Holding

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's directions to relocate the milk dairies and remove stray cattle were lawful, given the overriding public health and environmental interests, and could not be set aside.

Summary

The Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti, whose dairy plots were allotted in Jodhpur in 1956, allowed their cattle to stray, creating health hazards and traffic risks for city residents. A public interest writ petition was filed under Article 226 seeking removal of stray cattle and relocation of the dairies outside the city. The Rajasthan High Court issued interim orders directing the State to allot alternative land, provide funds, and compel the dairies to shift, while also ordering the removal of stray animals. The Samiti appealed, arguing that the alternative site was unsuitable, that eviction required a land‑acquisition process, and that the High Court’s directions infringed their property rights. The Supreme Court, relying on precedents concerning public health, environmental rights, and the primacy of community interest over individual inconvenience, held that the High Court’s directions were valid and that the State had complied with them. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the relocation and stray‑cattle removal orders. The judgment also directed further compliance timelines and guidelines for waste management.

Issues considered

The legality of the High Court's order directing relocation of milk dairies and removal of stray cattle without a formal land‑acquisition process.
Whether the alternative land allotted (Barli) was suitable for dairy operations and whether the State must provide rehabilitation facilities.
Whether the High Court's directions infringe the appellants' property rights under the concessionary land allotments.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Acts. 1971

Subjects

Public interest litigationArticle 21Stray cattleRelocation of dairiesEnvironmental healthLand use planningState liability

Judgment

+-
A MILKMEN COLONY VIKAS SAMITI
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JANUARY 17, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.]

Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Articles 21 & 226-Unhygienic conditions
and nuisance caused by stray cattle of milk dairies in city-Public Interest
y- -
Litigation Writ Petition before High Court-Directions to State by High
c Court to remove cattle and relocate milk dairies out of the city-Alternative
lands allotted by State of dairies-Undertakings given by dairy owners to
shift their cattle and relocate their dairies-High Court directing District
Magistrate to comply with its directions when undertakings are not complied
with by dairy owners-Correctness of-Held, menace of stray cattle cannot
be allowed at the cost of health and decent living of residents of the city-
D ¥ilk dairies cannot question the decision of High Court after giving ~

undertakings-Hence, various interim directions issued ~

Milkmen were allotted plots concessionally in a city about fifty years
~~
back. Due to expansion of the city over the years, the milkmen colony now
E came to be situated in the heart of the city. The milkmen, after milching,
used to allow their cattle to stray around the city. A Public Interest
Litigation Writ Petition was filed before High Court by aggrieved residents
of the city contending that the stray cattle were causing danger to human
life and were creating a traffic hazard; that the entire city was full of cattle
and excreta of the stray cattle leading to stinking; that the excreta became
F Y.-
a breeding ground for various diseases; that, as a result, the drains not
clogged and sewerage water was getting mixed up with drinking water; that
these unhygienic and unhealthy conditions were adversely affecting their
quality of life and thereby impinging upon their constitutional rights i
·j
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A direction was
G sought from the High Court to relocate the milk dairies out of the city.

The High Court, entertaining the Wr~t Petition, issued various ~
interim directions to the State and its functionaries for removal of stray -r -
cattle from the city and relocation of the dairies outside the city. The State
H accordingly allotted lands for purpose of relocation and earmarked funds
1056
MILKMEN COLONY VIKAS SAMIT! v.STATE 1057

-~ to meet necessary expenses to carry out the directions of the High Court. A
Appellant-milkmen societies, got impleaded before the High Court and
contended that the alternative sites allotted by the State was a hilly area and
not suitable for their dairies. They undertook to shift their dairies once
suitable sites are given and make arrangements for preventing their cattle
from straying. When the milkmen failed to comply with the directions
despite given several opportunities, the High Court directed District B
' Magistrate to remove stray cattle from the city and shift them outside the
' -y city limits and to file a compliance report.

In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that the eviction from
their existing land, which were allotted by State after accepting allotment c
<. charges should be under law; that the alternative land allotted by the State
r,
was in a hilly area and that their cattle would not be able to survive in that
area; and that no rehabilitation facilities were provided by the State to
facilitate shifting of their cattle. The appellants, however, contended that
they are ready to shift to some other suitable area where the land was not
rocky and water was sufficiently available for their cattle. D

\ The State contended that they had complied with the orders of the
High Court by issuing necessary notifications, allotting alternative land
and earmarking funds for the purpose; that sufficient opportunities were
granted by the High Court to the appellants to shift their dairies and cattle E
from the city; that the appellants had given an undertaking to the High
Court to shift from the city within a specific period; and that the appellants
neither shifted their dairies and cattle nor deposited requisite amount with
the State despite giving their undertakings.

The respondent, who filed Writ Petition, contended that the Hig!J F
Court had to issue directions to the appellants when they were found
resiling from their undertakings given to the Court; and that the High
Court only directed to shift their dairies out of the city and did not give any
direction affecting ownership of the plots of the Milkmen.

Issuing interim directions, the Court G

HELD: 1.1. The menace by stray cattle has grown without any check
-)"
from the authorities in the city. The law-abiders are sufferers. All this has
happened at the ~ost of the health and decent living of the residents of the
i. city violating their constitutional rights enshrined under Article 21 of the H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R

A Constitution. The Government and its agencies have been negligent in ~-·

discharging of their functions and obligations. [Para 22) [1071-C-E]

Virender Gaur & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1995) 2 SCC 577;
Administrator, Nagar Palika v: Bharat & Ors., [2001) 9 SCC 232; MC.
Mehta v. Union of ln'dia & Ors., [2004) 6 SCC 588; State of Gujarat v.
B Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat & Ors., .[2005) 8 SCC 534; Milk
Producers Association, Orissa & Ors. v. State of Orissa & Ors., [2006) 3
SCC 229 and Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa, .,-
[2004] 8 sec 753, referred to.

c 1.2. It is the dire need of the city to relocate the milk dairies which
were creating nuisance for the citizens of the city. There is no illegality
in the directions of the High Court particularly when the High Court did
not give any directions affecting their ownership of the existing plots
though these plots of land were allotted to them on a highly concession rate
for a definite purpose and majority of the milkmen did not use the land for
D
the purpose it was allotted to them. [Para 25) [1072-F-G]
.
::(
1.3. The appellants had already undertaken before the High Court to
shift at the place earmarked by the State and have sought more time for
the said purpose. Even the extended period for shifting has lapsed a long
E time ago. Therefore, the decision of the State of relocating the milkmen to
a new site cannot be questioned at this belated stage particularly when the
State has taken the decision based on expert's advice in the larger public
interest. (Para 26) [1073-A-C]

Ramji Patel & Ors. v. Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak Manch & Ors.,
F
[2000) 3 sec 29, referred to. y··

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 246 of2007.

From the Judgment and Final Order dated 12.7.2004 of the High Court
G of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4409/
1994

WITH -(-

H C.A. No. 247 of2007.
MILKMEN COLONY VIKAS SAMIT! v. STATE [BHANDARI, J.] 1059
-~
Kailash Vasudev, A.M. Singhvi, Rajeev Dhawan, Mukul Rohtagi, A
Aruneshwar Gupta, Addi. Adv. Genl., Surya Kant, Sushi! Kumar Jain, H.D.
Thanvi, Sarad Singhania, Puneet Jain (for Pratibha Jain), Dr. Manish Singhvi
(for P.V. Yogeshwaran), A. Mariarputham, Mrs. Aruna Mathur, Ms. Mini N.
Nari (for M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co.), Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood,
N.M. Sharma, R.P. Singh, Manu Mridul and Anant Kumar Vatsya (for T.V.
Ratnam) for the appearing parties. B
-,, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. In a public interest litigation instituted under Article 226 of the c
Constitution, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, by the impugned
judgment, has directed that the milk dairies located in the city of Jodhpur
be shifted from their present location to alternative sites. These appeals by
grant of special leave are preferred against the said judgment and order
dated 12th July, 2004 of the High Court passed in D.B. Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.4409of1994.
D

3. Both these appeals are inter-connected and are arising out of a
common judgment, therefore, we would refer to the facts as mentioned in
Civil Appeal No. 246 of2007 arising out ofSLP (C) No.16751 of2004.

4. The appellant-Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti is an association of
E
milkmen engaged in the business of selling milk and milk products in the city
of Jodhpur (Rajasthan) .for the last 44 years. The Government of Rajasthan
vide Notification No.F.l LSG/56 dated 5.11.1956 introduced a scheme, namely,
'Masuriya Colony Scheme', under which the members of the appellant Samiti
~

y
and other milkmen, who were carrying on business of selling milk and milk F
products, were allotted plots of land in the city of Jodhpur @ Rs.2 per sq.
yards. In all, 332 plots were allotted by the Government under the said
scheme to different milkmen for developing dairies. Since 1956, the said
milkmen have bee'l carrying their business of selling milk and milk products
in the above colony. The said colony was duly conceived and planned as
a milkmen colony by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur with the G
approval of the State Government.

- l
5. It is stated that the owners of the bovine animals, in the city of
Jodhpur, after milching the bovine animals were turning them out of dairies
so that they could eat whatever was available on the roads. The stray cattle
H
1060 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.
i-
A including the cows, bulls, dogs etc. freely roam in the city of Jodhpur and
in the porch of the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, the principal government
hospital in the city. It is further stated that the excreta of these animals was
also visible all over, even in the corridors of the High Court. This totally
unhygienic, unhealthy and injurious practice was creating considerable
nuisance to the citizens of the city of Jodhpur.
B
6. The citizens of the City, being aggrieved by the said nuisance
caused by the stray cattle and dogs, filed a petition in public interest in the
High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur through the Rajasthan. Chapter of Indian
Association of Lav.ryers, respondent no.4 herein, associated with the
International Association of Democratic Lawyers established in 1946 and in
c consultative status with UN Economic and Social Council, UNESCO and
UNICEF.

7. In the instant petition, it was stated that stray animals, such as, bulls,
dogs and cattle were roaming all around inside and outside the city freely.
D Cattle were found loitering and squatting on the roads of Jodhpur City
and that they were causing danger to human life and were creating a
traffic hazard. lt is stated in the petition that the entire city was full of dirt,
refuge and was stinking beyond all limits· and that the excreta of stray cattle
was a breeding ground for various diseases. Drains were clogged and
sewerage water was getting mixed up with the drinking water spreading
E many diseases. These unhygienic and unhealthy prevalent conditions are
adversely affecting the quality_ of life of the residents living in the city of
Jodhpur and thereby impinging upon their constitutional rights enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the writ petition, following
reliefs were prayed:

F 1. To direct the respondent Jodhpur Municipal Corporation and
the Urban Improvement Trust to take steps to ensure that
animals and cattle do not inhibit roads and public places and
make proper arrangement in this behalf;

2. In order to oversee that all this is done, to appoint a Committee
G constituting of eminent citizens authorizing such Committee
to see:

(i) that the direction aforesaid are given effect to;

(ii) to receive complaints from the people; and
H
MILKMENCOLONYVIKASSAMITlv.STATE[BHANDARI,J.] 1061

--~ (iii) make appropriate directions to meet genuine grievances; A
and

(iv) the respondents be directed to comply with the direction
of the aforesaid committee in this behalf;

(v) to take immediate steps to make city clean, revamp B
sewerage system;

(vi) For above purposes, if necessary, the State Government
be directed to make funds available to respondent
Municipal Corporation.
c
It was stated before the High Court that with the passage of time,
Jodhpur City became very dense and, therefore, it was necessary to
eliminate the menace of stray animals from the roads of the city of Jodhpur.
It was also urged before the High Court that the milkmen colony when
devised was more or less outside the city but now it is in the heart of the
city because of expansion of the City. The main cause of expansion has been D
unchecked growth in the population. Therefore, a direction was sought to
relocate the dairies out of the city of Jodhpur.

8. The High Court entertained the writ petition and, looking to the
seriousness of the matter, issued certain directions, vide its order dated
23.1.2003, which are reproduced hereinbelow: E

(i) The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur shall make every
endeavour to shift dairies from the city and have them
relocated with the assistance of the State to the outskirts and
periphery of the city or beyond the city limits. F
(ii) The Municipal Corporation shall relocate stray cattle from the
roads to Gaushalas or institutions made for providing shelter
to stray cattle including the institutions at Pawapuri.

(iii) For the removal of stray cattle, bulls and dogs from the roads G
and for their relocation to shelter etc. the Municipal Corporation
shall press into service sufficient number of persons and
vehicles for impounding and relocating animals.

(iv) Cattle and animals located in Jodhpur City shall have a tag
number tied around their necks. The tag numbers should be H
1062 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] I S.C.R.

A indicative of the name and address of the person to whom the
animal belongs so that there will be no difficulty in tracing
their owners. This direction shall be carried out by the
person(s) owning the cattle and animal(s). The enforcement of
the condition shall be made by the civil authorities.

B (v) Prosecutions should be launched under the various penal
provisions against the owners of such cattle and animals
which are found. on the streets and roads unattended. 'f-

(vi) The Municipal Corporation shall employ sufficient number of
c persons to catch stray cattle and animals found on the roads
and streets. Once they are caught, they shall· be impounded
and may be released to owners on pay of fine of Rs.500 each
and subject to other directions mentioned herein.

(vii) The vehicles which are used for carrying impounded cattle
D and animals shall be fitted with ramps in order to avoid the
chances of injury to them.

(viii) The transit and handling of the stray cattle and animals will
be in conformity with the laws providing for their safety and
E prevention of injuries to them including Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals Act, 1960.

(ix) Electric supply to unauthorized dairies which are operating in
the city shall be disconnected with immediate effect.
F
(x) The direction of serial No. (ix) above shall also be applicable
-.
to the organized and unauthorized dairies located within the
city in the event of their failure to shift out of the city within
the time allowed to them by this order. The' place to which
such dairies are to be shifted shall be earmarked by the
G competent authority within three weeks.

(xO The Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur shall file statements
detailing the fine(s) collected by it in terms of directions given ..1_1>

4
at serial no. (vi) above.
'
H
MILKMENCOLONYVIKASSAMITiv.STATE[BHANDARI,J.) 1063

(xii) The roads of Jodhpur City shall be made free of stray cattle A
bulls and roaming animals by 31st March 2003.

(xiii) Periodical progress report shall be submitted by the Municipal
Corporation by 15th of each calendar month.

(xiv) The State Government shall assist the Municipal Corporation, B
Jodhpur in securing the implementation of the aforesaid
directions. This will include financial assistance, which would
be required by the Municipal Corporation of Jodhpur to carry
out the directions contained in this order effectively.
c
(xv) The Chief Execution Officer of the Municipal Corporation,
Jodhpur shall nominate two officers, who shall be responsible
for carrying out the directions of this Court.

Tne aforesaid directions will not only bind the Municipal Corporation
of Jodhpur, its functionaries and officers nominated by the Chief
D
Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, but it shall also be equally
binding on the State Government and its functionaries and electric
supply companies. Needless to say that failure on the part of the
concerned authorities and functionaries shall be actionable under
Article 215 of the Constitution and the Contempt of Courts Act, E
1971."

9. The aforesaid petition again came for consideration before the High
Court on 06.1.2004. On that day, the Court found that the Collector, Jodhpur
had complied with the orders and allotted 2500 bighas of land to the Urban F
Improvement Trust for the purpose of shifting dairies from the city of
Jodhpur. The State Government had also made a sum of Rs.50,00,000
available to the Municipal Corporation to meet the expenses of (i) catching
the stray cattle; (ii) for their transportation; and (iii) for purchase of fodder
for the stray cattle. The Collector further made 500 bighas of land available
to the Municipal Corporation in Kali Beri, Soor Sagar, Jodhpur for creation G
of a pond. The Court further issued the following directions:

"We direct that dairy owners/operators who were allotted the hmd
in the Milkmen Colony at Pal Road or who are now operating within
the city limits should be shifted to the new area which has been H
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] l S.C.R.

A made available by the Collector to the Urban Improvement Trust.
For this purpose, the Urban Improvement Trust shall provide 30
days to the dairy operators to apply for allotment of lands in the
new area. The dairy operators shall deposit the requisite amount
with the Urban Improvement Trust for allotment oflands in the new
area. In case, the dairy operators do not deposit the amount within
B the aforesaid 30 days, their dairies will be sealed by the Municipal
Corporation and the bovine animals shall be impounded.

The Municipal Corporation is also directed to develop the
pond in Kali Beri, Soor Sagar, Jodhpur within a period of two
c months from today. 75% of the requisite funds for development of
the pond shall be allocated by the State Government."

I 0. On l 0.2.2004, the High Court again heard the above matter when
the appellant Samiti herein was allowed to intervene in the matter being a
D necessary party. The learned counsel for the Samiti stated that the milkmen
colony was being shifted to Barli, which was a hilly area and which was not
a suitable place for b.ovine animals. However, the High Court rejected this
contention of the learned counsel for the Samiti by observing as under:

"We are told by the counsel for the respondents that the area in
E question has been selected after the experts had opined that the
land is suitable for the purpose of establishing the milkmen
colony. In the circumstances, therefore, we will not permit attempts
on the part of certain persons to stifle our order. The milkmen and
daily owners must shift to Barli and subsequently in case, it is
F found that there are some practical difficulties for them only in
that event the Collector can be asked to allot some other land to
them. It appears that there are a large number of milkmen and they
are entrenched in city. It is surprising that after milching the bovine
animals, the dairy owners tum them out so that they can eat
G whatsoever is available on the roads. Bovine animals in order to
satisfy their hunger even consume plastics. Once plastic goes in
their systems, it causes severe harm to them and some of them even
die. But this is not the concern of the dairy owners. Though people
consider cow as mother yet the treatment which is meted out to it
is extremely harsh and cruel. There is no justification whatsoever
H
t
MILKMEN COLONY VIKAS SAMITI v. STATE [BHANDARI, J.] 1065
-»
for the diary owners not to shift ji-om the city to the designate A
/
area.
(Emphasis supplied)

11. After passing the above order, the High Court adjourned the matter
to 11th March, 2004, on which date, the learned counsel appearing for
Municipal Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for milkmen made B
their statements. The order dated 11th March, 2004 reads thus:
-(
"Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation says
that pond is being created at Kali Beri within a period of six weeks.
Learned counsel appearing for the Milkmen says that the entire
Milkmen community will shift on their own to another site. He says
c
that his clients undertake to comply with the order passed by this
Court and shift from the present site within two weeks. In case, the
Milkmen do not comply with the undertaking, the Municipal
Corporation shall in compliance of the order seize the dairies."
D
12. The aforesaid matter once again came for hearing before the High
\ Court on 14.5.2004. On that day, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents sought some time so as to enable them to make arrangement
for preventing the cattle and bulls from moving on roads. They undertook
to do the following exercise:
E
"(i) all the bovine animals in Jodhpur shall have the tags in
consonance with the directions issued by the Court;

(ii) the work for construction of wall around the milkmen colony
. r shall be started in right earnest; F
(iii) that no bovine animals including bulls shall be seen on the
roads as the same shall be caught by the milkmen and handed
over to the Municipal Corporation."
"
13. Having cegard to the submissions of the learned counsel, the High G
Court granted 10 days time to the milkmen for doing the needful. The High
Court constituted a monitoring committee to evaluate the progress made by
the milkmen in preventing the animals from moving on the roads.

14. Finally, the aforesaid matter came up for hearing before the High
H
1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) I S.C.R.

A Court on 12th July 2004, when the High Court passed the impugned
order:

"We find that the order dated 14th May, 2004 has not been
complied with. The milkmen were provided sufficient opportunity to
shift from the city area as the bovine animals are creating nuisance
B in the city.

The District Magistrate is directed to see that the public
nuisance caused by the stray animals is removed and the bovine
animals are shifted outside the city limits in consonance with the
c order dated 6.1.2004. The District Magistrate shall file a compliance
report within two weeks. The Municipal Corporation shall assist the
District Magistrate in effecting the compliance of the order.

The Municipal Corporation and the U.I.T. shall be duty bound
to construct a pond and provide necessary facilities to the milkmen
D shifting to Barli."

15. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, these appeals have been
preferred before this Court.

E 16. In the appeals before this Court, certain issues have been raised.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the High Court
was not justified in issuing directions to evict milkmen from the land, which
was allotted to them by the Government for the purpose of milk dairies after
accepting allotment charges; that, the High Court was not justified in
passing an order of eviction of milkmen from the land, without following the
F
procedure established by law i.e. under the Land Acquisition Act or Public
Premises Act; that, the High Court was not justified in not appreciating the
fact that the land allotted for shifting of cattle and bulls of the milkmen was
located in a hilly area and no rehabilitation facilities were provided by the
authorities to facilitate the shifting of the cattle; and that, the High Court
G erred in not considering the fact that the Committee set up for monitoring
the progress made by the milkmen for preventing their cattle from coming
to the roads had failed to appreciate the genuine problems of shifting the
animals, especially in terms of the report of the specialist that Barli was a
hilly area and cows and other animals would not be able to survive. It was
H further argued that the milkmen were ready to shift out of milkmen colony
MILKMEN COLONY VIKAS SAMITI v. STATE [BHANDARI, J.] 1067

- -! if some suitable area was earmarked for them, where the land was not rocky A
and water was sufficiently available for their cattle. If such suitable site was
allotted to them, they would move to that place within such reasonable time
as may be granted by this Court. They would also deposit the amount as
per the directions of this Court. The learned counsel for the appellants urged
that that the State Government may be directed to allot suitable land located
at some other place in Jodhpur City like in Salawas, Old Pali Road in place B
_, ofBarli.
-y
17. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan
stated that the order passed by the High Court was just and fair and the
same had been passed after carefully appreciating all the circumstances and c
interest of all sections of the residents of Jodhpur. The milkmen were
provided sufficient opportunity to shift from the city of Jodhpur. It was
stated that the members of the appellant Samiti were allotted plots at nominal

- rates for construction of milk dairies way back in 1956. There was a condition
in the letter of allotment that the allottees shall carry out constructions
according to the type design issued to them. However, no construction in D
accordance with the type design was carried out by the milkmen. Most of
) the milkmen had constructed houses and shops in the plots meant for milk
dairies. The milkmen were leaving their cattle stray on the roads, which were
leading to public nuisance, accidents etc. It was further argued that a bare
perusal of the various orders passed by the High Court would make it clear E
that sufficient opportunities were granted to the milkmen to shift from the
city of Jodhpur and a specific undertaking was also given on their behalf
before the High Court that they would shift from the city of Jodhpur within
a specific period. However, they neither shifted from the area nor deposited
the requisite amount with the Government. On the other hand, the Government

- r
had already developed a pond at the site as per directions of the High Court.
The plea of the appellant Samiti was without any basis that the land could
not be developed so far.
F

18. The learned counsel for the State further drew our attention
towards the public notice dated 20.7.2004 issued by the Office of Municipal G
Corporation, Jodhpur and notification dated 23. 7.2004 issued by· Urban
Improvement Trust, Jodhpur, which read as under:

"Office of Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur. No. Writ/Stray Cattle/
04/S.P.3
H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R.

A Dated: 20.7.2004

PUBLIC NOTICE

In the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur, a Writ
Petition No. 4409/94 relating to stray cattle is pending for
B consideration. In this writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court has
passed the orders from time to time in which it has found that in
Jodhpur city on roads, ways in colonies, bastis etc., the cattle
y-
wander in stray condition. In this connection, the Hon'ble High
Court has given orders to the Town Development Trust that in the
city for cattle dairies in Barli area plots should be allotted in which
c the cattle dairies which are at present in city should be shifted in
that area. For this purpose, the owner of the cattle should get the
certificate of owner of the cattle/guardian of the cattle and then an
application should be submitted for allotment of plot by these
persons in the Town Development Trust. Some persons have given
~-
D such applications for allotment of plot and out of them the plots
have been allotted by the trust on 6.1.2004. The Hon'ble High Court
has passed the orders to shift the dairy owners who are in the city
at present and also to apply for allotment of plots by giving
l
application to the Town Development Trust. This order has been
issued to the corporation that those cattle owners who are not
E shifting their dairies out of the city should be sealed. The Hon'ble
High Court on 12.7.2004 has passed the order that all the owners
of the animal husbandry should be transferred out of the city.
Therefore, it is requested to all the cattle owners that they should
transfer/shift their animals within 7 days from the receipt of this
F notice out of the boundary of Municipal Corporation failing which
the proceedings with the help of District {\.dministration to transfer/ y• •
shift their animals outside the boundary of corporation and expenses
to be recovered from the owners of the animals. The proceedings
for contempt of court order shall also be started against them.
...__

G Sd/- Chief Executive Officer
Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur"

"Office of Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur.

No. 1348
H
MILKMEN COLONYVIKAS SAMITI v.STATE [BHANDARI, J.] 1069

Dated: 23.7.2004 A
NOTIFICATION

It is informed to all the animal husbandry holders that in the
implementation of the Hon'ble High Court order the scheme has
been prepared by the trust which is in New/Nai Milkmen colony at
village Barli in Kharas No.88, for which the application form should B
be filled after obtaining from the trust office within 7 days. These
forms should be submitted in the office of the trust for which the
proceedings of the distribution of plots shall be started for the
animal husbandry holders. The terms and conditions of the allotment
of the plots are given as below. C
I. The certificate of animal husbandry of the applicant, which
should be certified by the corporation of Jodhpur and it is
necessary that this certificate should be attached with the
application form.
D
2. The demand draft of Rs.1000 (One Thousand Rupees) as an
earnest money should be attached in the name of Secretary,
Town Development Trust, Jodhpur.

3. The whole amount should be deposited after obtaining the E
order of the allotment of the plot within 30 days. An allotment
will be done at the reserved rate.

4. In this scheme, the cancellation of the comer plots will not be

-
done. The execution rules of 1974 of Rajasthan Town
Development will be applied on the allotments. F

..
5. The use of the allotted plot will be done only for animal
husbandry and the work regarding transferring the animal
husbandry should be started as early as possible in his
allotted plot by the allottee. G
Sd/- Secretary
Town Development Trust, Jodhpur"

In the background of the above notifications, the learned counsel
appearing for the State stated that the respondent State Government had H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) I S.C.R.

A complied with the orders of the High Court. The members of the appellant
Samiti were not complying with the orders of the High Court and, therefore,
no interference was called for in the impugned orders of the High Court.

19. Respondent No.4, Rajasthan Chapter of Indian Association of
Lawyers, who filed the writ petition in the High Court, also sought dismissal
B of the present appeals on the ground that the appellant Samiti itself chose
to undertake before the High Court that the milkmen were willing to shift
y-
their d"iries from the milkmen colony and that for this purpose, the milkmen
repeatedly sought time from the High Court. The High Court found the
milkmen resiling from their undertakings that they were ready to shift from
c the city of Jodhpur and thereafter the High Court issued certain directions
to the Government to comply with its earlier orders regarding shifting of milk
dairies from the city of Jodhpur. It was only after these directions that the
milkmen have come to this Court. It was further argued that the High Court
had nowhere said that the milkmen would be deprived of the plots allotted
to them. Only the dairies had been directed to be shifted out of the city of
D Jodhpur. The High Court never gave any direction affecting ownership of
the plots of the milkmen in the milkmen colony, which now fall in the heart
of the city after expansion. The High Court's dit'ections are based on larger
public interest and protection of clean a.nd healthy environment.

E 20. In Virender Gaur & Others v. State of Haryana & Others reported
in [1995) 2 SCC 577, referring to principle No. I of Stockholm Declaration of
United Nations on Human Environment, 1972, this Court observed that right
to have living atmosphere congenial to human existence is a right to life. The
State has a duty in that behalf and to shed its extravagant unbridled
sovereign power and to forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance and
F hygienic environment. Where in the Zonal plan, a land is marked out and
reserved for park or recreational purpose, it cannot be allotted for building
purpose though housing is a public purpose. Further, it was observed that
though the Government has power to give directions, that power should be
used only to effectuate and further goals of the approved scheme, Zonal
G plans etc. and the land vested under the Scheme or reserved under the plan
would not be directed to be used for any other public purposes within the
area envisaged thereunder.

21. While it is true that the High Court has directed the relocation of
the milk dairies from the city of Jodhpur on the grounds mentioned above
H
MILKMEN COLONY VIKAS SAMIT! v. STATE [BHANDARI, J.] 1071

and the same may cause some inconvenience to a set of people of the A
Society but the sole aim, object and spirit of the order was to meet the
community need. Clean surroundings lead to healthy body and healthy
mind. The public interest has to be understood and interpreted in the light
of the entire scheme, purpose and object of the enactment. The hazard to
health and environment of not only the persons residing in the illegal
colonization area but of the entire town as well as the provision and scheme B
of the Act have to be taken into consideration. [See: Administrator, Nagar
Palika v. Bharat & Others reported in [2001] 9 SCC 232.]

22. From the facts set out above and on hearing the rival contentions
of the parties, avowedly, the menace by stray cattle has grown without any c
check from the authorities in the city of Jodhpur. The plots meant for
developing milk dairies have become large commercial houses. The manner
in which such large-scale violations continue leaves no doubt that it was
not possible without the connivance of those who are required to ensure
compliance with law and the reasons are obvious. Such activities result in
putting extra load on the infrastructure. The entire planning has gone D
haywire. The law-abiders are sufferers. All this has happened at the cost of
the health and decent living of the residents of the city violating their
constitutional rights enshrined under Article 2 J of the Constitution. The
Government and its agencies have been negligent in discharging of their
functions and obligations. Inaction by the Government amounts to indirectly E
permitting unauthorized use which amounts to the amendment of the master
plan without following due procedure. [See: MC. Mehta v. Union of India
& Others reported in [2004] 6 SCC 588].

23. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat &
Others reported in [2005] 8 sec 534, this Court held as under: F
"176. ... The court should guard zealously Fundamental Rights
guaranteed to the citizens of the society, but at the same time strike
a balance between the Fundamental Rights and the larger interests
of the society. But when such right clashes with the larger interest
of the country it must yield to the latter. Therefore, wherever any
G
enactment is made for advancement of Directive Principles and it
runs counter to the Fundamental Rights an attempt should be made
to harmonise the same if it promotes larger public interest."

24. In Milk Producers Association, Orissa & Others v. State of Orissa H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R

A & Others reported in [2006] 3 sec 229, this Court considered the question -y- .
of town planning and removal of encroachment by the milk dairies. In that
case, this Court considered the law as laid down by this Court in its earlier
decisions. The relevant para is q~1oted as under:

"17. The question came up for consideration, in Friends Colony
B Development Committee v. State ofOrissa reported in [2004] 8 SCC
733, wherein this Court observed:

" ... The individuals as property owners have to pay
some price for securing peace, good order, dignity, protection
c and comfort and safety of the community. Not only filth,
stench and unhealthy places have to be eliminated, but the
layout helps in achieving family values, youth values, seclusion
and clean air to make the locality a better place to live.
Building regulations also help in reduction or elimination of
fire hazards, the avoidance of traffic dangers and the lessening
D of prevention of traffic congestion in the streets and roads.
Zoning and building regulations are also legitimised from the
point of view of the control of community development, the
prevention of overcrowding of land, the furnishing of
recreational facilities like parks and playgrounds and the
E availability of adequate water, sewerage and other governmental
or utility services."

25. On careful consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of
the parties and the case law as discussed above, we are of the opinion that
F the High Court was fully justified in entertaining the writ petition filed in
public interest. The High Court rightly opined that it is the dire need of the
city of Jodhpur to reiocate the milk dairies which were creating nuisance for
the citizens of the city of Jodhpur. We do not find any illegality in the
directions of the High Court particularly when the High Court did not give
any directions affecting their ownership of the existing plots though these
G plots of land were allotted to them on a highly concession rate (Rs.2 per
square yard) for a definite pµrpose and majority of the milkmen did not use
the land for the purpose it was allotted to them.

26. Now what remains to be dealt with is the plea raised by the appellants
H regarding relocation of the milk dairies on any site other than Barli. We are of
(

MILKMEN COLONY VIKAS SAMIT! v. ST ATE lBHANDARI, J.] 1073

-I
the opinion that the appellm1t Samiti cannot take this plea at a belated stage. A
(' The milkmen have already undenaken before the High Court to shift at the
place earmarked by the Government ofRajasthan and have sought more time
for the said purpose. Even the extended period for shifting has lapsed a long
time ago. The Government of Rajasthan has earmarked and allotted the land
on expe1ts' advice. In view of the directions of the High Court, the Government
ofRajasthan has already provided basic amenities at the New Milkmen Colony.
B
The plots have been allotted to a number of milkmen in view of the notification
-y issued by the State Government. The Government is the best judge of what
is good for the community. Therefore, the decision of the Government of
relocating the milkmen to a new site can not be questioned at this stage
particulariy when the State Government has taken the decision based on c
expert's advice in the larger public interest.

27. It has been submitted on behalf of the State Government that the
State has taken all steps in pursuance to the directions of the High Court
and has made available 2500 bighas of land to the Urban Improvement Trust,
Jodhpur for the purpose of shifting dairies from the city of Jodhpur. The
D
State Government has also made available a sum of Rs.50,00,000 to the
""r Municipal Corporation to meet the expenses-

(i) catcl~ing the stray cattle;
E
(ii) for their transportation; and

(iii) for purchase of fodder for the stray ca:tle.

The Collector, Jodhpur has further made 500 bighas of land available to the
F
Municipal Corporation in Kali Beri, Soor Sagar, Jodhpur for creati01, of a
f pond. The land and the money made available by the respondent State
should be meticulously used for the same purpose.

28. In Ramji Patel & Others v. Nagrik Upbhokta Marg Darshak
{ Manch & Others reported in [2000) 3 SCC 29, this Court has laid down that G
in a situation where the interest of the community is involved, the individual
interest must yield to the interest of the community or the general public.

~-~
29. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
carefully perused the orders passed by the High Court from time to time. H
~
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R.

A In our considered view, no interference is called for in the impugned ~ _
judgment. )

30. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case; in the larger interest of the citizens of Jodhpur, we issue the
following directions:
B
1. We direct the dairy owners/operators who were allotted land in
the milkmen colony at Pal Road, but are still continuing to operate
within the city limit to shift to a new colony which has been made
available to them by the respondent State as expeditiously as
c possible and in any event on or before 3 lst March, 2007;

2. The other milk dairy owners/operators who are running the
dairies and keeping their cattle in the city of Jodhpur but have not
been allotted land shall also shift their dairies and their cattle
outside the city of Jodhpur on or before 30th April, 2007. The
D respondent State of Rajasthan and the Municipal Corporation at
.Todhpur are directed to ensure that necessary facilities and
infrastructure as directed by the Division Bench to the dairy
owners/operators are provided, if not already provided;

3. The Municipal Corporation of Jodhpur is directed to remove
E unattended stray animals, such as, stray cattle, bulls, dogs, pigs
etc. from the city of Jodhpur as expeditiously as possible and in
any event on or before 30th April, 2007;

4. The respondent State Government is directed to frame guidelines
F regarding proper use of plastic bags in the State because.number
of deaths of cattle on account of consuming of plastic bags have
been reported. The State Government is directed to frame necessary
guidelines on or before 3 lst March, 2007;

5. The Municipal Corporation is directed to ensure that used plastic
G bags and other plastic materials must be separated from other
garbage and destroyed to prevent their consumption by cattle,
bulls and other animals;

6. The respondent State Government and the Corporation are directed
to ensure that the basic infrastructure is made available to the milk
H
MILKMENCOLONYVIKASSAMITiv.STATE[BHANDARI,J.] 1075

dairy owners/operators as expeditiously as possible and in any A
event on or before 25th March, 2007;

7. In order to ensure meticulous compliance of the directions of this
Court and that of the High Court and to ensure relocation of the
milk dairies, we direct the Committee appointed by the High Court . B
to submit compliance report on or before 7th May, 2007.

31. These appeals to be listed for further directions on 14th May, 2007.

B.S. Appeals adjourned for 14.5.2007.

-
,,,