w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh & Another v/s State


Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109JK2000PTC002046

Company & Directors' Information:- AKHIL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC098902

Company & Directors' Information:- E KRISHI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC125784

    Civil Writ Petn. No. 6 of 2000

    Decided On, 27 January 2000

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.S. KOKJE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YAMIN

    For the Petitioner: M.S. Singhvi, Advocate. For the Respondent: J.S. Choudhary, Hemant Choudhary, Ashok Chhangani, Kusum Rao, Advocates.



Judgment Text

V.S. Kokje, J.

1. The petitioners Akhil Bharat Krishi Goseva Sangh and Akhil Bhartiya Shri Jain Ratna Yuvak Sangh had filed this petition in public interest against the State of Rajasthan. The Director General of Police (Crime), Jaipur. The Collector, Nagaur. The Station House Officer, Police Station Merta City, Gram Sevak, Gram Panchayat Anandpur Kalu. Panchayat Samiti Jaitaran, District Pali and the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Jodhpur complaining about illegal transportation of Bovine animals in violation of the Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and the Rules framed thereunder, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 4th January, 2000 a notice was directed to be issued to the respondents as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and disposed of at the stage of admission. An interim stay order as prayed was also granted subject to the condition that the Cows will be maintained at the cost of the petitioners. When the petition came up on 13th January, 2000 as many as 46 persons moved a joint application for being impleaded as party respondents on the ground that the subject matter cattle belonged to them and they were validly exporting the same outside the State. The application was allowed and they were allowed to be impleaded as party respondents. The case was finally heard with the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioners complained that bovine animals were being taken out of the State of Rajasthan in violation of the Act with the active co-operation of the officers of the State. The petitioners cited a specific instance of animals purchased by the exporters at the Animal Fair held at Anandpur Kalu, a village of Panchayat Samiti Jaitaran District Pali. It is alleged that a large number of cows were purchased by the exporters for taking the animals to Bihar for slaughtering. It is contended that the cows are ostensibly purchased for use in agricultural operation, but infact they are exported out of Rajasthan for taking them to Bangladesh and from their to Gulf Countries for slaughtering. It is contended that under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder bovine animal can only be taken out of the State for a specific purpose provided by the Act and after following the specific procedure provided by the Rules. It is alleged that without following the prescribed procedure more than 3000 cattle were sought to be exported by showing completion of formalities on just one day i.e. 5-12-99. It is also contended that under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder the person granting permit for export has to be satisfied that export would not bring down the cattle population below the requirement of the area.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the formalities required by the Act and the Rules were completed before permits were granted for the export and the export was for agricultural purpose only and not for slaughtering. It was contended on behalf of the owners of the cattle that they have invested huge sums in a legitimate trade in which they purchase the cattle in Rajasthan where surplus cattle are available and transport them to other States mainly Bihar for being sold in fairs held there for sale and purchase of cattle for agricultural purposes. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the owners of the cattle that there is no evidence of the cattle being taken out for the purpose of slaughtering. They also expressed their willingness to abide by any conditions which may be imposed for taking the cattle out of Rajasthan.

4. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. It would be proper to first examine the legal provisions governing the export of bovine animals from Rajasthan. In furtherance of the directive principle of State Policy contained in Article 48 of the Constitution which expects the State to endeavour to organise agricultural and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and expects the State to take steps for preserving and improving the breeds and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle, the State Legislature of Rajasthan enacted the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of temporary Migration or Export) Act 1995 and framed Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Rules, 1995. Section 2(b) of the Act defines a "Bovine animal" to mean and include Cow, Calf, Heifer, Bull or Bullock. Section 2(e) defines "Calf" to mean a castrated or uncastrated male of the age of three years and below belonging to the species of bovine animal.

5. Section 5 of the Act provides for prohibition of export of bovine animal for the purpose of slaughter and regulation of temporary migration or export for other purposes. Sub-sections (1) and (7) of Section 5 of the Act are relevant for the purpose and are reproduced hereunder :-

Sub-section (1):- No person shall export and cause to be exported any bovine animal himself or through his agent, servant or other person acting in his behalf from any place within the State to any place outside the State for the purposes of slaughter or with the knowledge that it may be or is likely to be slaughtered.

Sub-section (7):- The Competent Authority may issue special permit in the prescribed manner for export of bovine animal from Rajasthan for agricultural dairy farming purposes or for participation in a cattle fair, and before granting such permission the Competent Authority shall also ensure that such export in no way reduces the number of such bovine animal below the level of actual requirement of the local area.

6. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act provides minimum punishment of six months and maximum punishment of 5 years with fine which may extend up to Rs. 5000/- as punishment for contravention of the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. Section 11 provides that where any person is prosecuted for an offence under the provisions of the Act, the burden of proof that he had not committed the offence under the provisions of the Act shall be on him. The Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter called "the Rules") provide for special permits for export of cattle for specified purpose. Rule 4 provides for special permit to export bovine animal for agricultural or dairy farming purposes, whereas Rule 5 provides for special permit for participation in cattle fairs. Rule 4 is relevant for our purpose as it is claimed by the respondents that the export is for agriculture purposes. Rule 4 is reproduced hereunder :-

"Rule 4:- Special permit to export for agriculture or dairy farming purposes:- (1) Any person seeking permission to export of Bovine Animal under sub-section (7) of Section 5 of the Act from any place within the State of Rajasthan to any place outside the State for agriculture or dairy farming purposes shall apply to Competent Authority in Form 2 for the grant of special permit.

(2) On receipt of the application in Form 2, the Competent Authority shall insure that such export in no way reduces the number of such bovine animal below the actual requirement of the local area.

(3) After satisfying about the genuineness of the application the Competent Authority may issue order to the concerned Veterinary Officer to examine the health of the Bovine Animal and to affix permanent identification mark over the body of the said animal.

(4) The Veterinary Officer shall issue certificate in Form 4 and affix permanent identification mark over the body of the bovine animal.

(5) The Competent Authority after satisfying that the bovine animals shall only be used for agriculture or dairy farming purposes may issue special permit.

(6) The Competent Authority shall issue special permit in Form 6 giving complete details about the animals and place where the animal are proposed to be exported."

7. In prescribed Form 2 information has to be given as to the (1) Kind and number of Animal, (2) Name and address of the person from whom Animals were purchased/received, (3) Reason for seeking permit, (4) Name and address of the person who will keep the animals outside the State of Rajasthan and (5) Probable day and date of export. A certificate has to be given in the prescribed form No. 4 in which details as to the (1) Kind of Animal, age, sex, breed, (2) If female, whether it is pregnant/lactating/dry, (3) Natural identification marks, permanent identification marks, Vaccination record etc. The certificate has to be given as to whether the animal is fit for migration or export for agriculture or dairy farming purpose. The Veterinary Officer has to put his signature with seal on the certificate. A bare reading of this Form No. 4 shows that the certificate has to be in respect of each animal and has to be given separately for each animal. The permit has to be given in the prescribed Form No. 6. The permit has to contain the information as to kind of animal, number of animals, identification marks (as per the health certificate), the date of issue of permit, name and address of the person from whom animals purchased/received, name and address of person to whom the animals are being exported.

8. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that whosoever desires to take Bovine animal outside the State of Rajasthan for agriculture or dairy farming purposes has to apply in Form No. 2. On receipt of the application the Competent Authority has to insure that such export in no way reduces the number of such bovine animal below the actual requirement of the local area. After satisfying about the genuineness of the application, the Competent Authority has to issue order to the concerned Veterinary Officer to examine the health of the Bovine animal and to affix permanent identification marks over the body of the said animal. After examining the Bovine animal, the Veterinary Officer has to issue a certificate in Form No. 4 and affix permanent identification mark over the body of the Bovine animal. After the certificate is obtained, the Competent Authority after satisfying that the Bovine Aninals shall only be used for agriculture or dairy farming purposes may issue special permit in Form No. 6 giving complete details about the animals and place where the animals are proposed to be exported.

9. In the present case the procedure followed is clearly not in accordance with the Rules. Cyclostyled forms have been used in which on one single sheet Form No. 3, Form No. 4 and the certificate are printed. Actually, the forms also do not correspond to the prescribed forms. Applications are not in Form No. 2 and they do not contain the information required in Form No. 2. The applications do not mention the name and address of the persons from whom the animals were purchased/received. They do not contain name and address of the person who will keen the animals outside the State of Rajasthan. Probable day and date of export has also not been mentioned in any of the applications.

10. The provisions of sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4 have also not been followed. After receipt of the application, before asking the Veterniary Officer to examine the animals, the Competent Authority has not insured that the export would not bring the population of such animals in the area below requirement of the area. No satisfaction about the genuineness of the application was recorded and in fact no order was issued to the Veterinary Officer to examine the animals and to put permanent identification marks on them.

11. The certificate given by the Veterinary Officer in this case does not conform to Form No. 4 prescribed by the Rules. Firstly it does not show that each of the animal covered by the certificate was examined by the Veterinary Officer. The application was for 40 Bovine animals and all of them were certified to be fit by the Veterinary Officer in a single certificate without specifying the kind of animal, the age, sex and breed of the animal, the condition of female animal as to whether pregnant, lactating or dry, their national identification marks and vaccination record. The certificate given is also to the effect that the animal was healthy and fit for agriculture use, whereas it should have been as to whether the animal was fit for export for agriculture or dairy farming purposes. The certificate given by the Competent Authority does not even state that it is given by the Competent Authority, it is given by Gram Sevak Ex-officio Secretary Gram Panchayat Anandpur Kalu. Thus sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 was also not complied with.

12. The Competent Authority has not arrived at, and recorded, his satisfaction that the bovine animals shall only be used for agriculture or dairy farming purposes before proceeding to issue permits. The permits issued are also not in the prescribed Form No. 6. They are only certificates that the applicants have purchased the cattle from cattle fair at Anandpur Kalu on 4-12-99 for agriculture purposes and permission is granted to take the cattle outside Rajasthan. Form No. 6 requires the kind of animal, number of animals, identification mark of animal(s) as per the health certificate to be specified. The number and date of health certificate has also to be mentioned. Date of issue of permit, name and address of the person from whom the animals purchased/received from has to be stated and name and address of the person to whom the animals are to be exported has also to be stated. A seal of the Office has to be affixed to the permit and signature with designation of the Competent Authority has to be affixed. All this has not been done. Thus sub-rules (5) and (6) of Rule 4 have also been not complied.

13. Thus, neither the applications for export of Bovine animals conform to Form No. 2 nor the Veterinary Officer has given the certificate in Form No. 4 and the permit is also not in prescribed form No. 6. The Veterinary Officer and the Competent Authority have clearly by-passed the procedure prescribed by law in granting certificates and permission for export of Bovine Animal. The Veterinary Officer could not have issued any health certificate without a requisition from the Competent Authority in the prescribed form. He could not have certified a group of cattle as fit for agriculture purpose. He had to examine on requisition by the Competent Authority each and every Bovine animal and to give certificate in the prescribed form in respect of each of the Bovine Animal examined by him. General certificate to a group of animals is not contemplated by the Rules. Likewise the Competent Authority has failed to perform his duties under the Act and the Rules. He could not have acted on applications which were not in prescribed form and which did not contain the information required to be given in the prescribed form. He failed to insure that the export would not bring down the population of the animals of concerned species below the requirement of the area. He could not have acted on the certificate of the Veterinary Officer which was given without requisition from him and which was not in the prescribed form and which did not contain information required to be given in the prescribed form. He could not have acted on a general certificate given by the Veterinary Officer in respect of a group of Bovine animals. He also could not have himself issued a permit without first satisfying himself that the Bovine animals sought to be exported shall only be used for agriculture or dairy farming purposes. He could not have issued permits which were not in conformity with the Form No. 6, the prescribed form for the permit and could not have permitted the Bovine animal to be exported without a proper permit in Form No. 6 containing all the information required to be stated in Form No. 6.

14. The material placed on record by the parties would show that the Competent Authority the Gram Sevak and the Veterinary Officer have acted most callously in the discharge of their duties. In case of several applicants for export of Bovine animals it was pointed out that their affidavits in this Court bear their signatures whereas the applications said to have been made before the Competent Authority for export of Bovine Animal bear Thumb impressions. In fact there is not a single application produced in the Court as Annex. 2 to the petition which bears signatures of any of the applicants, whereas several of them have filed affidavits in this Court with their photographs duly affixing their signatures on the affidavit and not Thumb impression. It is also likely that forged thumb impressions have been used in the matter and a fraud has been played upon the Competent Authority. Since the matter is already being investigated by the police on F.I.R. lodged by Akhil Bhartiya Shri Jain Ratna Yuvak Sangh one of the petitioners in this case we would expect the Investigating Officer to investigate the case from this angle also.

15. It was also argued that the permission granted for export was in relation to calves i.e. castrated or uncastrated male of the age of three years and below belonging to the species of bovine animal. It was contended that not a single Bull or Bullock or Cow is sought to be exported but only calves were sought to be exported who are unfit for agricultural use immediately. It is contended on behalf of the respondents including Government Officer respondents that bovine animals not fit for agricultural work at present but which can be used for that purpose in future could also be exported. This is not acceptable. When the Law requires the Competent Authority to satisfy himself that the animals shall only be used for agricultural or dairy farming purposes before issuing permits it talks about the present and not about a distant future. How can a person know whether a Calf exported would be used for agriculture purpose after it is grown up. How can any one know whether it would be allowed to grow up or slaughtered before becoming fit for agricultural use. Certificate to be issued by Veterinary Officer in Form 4 also requires him to certify that the animal is fit for export for agricultural or dairy farming purpose. He is not required to predict or prophesy as to whether the animal would become fit for agricultural purpose on being grown up. The Competent Authority has to satisfy himself in presenti and not in futuro that the export will not result in bringing down the population of the bovine animal sought to be exported below the requirement of the area. It is therefore clear that the Act and the rules do not permit calves to be exported out of Rajasthan on the excuse of their being used after export for agricultural or dairy farming purposes in future after they grow up. The Competent Authority under the Act cannot therefore entertain any application for export of calves and heifers out of Rajasthan on the ground that they would be used for agriculture or dairy farming purposes. The application (Annex. 2) deserved to be rejected outright on this ground alone without being processed further.

16. There was also a feeble attempt to suggest that the animals were being taken out of Rajasthan for being exhibited in fairs held in Bihar. However, the application for permission to export do not bear this out and in that case the animals would have to be brought back to the State. There is no such undertaking given by the applicants. The contention has therefore to be rejected.

17. Before parting with the case we express our shock at the manner in which the Act and the Rules are being implemented by the State Govt. and its officers. Legislature when it enacted the definition of Competent Authority could never have contemplated that a Ministerial Officer like Gram Sevak of a Panchayat could entrusted with the functions of Competent Authority under the Act handing over the implementation of the Act to a lowly placed official. Section 2(g) of the Act defines Competent Authority as follows :-

"2(g) Competent Authority means Collector of a District and includes any other officer who may be authorised in this behalf by the State Govt. by notification in the Official Gazette to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Competent Authority under this Act or the rules made thereunder for such area or areas and for such period as may be specified in the notification."

18. It is clear that Collector of a District is expected to be the Competent Authority normally. The State Govt. is empowered to authorise some other Officer by notification in this behalf. When the power is given to the Collector of a district primarily and power is given to the State Govt. to appoint any other officer also for exercising the power and to perform the functions of the Competent Authority, the State Govt. has to appoint a responsible officer who can discharge the functions properly and efficiently. A Gram Sevak who is expected to have a minimum qualification of having passed higher secondary only is hardly an officer competent to discharge the function. We feel that an officer below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate should not have been entrusted with the powers of Competent Authority under the Act even assuming that delegation of the powers to officers below that rank was also permissible. We have grave doubts about the legality or appointing a Gram Sevak to discharge the function of Competent Authority under the Act but we keep this question open as it has not been specifically raised be

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

fore us. 19. What can happen when an Officer of the level of Gram Sevak is entrusted with the job is amply demonstrated by the facts of the present case where more than 3000 bovine animals were permitting to be exported without following the prescribed procedure by law within one single day. Even assuming that as is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Veterinary Department that 3200 cattle were examined in two days and not in one day, that also speaks volumes about the efficiency of the Competent Officer and the Veterinary Officer who did the job for him. It is obvious that the exporters and the authorities were acting in collusion. If that had not been so, the authorities would not have facilitated the export by preparing thousands of cyclostyled forms comprising the application form, Veterinary Officer's certificate and the permit into one single paper giving a complete go by to the forms prescribed by the Rules. It is surprising that a Govt. Department processes application for export with that speed. In hundreds of appeals in this Court, applications for condonation of delay of hundreds of days are pending in which the Govt. itself has sought condonation of delay on the ground of proverbial delays in processing of files in Govt. departments. We are also surprised to note that Govt. departments which do not file replies to the writ petitions and do not even engage and instruct their counsel within time were able in this case to instruct lawyers to file replies within the shortest possible time and were vehemently pleading the case of the exporters in the garb of defending their own action. We would like the Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, Veterinary Department to look into the reasons for the extra zeal and vehemence of the officers entrusted with the job of defending this case on behalf of the Govt. and the officers who dealt with the applications for export of bovine animals in this case. 20. As a result of the aforesaid discussion the petition is allowed. The permits issued by the Competent Authority Gram Sevak Gram Panchayat Anandpur Kalu, the certificates issued by the Veterinary Officer to respondents Nos. 7 to 52 deserve to be and are hereby quashed. The applications given by the respondents Nos. 7 to 52 have to be rejected and cannot be acted upon by the Competent Authority for the reasons given above. Petition Allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

07-04-2020 (The State) The National Investigation Agency, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Represented by the Superintendent of Police, Assam Versus Akhil Gogoi High Court of Gauhati
10-03-2020 M. Akhil Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
02-03-2020 Akhil Ahmad Versus The Commissioner for Agriculture, Pune Region Pune & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
21-02-2020 M/s. Shri Hariom Krishi Kendra, Proprietor Manikrao & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
16-12-2019 Souhrada Charitable Club, Represented by Its President, Akhil Augustine & Another Versus The Union of India, Represented by The Secretary To Government, The Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
21-11-2019 Sree Sankara Vidyapeetom College, Represented by the Principal, Ernakulam & Another Versus P.K. Akhil & Others High Court of Kerala
19-11-2019 Akhil Dev @ Chandroose Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
23-10-2019 P.K. Akhil Versus Sree Sankara Vidyapeetom College, Sreesankarapuram, Ernakulam, Represented by The Principal & Others High Court of Kerala
09-09-2019 Pradeep Kumar Kushwaha Versus Shubham Krishi Kendra Dealer & Distributor & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-09-2019 Pritam Lal Makhija Versus Akhil Bhartiya Aggarwal Sammelan Thr its Joint Organised Secretary Virender Gupta High Court of Delhi
23-07-2019 Dr. Nilkanth Dhyanoba Jogdande & Another Versus Dr. Panjabrao Deshumukh Krishi Vidyapeeth In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
11-07-2019 Akhil Chandran, Represented by Jayachandran, Aadinadu Village Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
19-06-2019 Akhil Shil Versus The State High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-02-2019 Dr. Akhil Chandra Paul & Another Versus Anjana Mitra Mazumdar Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gauhati
22-02-2019 Gobinda Chandra manna @ Gobinda Manna Versus Pilkhan Majhpara Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-12-2018 Akhil Bhartvarshiya Marwari Agarwal Jatiya Kosh & Others Versus Brijlal Tibrewal & Others Supreme Court of India
21-11-2018 Akhil Ismail Pinjari Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-10-2018 R.S. Mehta, District Shimla, H.P. Versus Union of India, ICAR, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, through its Director General & Secretary (DARE) & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
27-08-2018 Rambhau Jagannath Dhavane & Others Versus Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-08-2018 Akhil Kumar Gupta Versus State of J & K & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
09-07-2018 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Agra Versus Acit CPC, Agra Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra
02-07-2018 CGST, C&CE, Alwar V/S Krishi Icon Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
14-05-2018 Akhil Kumar Gupta Versus State & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
08-05-2018 Akhil Kumar Mangalik Versus DLF Ltd. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
04-05-2018 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly Versus Malik Sartaz Wali Khan & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-03-2018 Dr. Aminu Deen Versus Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi & Another High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-02-2018 K. Shankar Rao Versus Union of India Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, Represented by its Secretary & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
21-02-2018 Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., Rep by its Manager Versus The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (3), Belgaum High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
21-02-2018 Shailendra Tiwari Versus M.P. Sahakari Krishi Avam Gramin Vikas Bank Maryadit, Through its Managing Director & Others Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
07-02-2018 Rahul Suroy Versus Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) through Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
25-10-2017 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti V/S Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
18-09-2017 Akhil Sebatian & Another Versus State by Inspector of Police & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2017 Deepak Chandra Singh Versus Union of India through its Director (P), Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
14-07-2017 Kalyani Das Versus Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
10-07-2017 The Principal, CSI Institute of Legal Studies, Thiruvananthapuram Versus Akhil Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
04-07-2017 M/s. Suman Gopaliya & Sons Versus Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
29-06-2017 Oilseeds Specialist, Krishi Sanshodhan Kendra, Jalgaon & Others Versus Chandrakalabai Shantaram Patil In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
28-06-2017 M/s. Akhil Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Central Bank of India High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-06-2017 Amit Upadhyay Versus The Union of India represented by the Secretary (CA) Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution Department of Consumer Affairs Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
25-05-2017 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti V/S CCE & ST Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
23-05-2017 Akhil & Others Versus The State of Kerala, represented by The Public Prosecutor & Others High Court of Kerala
17-04-2017 Sagar Jila Khad Beej Krishi Aushadhi Vikereta Kalyan Samiti Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
27-01-2017 Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri & Another Versus Ahmednagar Zilla Shetmajoor Union Trade Union Centre & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
12-01-2017 K.V. Kunhikannan Versus Director General, Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
21-12-2016 Nadan & Others Versus Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi through it Secretary & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-12-2016 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Versus Kailashwati High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-12-2016 Vijay Kumar & Others Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
14-12-2016 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi Through its Secretary & Others Versus Bheem Raj Solanki High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
07-12-2016 Ram Nath Mishra Versus Bharat Krishi Corporation & Others Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow
11-11-2016 Managing Director, U.P. Rajya Sahakari Krishi Evam Gramya Vikas Bank Ltd. & Another Versus Subhash Chandra Awasthi & Another Supreme Court of India
05-10-2016 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court Rampur & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-09-2016 Shankar Construction Co., By Partner Sunil Versus University of Agricultural Sciences R/By Its Registrar Krishi Nagar & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
17-08-2016 Baburajan K. Versus Union of India Represented by the Secretary, Government of India, Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying and Fisheries, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
04-08-2016 Bankers Institute of Rural Development Versus Rashtriya Krishi Evam Bankers High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
25-07-2016 P.K. Harikumar, Assistant Chief Technical Officer Versus The Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
12-07-2016 K.N. Radhakrishnan Nambiar Versus The Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
05-07-2016 Rastriya Krishi Evam Bankers Gramin Vikash Sansthan Versus Union of India Ministry of Labour Thru Secy. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-07-2016 Akhil Bhartiya Manav Kalyan Evam Samajothhan & Another Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-06-2016 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & Others Versus Ashutosh Daga High Court of Madhya Pradesh
26-05-2016 M/s Suresh Chandra Varshney Versus Rajkiya Audyogic Evam Krishi Pradarshani & Ors. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
19-05-2016 The Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sriganganagar Versus State of Rajasthan & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
26-04-2016 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner Versus Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raisinghnagar High Court of Rajasthan
02-04-2016 Dr. Vandan Versus Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-03-2016 Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Through its Registrar Sunil Raghunath Wankhede Versus Ganpat In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
01-03-2016 Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress & Others Versus B.S. Sharma & Other National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-02-2016 Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, Through its Registrar, Jagannath Versus Ahmednagar Zilla Shet Mazoor Union, Trade Union Centre & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
24-02-2016 The Secretary, Krishi Vigyan Kendra Versus Ghansham In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
24-02-2016 Central Professor/Scientist Technical Council, Gwalior Versus Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
24-02-2016 Central Professor/Scientist Technical Council, Gwalior Versus Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
17-02-2016 Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat and Others V/S KDS Infra Buildcons and Others. NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
06-01-2016 Shaikh Anwar Shaikh Lala Versus Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
21-12-2015 Green Valley Samuhik Krishi Samiti Ltd. Versus Subhash & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-12-2015 Narendra Bhansali Versus Akhil Bhartiya Bhansali Samaj Seva Trust & Others High Court of Rajasthan
19-11-2015 Badri Prasad Yadav & Others Versus Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
18-11-2015 Dr. Jogendra Nath Bora Versus Secretary Poultry & Fisheries Govt. of India Department of Animal Husbandry Dairying & Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
18-11-2015 Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhavan Versus S. Kulasekarapandian & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-11-2015 Leelapat Mangatram Navin Mandi Sthal Versus U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-11-2015 Automotive Stamping And Assambly Ltd. Versus Akhil Gujarat General Mazdoor Sangh High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
09-10-2015 Akhil Kumar Dutta Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
06-10-2015 Dy. Director (Construction) Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Agra Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-09-2015 Akhil Bharatiya Chah Mazdoor Sangha, Represented by Prakash Rajkhowa, General Secretary, District-Tinsukia Versus Management of Namrup T.E., Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
22-09-2015 Tulshidas Versus The Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
12-08-2015 In the Matter of ? Sonamoni Hansda Versus Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-08-2015 Gyani Versus Jila Sahakari Krishi & Grameen Vikas Bank Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-07-2015 Chhatisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam & Another Versus Jeevan Lal Verma & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2015 Pravin & Others Versus The Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-04-2015 Anil Kumar & Another Versus Government of India through, The Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Diarying and Fisheries, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
27-03-2015 Deputy Director (Construction) Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi & Others Versus Avdhesh Verma High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-03-2015 G. Sivakuamr Versus Central Registrar of Co-operative Societies Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture & Co-operation Krishi Bhavan New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2015 Shyam Rice & Perboiling Unit No. 1 Versus Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-03-2015 Ratnamala Versus The Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay Bench Mumbai
24-02-2015 Dayanand & Others Versus ICAR, Through Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
11-02-2015 Dinesh Chandra Mishra Versus Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Through Director General of ICAR & Secretary DARE, ICAR (Min. of Agriculture), Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
28-01-2015 Dr. Jancy Gupta Versus Indian Counsel of Agriculture Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, Through Its Secretary & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
28-01-2015 Gagan Sachdeva Versus Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, Through Its Secretary & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-01-2015 Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Versus Pradeep Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-01-2015 Dr. S.N. Sinha Versus India Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, Through Its Secretary & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
16-01-2015 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur Versus Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti High Court of Rajasthan
08-01-2015 Ram Niwas Versus Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Through its Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
19-12-2014 M/s. Israni Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Versus Akhil Rohatgi & Others High Court of Delhi


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box