IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) No. 000422 OF 2017

ALL INDIA JAMIATUL QURESH ACTION COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MOHAMMED ABDUL FAHEEM ADVOCATE $\dots$ PETITIONER

VERSUS

......RESPONDENT

UNION OF INDIA

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) No. 000419 OF 2017

WRIT PETITION (C) No. 499 OF 2017

WRIT PETITION (C) No. 497 OF 2017

ORDER

The challenge through the bunch of writ petitions, which 1. are the subject matter of consideration, is to the validity of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (Regulation of Live Stocks, Markets) Rules, 2017, and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017. Both above Rules, we are informed, were challenged before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which has stayed the operation of the said Rules. Mr.P.S.Narasimha, learned Additional

Solicitor General, informs this Court, that the Union of India is not seeking modification of the aforestated interim order. We accordingly record the statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General. We understand the position to be that the interim order shall apply across the whole country.

2. It is also the contention of the Union of India, that a large number of representations depicting the allegedly unworkable and unacceptable provisions of the Rules have been received, and a number of writ petitions have been filed in different High Courts, besides those which have been filed before this Court. It is pointed out, that the issues of challenge raised in the representations and writ petitions are the subject matter of a fresh consideration by the Government of India. It is pointed out, that the Ministry of Environment and Forests, is presently seized of the matter, and after an appropriate determination, changes if any, as may be considered appropriate will be introduced after which the amended Rules, shall be re-notified. We record the above statement made to this Court on behalf of the Government of India.

3. We are of the view and accordingly direct that as and when the amended Rules are notified, sufficient time be granted to all stake holders before they are implemented, so that they have a sufficient opportunity, if aggrieved, to assail them in consonance with law.

4. In the above view of the matter, as of now, we find no justification to retain these writ petitions on our board. The same

2

are accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

.........................CJI. (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

..........................J. (Dr.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD)

NEW DELHI; JULY 11, 2017.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).000422/2017

ALL INDIA JAMIATUL QURESH ACTION COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT MOHAMMED ABDUL FAHEEM ADVOCATE Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)

(FOR INTERVENTION APPLICATION ON IA 47244/2017 and IA No.54315/2017-INTERVENTION APPLICATION) With WRIT PETITION (C)No.000419 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION (C)No.499 OF 2017 WRIT PETITION (C)No.497 OF 2017

Date : 11-07-2017 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD

For Petitioner(s) Mr.Salman Khurshid, Sr.Adv. Mr.Rajnish Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr.Sanobar Ali Qureshi, Adv. Mr.Rajnish Jha, Adv. Mr.Gaurav Yadava, Adv. Ms.Lubna Naaz, Adv. Ms.Kunika, Adv. Mr.Pulkit Tare, Adv. Ms.Tehsina Hussain, Adv. Mr.Vahid Mansoor Mirza, Adv. Md.Abdul Faheem Qureshi, Adv. Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr.Adv. Ms.Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr.Sanobar Ali, Adv.

Mr.Shoeb Alam, Adv. Mr.Abdul Faheem, Adv. Mr.Tejasvi Goel, Adv.

In WP(C)419/17 Mr.V.K.Biju, Adv.

Mr.Deepak Prakash, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr.P.S.Narsimha, ASG Mr.A.K.Sinha, Sr.Adv. Dr.Nishesh Sharma, Adv. Ms.Saroopma Chaturvedi, Adv.

Mr.Vikramjeet Banerjee, Adv. Mr.A.Thanvi, Adv. Ms.Alankrita Sinha, Adv. Mr.M.K.Maroria, Adv. Mr.Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr.Gurmeet Singh Makkar, Adv. Mr.Venkatramani, Sr.Adv. Mr.Aditya Singh, Adv. Ms.Supriya Juneja, AOR Mr.Chander Uday Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr.P.V.Surendra Nath, Sr.Adv. Mr.P.V.Dinesh, Adv. Mr.Subhash Chandran K.R., Adv. Ms.Resmitha R.Chandran, Adv. Mr.Deepak Prakash, Adv. Mr.Biju P Raman, AOR In IA 54315/17 Ms.Aparna Bhat, Adv. Mr.Mayank Sapra, Adv. Mr.Asad Alvi, Adv. Ms.Saba Atri, Adv. Mr.Faiz Rizvi, Adv. Mr.Satya Mitra, AOR Mr.Kuriakose Verghese, Adv. Mr.V. Shyamohan, Adv. Mr.Surya Prakash, Adv. Mr.Puneet Jain, Adv. Mr.Abhinav Gupta, Adv. Ms.Pratibha Jain, AOR(NP) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R In view of the directions given, we find no justification to retain these writ petitions on our board. The same are accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to the above, pending

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RENUKA SADANA) AR-CUM-PS ASST.REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)

interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.