MILKMEN COLONY VIKAS SAMITI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1056 · Decided: 17-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

MILKMEN COLONY VIKAS SAMITI 
+-
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
JANUARY 17, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
-
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 21 & 226-Unhygienic conditions 
y-
and nuisance caused by stray cattle of milk dairies in city-Public Interest 
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 
D 
be allowed at the cost of health and decent living of residents of the city-
¥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 
F 
and excreta of the stray cattle leading to stinking; that the excreta became 
a breeding ground for various diseases; that, as a result, the drains not 
Y.-
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 
B 
' 
despite given several opportunities, the High Court directed District 
' 
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 
D 
rocky and water was sufficiently available for their cattle. 
\ 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.