Bombay HC Rules in Favour of Animal Shelter, Blocks CIDCO's Relocation Order

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court (HC) reversed an order by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) that had directed a goshala owner in Panvel to relocate 500 stray cattle to Pune.

The court ruled that it would be inappropriate to relocate the cattle kept at Govardhan Goshala to Pune, where the CIDCO had arranged for some sort of housing. "Therefore, we order that the animals and stray cattle currently lodged with the petitioner not be moved until the next listing date," the court added.

It should be noted that some of the animals have critical medical conditions. The animals are protected under several acts, like the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

The goshala, run by the petitioner, Govansh Rakshan Samvardhan Sanstha, currently houses over 500 cattle. The bench declared, "We do not see that the management of the cattle shelter has any personal interest." The court also noted the fact that several cattle and other animals have been taken to the shelter by statutory authorities. 

The shelter operates on CIDCO land. In response to an eviction order served in March 2022, the trust submitted a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The charitable trust brought up the issues of providing shelter and protection for stray animals staying in their goshala in its PIL, particularly as some of the animals had critical medical conditions that required quick attention. Later, they withdrew the case after receiving a two-month extension from a different high court division bench to relocate the animals and leave the CIDCO territory.

The PIL filed by Govansh Rakshan Sanvardhan Sanstha had to be rejected at the threshold since it did not follow the August 24 high court order, according to counsel GS Hegde, in light of the August 24 ruling. Despite this, the court found a "sufficient public interest element" in the case. It noted that the shelter had been operating since at least 1999.

But the court also clarified that its order should not be seen as granting any rights to the petitioner over the plot. It also ordered that the shelter not be used for any commercial or personal purposes.