Bombay High Court

NAVKAR GOSHALA PANJARPOLE SANSTHA, DHULE THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRINIWAS DHUPPADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: Y G KHOBRAGADE

Holding

The order granting interim custody of the seized bullocks to the owner is lawful and not illegal, so the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Navkar Goshala Panjarpole Sanstha, a cow shelter, filed a criminal writ petition challenging an order dated 13 August 2020 that granted interim custody of seized bullocks to respondent No.2, the owner of the cattle. The petitioner argued that the order was illegal, although it was not the owner of the animals. The court noted that the petitioner had not set out any specific grounds to interfere with the order and that the Judicial Magistrate had correctly granted custody to the owner. The petitioner’s counsel also failed to obtain any instructions despite serving a private notice, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the court held that the impugned order was not illegal or bad in law and dismissed the petitions.

Issues considered

What is the legality of the order granting interim custody of seized bullocks to the owner, when the petitioner is a cow shelter and not the owner?

Subjects

criminal revision
interim custody
cattle seizure
cow shelter
petition dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:9395
                                                                           46wp1101-20

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        46 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1101 OF 2020

                 Navkar Goshala Panjarpole Sanstha, Dhule Through Its Authorized
                               Representative Shriniwas Dhuppad
                                            VERSUS
                               The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
                                             WITH
                         CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1188 OF 2020

               Navkar Goshala Panjarpole Sanstha, Dhule Through Its Authorized
                                Representative Shriniwas Dhuppad
                                             VERSUS
                                The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
                                                ...
            Mr. Karan V. Sarosiya h/for Mr. Bora Satyajit S., Advocate for the
            Petitioner
            ,APP for Respondents
            Mr. K. S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent State
            Ms. Vaishali S. Swami h/for Mr. M. C. Swami, Advocate for Respondent
            No.2

                                   CORAM      : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.
                                  Dated       : 4th March, 2026

            PER COURT :-
            1.         The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a pursis

            stating that on 18.02.2026, he issued a notice to the petitioner through

            speed post and as per the postal tracking report, the same has been

            delivered on 21.02.2026. He also made telephonic communication with

            the petitioner but he has not received any instructions till date. The

            learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 also made a statement

            that she has no instructions from her client.


            2.         Needless to say that on 13.10.2020, the petitioner has filed the

                                                                                  1 of 2
                                                                         46wp1101-20

           present petition challenging the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the

           learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule in Criminal Revision

           Application No.22 of 2020, whereby quashed and set aside the order

           dated 06.07.2020 passed by the learned JMFC, Dhule in Cri. Misc.

           Application No. 475 of 2020 and granted interim custody of bullocks

           in favour of   respondent no.2.      The Petitioner appears to be Cow

           Shelter (Goshala) and is not the owner of seized bullocks. The learned

           Judicial Magistrate, granted custody of cattle in favour of respondent

           No.2 who is owner of the cattle. Therefore, the impugned order does

           not appear to be illegal or bad in law. No grounds are set out in the

           petition to interfere with the impugned order.


           3.       Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner has already

           served a private notice upon the petitioner; however, no instructions

           have been received in pursuance of the said notice, which shows that

           the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter.


           4.       In view of the above discussion, the petitions are dismissed.




                                                          ( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. )
JPChavan




                                                                               2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…