2001 PLP 1 (CLC)

3. The Cantonment Board was called upon vide order, dated 21‑3‑2000 passed in Writ Petition No.537 of 2000 to furnish comments in the matter. Subsequently, other writ petitions also followed. Writ Petition No.2032 was admitted to regular hearing vide order, dated 5‑9‑2000. All the matters were clubbed together and have been heard today.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for Cantonment Board as well as the Station Commander, Rawalpindi, Cantonment, have been heard in the matter.

5. The practice of keeping milch animals in the Rawalpindi Cantonment dates back to era when the Cantonment Board was a small, sleepy, urban‑cum‑rural locality. With the passage of time, the rural locality disappeared and the Cantonment Board developed into a bustling residential and Commercial City. The cattle, however, remained on the scene and are being kept in small houses; small open spaces or even in the streets of the Cantonment. Due to traffic, sanitation and health hazards created by the continued presence of cattle, the Cantonment Board decided to evict the cattle from Rawalpiadi Cantonment altogether. The law on the subject prima Cantonment Authorities. They have the powers and authority to regulate the keeping of animals in the Cantonment Area. But on the other hand, the public interest not only of cattle owners but also of all people living the Cantonment who purchase small quantities of milk from their local milk‑sellers, makes it imperative that the matter should be given equitable consideration as well. The nature of the controversy is such that it cannot be resolved in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as a number of questions of fact and several forbidding ground realities have to be taken into consideration before the matter is finally settled in an amicable manner to the satisfaction of the parties.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, the Station Commander Cantonment and the learned counsel for Rawalpindi Cantonment Board in principle agreed to the said proposal. Therefore, instead of deciding the matter n these proceedings, I leave the matter to the good sense and conscience of the parties to settle it in a manner which should achieve the projected objective of the Cantonment Authorities and would also cater to the interest of the petitioners as well as general public. To achieve that common objective, it is directed as under:‑‑ (i) The petitioners and their representatives shall meet with the Station Commander and the Executive Officer during the next week with their demands and proposals for allocation of certain Areas for keeping the cattle in the Cantonment limits and to work out acceptable solution to the problem. The Cantonment Authorities may declare certain areas particularly the urban areas to be "Cattle- Free‑Zone" while the cattle might be allowed to be kept in fringe areas of the urban centers or the areas which have not yet assumed the character/complexion of an urban locality. This exercise should be completed by 2nd of October, 20'00. (ii) After areas are allocated for keeping the cattle, the petitioners and other cattle owners shall obtain licences from the Cantonment Board in accordance with law for keeping the cattle in the specified Zone/Zones. The Cantonment Authorities shall not unnecessarily put snags in the way of cattle owners who will seek issuance of licences to them and the Board shall adopt a liberal and an equitable policy in the matter. (iii) The cantonment Board shall be at liberty to remove the cattle from the urban and commercial areas of the Cantonment Board without any let or hindrance after 2nd of October, 2000. (iv) The Cantonment Authorities shall have the authority to impound stray cattle, and the cattle that are not tended by their owners even before this date but the cattle so impounded shall be released on payment of usual penalties provided for the purpose. (v) The cattle impounded so far pursuant to the recent drive by the respondents, however, shall be released forthwith.

7. The petitioners had asserted for allocation of funds for the purpose. The Cantonment Board, of course, cannot be burdened with any liability in this regard. The petitioners may establish a cattle colony on cooperative basis after seeking permission of the respondents.

8. The parties had agreed to the above proposal in principal but in case of any difference or grievance, either of the parties shall be at liberty to avail an alternate remedy provided by the law. The parties shall be at liberty to approach this Court in case of any legitimate grievance as well. These petitions are disposed of. M.B.A./M‑372/L Order accordingly.