Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 28 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition: Dhyana Foundation (trust) vs State of Goa (Chief Secretary and others) challenging an ex‑parte order dated 24‑07‑2026 issued by the Deputy Collector & Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Quepem, under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which directed removal of all cattle from the trust’s Goshala within twelve hours.
  • Background: The trust had constructed a cattle shed on Survey No.102/I, Deusa. On 22‑07‑2026 a mob of approximately 150 persons trespassed and dismantled the shed. The Mamlatdar reported the incident, prompting the Deputy Collector to issue an urgent relocation order citing public safety, health, and animal‑welfare concerns.
  • Petition sought appointment of a neutral Court Commissioner or Monitoring Committee to inspect the Goshala and supervise a physical inventory of the cattle.
  • State’s position: The Deputy Collector reported on 03‑08‑2026 that 108 cattle had been shifted with care under the supervision of the Veterinary Officer and veterinary workers to recognized goshalas. The report listed particulars of the animals, dates of shifting, and destination sites, and was communicated to the petitioner, the Forest Officer, and the Municipal Council of Quepem.
  • Petitioner’s objections: Alleged that the order exceeded the jurisdiction of Section 163, that the petitioner was not provided a copy of the Mamlatdar’s report forming the basis of the order, and was denied an opportunity to inspect the relocated cattle. Representations dated 26‑07‑2026 and 28‑07‑2026 were claimed to have been ignored.
  • Additional Public Prosecutor’s response: Asserted that the State authorities had provided the best possible support for cattle safety, complied with the Court’s directions, and offered the petitioner inspection of the cattle and consideration of a fresh request for return of the cattle if suitable housing could be provided.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the challenge to the impugned order no longer survives.
  • Directed that the petitioner be furnished a copy of the Mamlatdar’s report dated 22‑07‑2026, which formed the basis of the Deputy Collector’s order.
  • Allowed the petitioner to inspect the cattle that have been shifted to other facilities under the Court’s earlier directions.
  • Permitted the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2 for appropriate action; respondent No.2 must consider this representation within four weeks and communicate its decision.
  • Until a decision is rendered, respondent No.2 must ensure that the cattle remain safely housed at the locations specified in the 03‑08‑2026 report.
  • With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of, and the related criminal miscellaneous applications are also disposed of.

Topics: Animal Welfare, Judicial Order