BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P.(c). No.

of 2017

Petitioners

: Kozhikode District Meat Workers Association and Others

Respondents

: Union of India & Others SYNOPSIS

This Writ Petition is filed challenging Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter “Rules”) as ultravires and unconstitutional. The 1st Petitioner is an association of workers who work at shops that sell meat of cattle purchased from markets and fairs. The 2nd and 3rd Petitioners are merchants of meat. The Rules is purportedly issued under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 which envisages and excludes from its purview the commission of any act in the course of destruction/preparation of destruction of any animal as food for mankind. Such destruction and preparation would undoubtedly include slaughter and the only restriction placed therein is the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. The blanket ban imposed on the sale of animals/cattle for the purpose of slaughter, as is done in Rule 22 is ultra vires of the parent act. Besides, preservation, protection and maintenance of livestock is in the exclusive domain of the State Legislature under Entry 15 of the State List. Markets and fairs also fall within the exclusive domain of the State under Entry 28 of the said List. Article 243G deals with the powers of the Panchyats while 243W deals with those of the Municipalities. Twelfth Schedule includes the following entries: 6. Public health, sanitation conservancy and solid waste management, 15. Cattle pounds; prevention of cruelty to animals, 18. Regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries. Further, Section 11(3)(c) of the parent Act exempts the destruction of animals under the authority of law. The slaughter houses in Kerala are functioning under the authority of law, based on licenses issued under the

2 Kerala Panchayat Raj Act or Kerala Municipalities Act. In light of the above, the regulation of markets, including livestock markets, is already occupied by the constitutionally competent State Legislature and is within the realm of the authority of the Panchayats. Therefore, applying the doctrine of occupied field, the Rules ought to be declared non-operative and void. The Rules also tend to infringe Article 301 of the Constitution of India. Further, Rule 22 imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right of disposal/sale of the farmers or owners of cattle/animal. Right of disposal/sale/transfer is an integral part of the right of property and ownership. The violation of same, without backing of the parent Act, is in abridgment of constitutional right to property under Article 300A. The Rules will have a far reaching impact on small scale operators of slaughter houses and abattoirs. Small scale operators are in effect precluded from procuring cattle for slaughter, driving them out of their trade. The classification of purchasers of meat from those who purchase from markets and those who purchase from farms, and of animals into cattle and non-cattle, is also hit by Article 14. Aggrieved, this Writ Petition. Dated this the 30th day of May 2017.

Counsel for the petitioner.

3

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM W.P.(c). No.

of 2017

(Special Original jurisdiction) Petitioners: 1. Kozhikode District Meat Workers Association, (CITU), Regd No. 12-3 of 2007, Idiyankara, Francis Road, Kozhikode.PIN - 673027 Represented by its General Secretary, Kunjayeen Koya, aged 54 years, S/o Mammu, 2. T.P. Sahid, S/o Mohammed Koya, Aged 39, Sakkeena Manzil, Francis Road, P.O. Kallayi, Kozhikode . PIN - 673003 3. T.K. Sadik, S/o Mayeenkutty, Aged 42, Palparambi House, Perumanna, Kozhikode. PIN - 673019 Respondents: 1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary to the Ministry of – Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan Jorbagh Road, New Delhi - 110 003 2. State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to the Department of Animal Husbandry, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram. 695001 3. Directorate of Panchayats, Represented by the Director of Panchayats, Public Office Building, Museum (PO), Thiruvananthapuram. PIN – 695 001. MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIION OF INDIA THROUGH HIS COUNSEL MANU SEBASTIAN, LEGITH T KOTTAKKAL AND SURYA BINOY, ADVOCATES, ‘LAKSHMI’, 1A, AC GRACE APARTMENTS, T.P.CANAL ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI – 17. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter “Rules”) as ultra-vires and unconstitutional. True copy of the notification dated

4 23.05.2017 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF&CC) is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P.1. The effect of Rule 22 of the Rules is that no person can sell, nor a purchaser can purchase animals from an ‘animal market’ defined under the Rules for the purpose of slaughter. The Animal Market Committee constituted under Rule 4 is required to ensure that the purchaser furnishes an undertaking that the animal is bought for agricultural purposes alone and not for slaughter. Rule 22(e)(i) enjoins the purchaser of cattle from selling it further for the purpose of slaughter. This would adversely affect those at both ends of the supply chain of animals and cattle whose meat is used for consumption, and hides in tanneries. Normally, this chain would take the form of: farm – animal market- slaughter houses – meat merchants/tanneries/exporters – hoteliers/domestic households. It is submitted that it was not within the executive powers of the 1st Respondent to impose such restrictions on the sale and purchase of cattle for the purpose of slaughter. 90% of what is commonly referred to as ‘red meat’ is purchased by slaughter houses from animal markets. The transactions cattle for the purpose of slaughter have a significant role in ensuring adequate remuneration to the farmers who sell their cattle at markets and fairs and in ensuring the availability of nutrient food at affordable rates to those who consume meat. 2. The 1st Petitioner is a registered association of workers who work at the shops which sell the meat of cattle purchased from animal markets and fairs. The 2nd and 3rd Petitioners are merchants of meat. Their source of livelihood has been gravely threatened by the enactment of Rules. 3. The Rules have been purportedly framed invoking Section 38(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Cruelty Against Animals Act, 1960 (hereinafter “Act”). Section 38 of the Act reads as below: 38. Power to make rules.— (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to the condition of previous publication, make

5 rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the forgoing power, the Central Government may make rules providing for all or any of the following matters, namely:— (a) the conditions of service of members of the Board, the allowances payable to them and the manner in which they may exercise their powers and discharge their functions; (aa) the manner in which the persons to represent municipal corporations are to be elected under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 5; (b) the maximum load (including any load occasioned by the weight of passengers) to be carried or drawn by any animal; (c) the conditions to be observed for preventing the over-crowding of animals; (d) the period during which, and the hours between which, any class of animals shall not be used for draught purposes; (e) prohibiting the use of any bit or harness involving cruelty to animals; (ea) the other methods of destruction of stray dogs referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 11; (eb) the methods by which any animal which cannot be removed without cruelty may be destroyed under sub-section (3) of section 13; (f) requiring persons carrying on the business of a farrier to be licensed and registered by such authority as may be prescribed and levying a fee for the purposes; (g) the precautions to be taken in the capture of animals for purposes of sale, export or for any other purpose, and the different appliances or devices that may alone be used for the purpose; and the licensing of such capture and the levying of fees for such licences; (h) the precautions to be taken in the transport of animals, whether by rail, road, inland waterway, sea or air and the manner in which and the cages or other receptacles in which they may be so transported; (i) requiring persons owning or in charge of premises in which animals are kept or milked to register such premises, to comply with such conditions as may be laid down in relation to the boundary walls or surroundings of such premises, to permit their

6 inspection for the purpose of ascertaining whether any offence under this Act is being, or has been, committed therein, and to expose in such premises copies of section 12 in a language or languages commonly understood in the locality; (j) the form in which applications for registration under Chapter V may be made, the particulars to be contained therein, the fees payable for such registration and the authorities to whom such applications may be made; (ja) the fees which may be charged by the Committee constituted under section 15 for the registration of persons or institutions carrying on experiments on animals or for any other purpose; (k) the purposes to which fines realised under this Act may be applied,

including

such

purposes

as

the

maintenance

of

infirmaries, pinjrapole and veterinary hospitals; (l) any other matter which has to be, or may be, prescribed. (3) If any person contravenes, or abets the contravention of, any rules made under this section, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with both. 4. Section 38 reiterates the axiom that the rule-making power of the executive cannot override or traverse the scope of the parent Act. Significantly, the violation of the rules framed under Section 38 is also made a punishable offence. 5. The Act is enacted with the objective ‘to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and for that purpose to amend the law relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals’, as stated in its preamble. Section 11(1), under Chapter III titled ‘Cruelty to Animals Generally’, prevents ‘treating animals cruelly’ and specifies instances that shall amount to an offence punishable under the Act. Section 11(3)(e) and (c) carve out an important exception, most notable in this context: Section 11 (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to: … (e) the commission or omission of any act in the course of the destruction or the preparation for destruction of any animal as food

7 for mankind unless such destruction or preparation was accompanied by the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering

6. Therefore, the Act envisages and excludes from its purview the commission of any act in the course of destruction/preparation of destruction of any animal as food for mankind. Such destruction and preparation would undoubtedly include slaughter and the only restriction placed therein is the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. The blanket ban imposed on the sale of animals/cattle for the purpose of slaughter, as is done in Rule 22 is clearly ultra vires and illegal. 7. Rule 22 reads as below: 22. Restrictions on sale of cattle.— The Member Secretary of the Animal Market Committee shall ensure that(a) no person shall bring to an animal market a young animal; (b) no person shall bring a cattle to an animal market unless upon arrival he has furnished a written declaration signed by the owner of the cattle or his duly authorised agent— (i) stating the name and address of the owner of the cattle, with a copy of the photo identification proof ; (ii) giving details of the identification of the cattle; (iii) stating that the cattle has not been brought to market for sale for slaughter; (c) every declaration furnished to the Animal Market Committee shall be retained by it for a period of six months from the date on which it is furnished to them and the Animal Market Committee shall, on demand made by an Inspector at any reasonable time during that period, produce such declaration and allow a copy of it or an extract from it to be taken; (d) where an animal has been sold and before its removal from the animal market, the Animal Market Committee shall— (i) obtain the expenses incurred for each animal, as approved by the District Animal Market Monitoring Committee, so as to provide the basic facilities for animals and people; (ii) take an undertaking that the animals are bought for agriculture purposes and not for slaughter; (iii) keep a record of name and address of the purchaser and procure his

8 identity proof; (iv) verify that the purchaser is an agriculturist by seeing the relevant revenue document; (v) ensure that the purchaser of the animal gives a declaration that he shall not sell the animal up to six months from the date of purchase and shall abide by the rules relating to transport of animals made under the Act or any other law for the time being in force; (vi) retain such record for a period of six months from the date of sale; (vii) produce such record before an Inspector on demand being made by him at any reasonable time during that period and allow a copy of it or an extract from it to be taken; (e) the purchaser of the cattle shall – (i) not sell the animal for purpose of slaughter; (ii) follow the State cattle protection or preservation laws; (iii) not sacrifice the animal for any religious purpose; (iv) not sell the cattle to a person outside the State without the permission as per the State cattle protection or preservation laws; (f) where a cattle has been sold and before its removal from the animal market, the proof of sale shall be issued in five copies, out of which first copy shall be handed over to purchaser, second copy to seller, third copy to tehsil office of the residence of purchaser, fourth copy to the Chief Veterinary Officer in the district of purchaser and last copy to be kept intact in the record by the Animal Market Committee. (emphasis supplied). 8. In pith and substance, the Rule 22 a set of dictates to the owners of animals about how their stock should be disposed of. The prohibition of certain kinds of end-use of animals/cattle sold in the animal market amounts to

restrictions

on

livestock

management.

However,

the

preservation, protection and maintenance of livestock is in the exclusive domain of the State Legislature. Entry 15, List II of the Constitution of India reads: 15. Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases; veterinary training and practice.

Stock, taking colour from the accompanying words, must mean livestock. The term ‘livestock’, not defined elsewhere, is understood in common

9 parlance to mean: “animals kept or raised for use or pleasure; especially: farm animals kept for use and profit”1 9. Pertinently, Entry 15 also includes prevention of animal diseases. The purported objective of the Rules, i.e. the prevention of diseased animals being sold in animal markets, is also not within the domain of the Central Government’s executive powers. 10.

In contrast, prevention of cruelty to animals alone is covered by Entry

17, List III of the Constitution of India, which reads: Entry 17. Prevention of cruelty to animals. Thus, the Central Government’s executive power, co-extensive with its legislative power, is limited to measures that are aimed at prevention of cruelty to animals. That destruction or preparation for destruction of animals as food of the man-kind, not accompanied by unnecessary pain and suffering would not amount to cruelty to animals is evident from Section 11(3)(e) of the Act, as stated above. Therefore, the issuance of Rules, imposing a blanket ban on sale of cattle/animals for slaughter is clearly beyond the executive power of the Central Government and is a direct encroachment into the executive powers of the State Government. 11.

Further, Rule 22 imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right of

disposal/sale of the farmers or owners of cattle/animal. Right of disposal/sale/transfer is an integral part of the right of property and ownership. The restrictions on the right to property and ownership, a constitutionally guaranteed right, cannot be except by the authority of law. Article 300A of the Constitution of India reads: Article 300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law Within the context of the Act, the circumstances in which a person can be 1

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/livestock

10 deprived of ownership of animals is clearly envisaged and delineated. Power of court to deprive person convicted of ownership of animal : (1) If the owner of any animal is found guilty of any offence under this Act, the court upon his conviction thereof, may, if it thinks fit, in addition to any other punishment make an order that the animal with respect to which the offence was committed shall be forfeited to Government and may, further, make such order as to the disposal of the animal as it thinks fit under the circumstances.

Therefore, the only circumstance in which the right to ownership in terms of an animal can be limited or confiscated has already been laid out in the Act. The imposition of sale of cattle/animal for the purpose of slaughter by way of delegated legislation, as is done in the case at hand, is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. Being deeply aggrieved and left with no other alternate or efficacious remedy the petitioner seeks leave of this Hon’ble Court to prefer this writ petition(C) for the following among other; GROUNDS a. Rule 22 is ultra-vires of the parent Act, particularly in view of Section 11(3)(e) of the Act. it is very pertinent to note that the Act does not prevent slaughtering of animals. In fact, the Act saves and permits killing of animals for the purposes of food. It is very clear from the proviso of Section 11(3)(e), which excludes acts done for destruction of any animal for food of mankind, on the condition that such destruction was not accompanied by unnecessary pain and suffering. Here the Rules imposes ban of cattle in markets for slaughter. Also, the purchaser of cattle is totally prohibited from selling the cattle further for slaughter, whether in an animal market or elsewhere. This ban of sale of cattle for slaughter operates as an indirect and absolute ban of slaughter of cattle. When the parent Act expressly permits slaughter of animals for food, the Rules cannot impose a ban on sale of cattle for slaughter. When slaughter for

11 food is not prohibited by the parent Act, the Rules cannot impose ban of sale for slaughter. This apparent anomaly of the Rules, which makes it ultra-vires the parent Act. b. It is a well settled principle that if the Rules made under an Act are contrary to the parent Act, then such Rules will be void an inoperative. Also, delegated legislation has to be in conformity with the objective of the parent Act as well (Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union v. State of Kerala (2006) 4SCC 327). To prevent slaughter of cattle is not the objective of the Act. On the other hand, slaughter of animals for purposes of food is permissible under the Act. Hence, the restrictions of cattle sale imposed by the Rules are ultra-vires, as they are repugnant to the Act and they traverse beyond the objectives of the Act. c. It is further submitted that the impugned Rules are passed without legislative competence. The Union has no legislative competence to legislate on matters pertaining to protection and preservation of livestock. Protection and preservation of livestock is a matter exclusively reserved with the State Governments vide Entry 15 of List II, Schedule 7. The Union has legislative competence to legislate only with respect to matters touching upon cruelty to animals, which is derived from Entry 17, List III. The impugned Rules are framed under the Act can confine itself only to matters pertaining to cruelty to animals. However, the impugned Rules traverse beyond that and contain provisions pertaining to protection and preservation of livestock. Thereby, the Rules overstep the confines of their earmarked field, rendering them void for want of legislative competence. d. Further, ‘markets and fairs’ is a subject matter exclusively reserved for States to legislate upon, by virtue of Entry 28, List II. Also, taxation on animals is also a State subject, as per Entry 58, List II. So, Entries 17 read with Entry 28 and 58 of List II, unequivocally point out that animal markets and livestock management is an exclusive State subject upon

12 which Union has no legislative and executive powers. The impugned Rules seek to regulate animal markets and livestock management. The subject matter of the impugned Rules in pith and substance squarely falls within the exclusive domain of State List. The Union has exceeded its legislative powers by framing the said Rules. e. Article 243G deals with the powers of the Panchyats while 243W deals with those of the Municipalities. Article 243W reads: 243W. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipalities, etc.— Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow— (a) the Municipalities with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Municipalities, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to— (i) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (ii) the performance of functions and the implementation of schemes as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule; (b) the Committees with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to carry out the responsibilities conferred upon them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule. Twelfth Schedule includes the following entries: 6.

Public

health,

sanitation

conservancy

and

solid

waste

management., 15. Cattle pounds; prevention of cruelty to animals. 18. Regulation of slaughter houses and tanneries. Similarly, Schedule XI of the Constitution confers powers on the Panchayat to regulate, inter alia, animal husbandry, diaries and poultry farms, markets and fairs, and public health and sanitation. Therefore, the attempt of the Central Government is clearly an encroachment into the authority of the local self government institutions, and thus is in contravention of the directive principle of strengthening of local self government institutions.

13 f. Further, Section 11(3)(c) of the parent Act exempts the destruction of animals under the authority of law. The slaughter houses in Kerala are functioning under the authority of law, based on licenses issued under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act or Kerala Municipalities Act. Hence, slaughtering in licensed slaughter houses are done under the authority of law, thereby rendering the destruction of animals done at such licensed slaughter houses a permissible activity as per the Act. The restriction imposed on sale of cattle under the impugned Rules directly and substantially affect the functioning of such slaughter houses which are functioning on the strength of valid licenses issued by local authorities. The impugned Rules is a colourable attempt to restrict the functioning of such slaughter houses. When the parent Act does not envisage the prohibition of slaughter houses acting under the authority of law, the Rules cannot seek to impose fetters on the functioning of such slaughter houses. Hence, the impugned Rules are ultra-vires the parent Act, on account of their conflict with Section 11(3)(c) as well, in addition to Section 11(3)(e) of the Act. g. In light of the above, the regulation of markets, including livestock markets, is already occupied by the constitutionally competent State Legislature and is within the realm of the authority of the Panchayats. Therefore, applying the doctrine of occupied field, the Rules ought to be declared non-operative and void. Rule 4 and 5 of the Rules, constituting Animal Market Committee and District Animal Market Committee are also void and inoperative. h. The federal division of powers under the Constitution is based on the nature of subject matters, as enumerated in the lists of Schedule VII. The management of livestock is intricately and closely linked to the local practices, eating preferences, cultural features and animal husbandry practices that have more local peculiarities than national commonalities. The inclusion of legislative, and consequently executive, power in the

14 State List with respect to the management of livestock and prevention of animal diseases is in keeping with this fundamental principle of federalism. By encroaching into the legislative and executive domain of the State Legislature under the pretext of preventing cruelty against animals is unconstitutional. The 1st Respondent has no competence to pass the Rules and the Parliament does not have the legislative competence to approve these Rules. i. The impugned Rules is a colourable legislation intended to prevent slaughtering of cattle. It is a disguised and covert attempt to prevent slaughtering of cattle, done in exercise of powers under the Act. In an indirect and veiled manner, the impugned Rules transgress upon the State List, and hence the impugned Rules are void and ultra vires. j. The members of the petitioner association derives their income and livelihood from the sale of meat including beef. The restriction imposed by Rule 22 is in direct violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Any law restricting such fundamental right can only be enacted by the legislature, and in this case, specifically by the State Legislature. The blanket ban on the right of the members of the Petitioner association to purchase cattle from the market for the purpose of slaughter has been infringed by way of delegated legislation which is constitutionally impermissible. k. The definition of “animal market” given in Rule 2(b) is quite wide and

expansive than the common understanding, and negates the possibilities of effecting a direct sale of cattle to slaughter houses as well. It reads as follows: “animal market” means a market place or sale-yard or any other premises or place to which animals are brought from other places and exposed for sale or auction and includes any lairage adjoining a market or a slaughterhouse and used in connection with it and any place adjoining a market used as a parking area by visitors to the market for parking vehicles and includes

15 animal fair and cattle pound where animals are offered or displayed for sale or auction;(emphasis supplied) The phrase “lairage adjoining a market or a slaughterhouse deserves further examination. ‘Lairage’ refers to a place where animals are kept before slaughter. Most slaughter houses keep the animals to be slaughtered near. Even if one animal is kept near the slaughterhouse, the place occupied by the animal would be a ‘lairage’, and consequently it would become an ‘animal market’ as per the definition of the Rules. This is actually a ploy to efface the differences between ‘animal markets’ and ‘slaughterhouses’, thereby making most ‘slaughter houses’ ‘animal markets’ as defined in the Rules. As a result of this, one can’t even seek to sell cattle directly to a slaughter house. This will have a far reaching impact on small scale operators of slaughter houses and abattoirs. Small scale operators are in effect precluded from procuring cattle for slaughter, driving them out of their trade. The result of the Rules is that only those persons who rear cattle on their own in their farmyards can slaughter them. Nearly 90% of the cattle for slaughter are sourced from animal markets, against a mere 10% that is bought directly from farmers. So the ban is nearly absolute. l. Even if lairage is to be excluded, the Rules also make an impermissible classification and is therefore hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It classifies the purchasers and traders of meat into those who buy cattle from markets and those who purchase cattle directly from farms. The present prohibition can only aid the big meat-houses which can afford to raise animals for their own use. This classification has no rationale with the purported objective of the Rules, i.e. to prevent cruelty to animals in markets. Infliction of unnecessary cruelty and pain can occur even at farms where the animals are reared for the purpose of slaughter. m. The Rules contain restrictions on inter-state sale. As per Rule 22(e)(iv), the purchaser of cattle cannot sell cattle outside State, without permission as per State cattle preservation and protection laws. So a trader is restricted from effecting sale of cattle to another State, where cattle slaughter is not prohibited. If cattle slaughter is permissible in one State, there should not

be any restriction in exporting cattle to such

state. Only the situs of slaughter is relevant. Also, Article 301 of the

16 Constitution declares that trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India shall be free. The Rules tend to infringe Article 301 of the Constitution of India. n. Rule 22 by directly limiting the supply of beef to members such as the Petitioners has also the effect of affecting the right of the ultimate consumer, the general public in State of Kerala, to decide what they must eat. This is an unconstitutional invasion into the human right, right to privacy, guaranteed by international conventions and the Constitution of India. o. ‘Animals’ is defined in the Act as: Section 2.

Definitions : In this Act, unless the context otherwise.

requires, (a)"animal" means any living creature other than a human being, Whereas “cattle”, as defined in Rule 2(e) means “a bovine animal including bulls, bullocks, cows, buffalos, steers, heifers and calves and includes camels.” It is clear that the division of animals for the purpose of imposing the impugned restrictions into ‘cattle’, and other animals is an unreasonable classification, which has no nexus with the purported objective of the Rules, namely prevention of cruelty against animals. Therefore, the prohibition enjoined in Rule 22 seeks to achieve the impermisslbe objective of forcing the religions preferences of certain communities upon other communities, in the pretext of preventing cruelty against animals. Hence it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to; RELIEFS:i. Declare that Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Regulation of Livestock) Rules 2017 is ultra-vires the Constitution and void as the Union of India has no legislative competence to formulate the said Rules to regulate

17 Livestock; ii. Declare that the restrictions of sale of cattle contained in Rule 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Regulation of Livestock) Rules 2017 is ultra-vires the Prevention of Cruelty Act 1960, and hence void and inoperative; iii. Declare that the restrictions of sale of cattle contained in Rule 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Regulation of Livestock) Rules 2017 infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and hence void, ultra-vires and inoperative; iv. Quash the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Regulation of Livestock) Rules 2017; v. Declare that Rule 4,5 and 22 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(Regulation of Livestock) Rules 2017 is in encroachment to the legislative domain of the States and the powers of the Panchayats and therefore void, ultra-vires and inoperative, vi. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court. vii. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioners.

INTERIM RELIEF For the reasons stated in the petition and accompanying affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to :(i)

stay the operation of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock) Rules 2017; and/or

(ii)

permit the sale of cattle for slaughter carried out in accordance with provisions of other applicable laws, pending the final disposal of the above writ petition.

18 Dated this the 30th day of May 2017.

Petitioners.

Counsel for the Petitioners.

19

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

W.P.(c). No.

of 2017

Petitioners

: Kozhikode District Meat Workers Association and Others

Respondents

: Union of India & Others AFFIDAVIT

I, T.P. Sahid, S/o Mohammed Koya, aged 39, Sakkeena Manzil, Francis Road, P.O. Kallayi, Kozhikode district, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows; 1.

I am the 2nd petitioner in the above writ petition and I know the

facts of the case. I swear this affidavit for and on behalf of other petitioners also. 2.

We have not filed any petition before this Hon’ble Court earlier

on the fact and reliefs of this case. 3.

The facts stated in the Writ Petition(C) are true to the best of my

knowledge, belief and information. 4.

Exhibits produced with the writ Petition(C) are true copies of

their respective originals. 5.

Relief sought for in the Writ Petition(C) are highly necessary for

me failing which we would be put into irreparable injury and loss. All facts stated above are true. Dated this the 30th day of May 2017. Deponent. Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the deponent who is personally known to me on this the 30th day of May 2017 in my office at Ernakulam.

Advocate.

20

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

W.P.(c). No.

of 2017

Petitioners

: Kozhikode District Meat Workers Association and Others

Respondents

: Union of India & Others

INDEX Sl. No.

Description

Page No.

1.

Synopsis

1-2

2.

Memorandum of Writ Petition(c)

3.

Affidavit

4.

Exhibit.P1: True copy of the notification dated 23.05.2017 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF&CC).

3 - 18 19 20 - 28

Dated this the 30th day of May 2017.

Counsel for the petitioner.

21

Presented on: 30.05.2017 Sub:- Challenging Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017. BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

W.P.(C)No.

of 2017

(Special Original jurisdiction)

Petitioners

: Kozhikode District Meat Workers Association and Others

Respondents

: Union of India & Others

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION ( C ) U/Art.226 of The Constitution of India

MANU SEBASTIAN, M. 1065 LEGITH T KOTTAKKAL L. 221 & SURYA BINOY S. 3044 COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

22 APPENDIX PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS