http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-08-10/goa/33136654_1_animal-care-infirmary-high-court
PANAJI: The state government could have avoided the liability it suffered in the bulls' medical bill payment case had it appointed infirmaries for the treatment and care of animals. The latter is a requirement under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Section 35 (1) of the Act empowers the government to appoint infirmaries for the treatment and care of animals. Section 35 (4) of the Act provides that the cost of transporting the animal to an infirmary, and its maintenance and treatment at the infirmary, shall be payable by the owner of the animal in accordance with the scale of rates to be prescribed by a district magistrate.
PANAJI: The state government could have avoided the liability it suffered in the bulls' medical bill payment case had it appointed infirmaries for the treatment and care of animals. The latter is a requirement under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
Section 35 (1) of the Act empowers the government to appoint infirmaries for the treatment and care of animals. Section 35 (4) of the Act provides that the cost of transporting the animal to an infirmary, and its maintenance and treatment at the infirmary, shall be payable by the owner of the animal in accordance with the scale of rates to be prescribed by a district magistrate.
In the case between the government and the cattle owner, in the case
involving nine rescued bulls, the additional sessions court at Margao
had referred to these sections of the Act.
The court held that "in such a case strict compliance of the aforesaid provisions of law is warranted and the cost of treatment of the bulls can be obtained from the owner only if the said bulls are kept in a government-appointed infirmary and further if the cost of treatment is in accordance with the scale of rates prescribed by the district magistrate/commissioner of police".
Dealing with this aspect, the high court of Bombay at Goa, hearing an aggrieved government, held that the additional sessions court is right in holding that the intervener (PAWS) was not appointed as an infirmary by the state government in terms of Section 35 (1), as the government neither produced any notification before the sessions court nor before the high court.
The high court also observed that the government has not been able to point out any notification issued by the district magistrate in terms of Section 35 (4) of the Act mentioning the costs of maintenance and treatment in an infirmary.
The court held that "in such a case strict compliance of the aforesaid provisions of law is warranted and the cost of treatment of the bulls can be obtained from the owner only if the said bulls are kept in a government-appointed infirmary and further if the cost of treatment is in accordance with the scale of rates prescribed by the district magistrate/commissioner of police".
Dealing with this aspect, the high court of Bombay at Goa, hearing an aggrieved government, held that the additional sessions court is right in holding that the intervener (PAWS) was not appointed as an infirmary by the state government in terms of Section 35 (1), as the government neither produced any notification before the sessions court nor before the high court.
The high court also observed that the government has not been able to point out any notification issued by the district magistrate in terms of Section 35 (4) of the Act mentioning the costs of maintenance and treatment in an infirmary.
No comments:
Post a Comment