016