High Court · 2025

11. Mr.Khadeer Shaik, S/o. Khadeer shaik age 45 Years, Occ' Slaughter Bussiness /Driver' R/o- Adiar (V), Bnadra (tr/), District, Maharastra State , '12. Mr. Roshan Diavar lvlirga, S/o. tr/irga, Age, 37 years, Occ. Occ. Slaughter Bussiness lDriver , R/o Adiar (V), Bnadra (M), District, Maharastra state . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a wRlr QF MANDAMUS to direct the 2 to Bth respondents not give any fitness /health certificates for mere the purpose of slaughter at destination point to the accused to support the slaughter people instead of boar"ding point as per law, and not to support the release the pattle in 34 in number pertains the case property in FIR NQ. 340 OF 2025 P S.RGt, dated. t 1-04-2025, until decided the main case in trail as per the law of Land, and DIRECT the respondent No. 9 to depute and monitor the well cattle law known officer for fair investigation in FlR. No. 340 oF 2025 P.S.RGI dated '1 1-04-2025, FURTHER direct the respondeni No. .10/ investigation officer invoke the provisions of the section 5 & 6. The Telangana Prohibition of cow slaughter and Animal preservation Acl 1977 which to be protect the creatures as per Articles 48, R/w. 21 and 5'l.A(g) of the constitution of lndia, to upheld the principles of Natural Justice besides being in violation of rhe Transport Animal Rules 1978, And sec.125E(i) of central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, coNSEQUENTLY direct the respondent No. 10 police RGt to produce the case properly /cattle/vehicle in FIR No. 340 ot 202i dated '1 1.04-zozs, before the Hon'ble Magistratg concerned for proceed and to Examine for proceed the provisions o'l PREVENTTON OF CRUELTY TO ANTMALS (CARE AND MAINTENANCE oF CASE PROPERTY ANTMALS) RULES, 2011 by foflowins the Hon'ble Apex Court judgments. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 To B to send the 34 cattle (case property) in FIR No.340 oF 2025 PS RGI to the petitioner Goshala or any other goshals for feed those cdttle for healthy food and care as required it as per Articles 48, R/w. 21 and 51- A(g) of the Constitution of lndia, pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA No: 2 oF 2025 --..:-^ rL,-+ ih tho .ir.r rmqtances stated in Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances state the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 10/ investigation Officer invoke the provisions of the Section 5 and 6. The Telangana Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act 1977 which to be protect the creatures as per Articles 48' R/w 21 and 51-A(g) of the Constitutian of lndia, to upheld the principles of Natural Justice besides being in violation of The Transport Animal Rules 'l978' And sec l25E('1 ) of Central Motor VehiclesRuleslgSg,pendingdisposaloftheabovewritpetitionandproperrnthe circumstances of the case oF 202s IA NO: 3 Pe tition und er Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedtodirect the 2 ta Bth respondenls not give any fitness /health certificates for mere the purpose of slaughter at destination point to the accused to support the slaughter people instead of Qoarding point as per law' and not to support the release the cattle in 34 in numbqr perlains the case property in FIR NO 34O OF 2025 P S RGI dated. 1 1-04-?O25,until decided the main case in trail as per the lgw of Land and pending disposal of the above writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G'L'NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 1' 9' 10: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 2' 5lo 7: GP FQR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERIES Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 3' 4' 8: SRI G'MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' SC Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 11 & 12:. - for GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER .------- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. l22aO of 2o25 ORDER Heard learned Counscl f<tr the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for rcspondent Nos. 1, 9 & 10, learned Government Pleader for Animal Husbandry & Fisheries appearing for respondent Nos.2, 5 to 7, Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Courrst:l appcaring lor respondent Nos.3, 4 & 8, and with the consent of lcarned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the Writ Petition is rakcn up lor hearing and disposal, at admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner ol disposal of the Writ Petition and nature of li.s involved, this Court is ol the vrew that notice to unofflcial respondent Nos. 1 I & l2 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary deterils, thtt casc of the pel.itioner, in brief, is that though the respondents-authorities have registered a case uide Crime No.34O /2O2-c, dt. 1l .O1.2025, thelr are not conducting proper investigation into the aforesaid crime and as such the authorities are to be directcd not to release (34) cattle, which were scized by the said authorit.ics, rill the investigation into the aforesaid crime is completed as per thc judicial preccdents. 2 1 4, Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearlng on behalf of respondent Nos 1, 9 & 1O submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by tht: coursc of investigalion being undertaken by the authorities, it has to avail remedies provided under BNSS, and for thesaidreasonCannotapproachthisCourtbyallegingthe authorities not conducting proper investigation' 5 Learned Govcrnmcnt Pleadcr for Home would further submit that the authoritics by conducting proper investigation into the aforesaid crime rcgistered u'oulcl take further action' in accordance with law

6. LearnedStandingCounselappearingforrespondentNos.3,4 the signature of 8, by placing written instructions under & Veterinary Officer, Charminar Zone' GHMC' submit that the ofhcials of the Veterinary Department' Charmtnar Zone, GHMC' have verilted the confiscated (34) number of bulls while being transported in two trucks at Shamshabad Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' and accommodated the said bulls Hyderabad, would temPorarilY.

7. By the written instructions it ts further stated that the transPorters were found carrying ht bulls along with 'Fit for Transportation Certificate' issued by the Veterinary Department of Maharashtra State, wherefrom thc animals were transported; and 3 that the respondents-municipal authorities have followed the due procedure right from taking over the animals lrom the police to issuance of certificate to the case property animals, without any omissions and commissions, strictly adhering to the acts and statues of the land, and that the claim of the petitioner to the contrary, is devoid of merit.

8. I have takcn note of the respective submissions made' g. Having regard to the submissions made as above and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court alleging the authorities not undertaking fair investigation into the case registere d uide Crime No'34O/2O25, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the course of action or investigation being undertaken by the responde nts-authorities in the aloresaid crime registered, ought to havc approached the Magistrate at the first instance in tcrms of the provisions of BNSS, instead of approaching this Court under Arricle 226 of the Constitution ol India. The petitioner without undertaking the said course of action has straightaway rushed to this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, which in the considered view of this Court cannot be permitted as the same involvcs dispr,rtecl questions of fact as to verification and for the 4 said reason, this Court is of the view that thc petitioner should bc relegated to avail the rcmedies provided under BNSS.

10. Granting libcrty as noted hereinabove, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs 1 1. Consequcntll,, misccllaneous peritions, if any, pending shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. Principal Secretary' (Home Department) Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad' The State of Telangana'

2. Principal Secretary, (Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department) Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad, The State of Telangana.

3. The commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation (GHMC) at near BRKR Bhawan, HYderabad'

4. The Chief Animal welfare Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) at near BRKR Bhawan, Hyderabad'

5. The Commissioner (Animal Husbandry' Department)' at Hyderabad' 6 The Director, Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Department' at Hyderabad' 7. Veterinary Asst. Surgeon, The Primary Veterinary Centre' at L'B Nagar Zone' (Fathulguda) R R district, Hyderabad

8. Officer flncharge for care of Animal Fathulguda' The Animal Care Centre' GHMC, fas{ Zone, RR.District

9. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad at Gachibowli' RR Dist ' Hyderabad' 10.The $tation House Officer, (RGl) Rajiv Gandhi lnternational Airport Police Statiqn Cybetabad., Shamshabad' R R district' 1l Qne CC to SRI G-L NARASIMHA RAO AdvoQate IOPUC] 12.llv.uoeQs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] 13.Two CCs to GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERIES' High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 'l4.One CC to SRt c MADHUSUDHAN REDDY 15. Two CD Copies SC for GHMC tOpUCI I BGS. SS Pxc,.. / I HIGH COURT DATED: 2410412025 \ ORDER WP.No.12280 of 2025 I t k q I 1 B 1HE S 14 llAY 2025 "S .)- P4-cti('-:o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Stq :-l.s\>e