HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 40073 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Jai Bajarang Goshala Seva Samiti, Village – Kauria, Post – Towa Nondon, Tehsil – Nizamabad, district- Azamgarh through its Manager as petitioner claims to be Manager of the Seva Samiti, which is registered under U.P. Goshala Act, 1964. 2. The impleadment shall be done immediately as Sri Sandeep Singh, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State respondents has no objection. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s society continues to have renewal of its registration under the said Act as on date, though the documents appended with the petition shows that last renewal was granted w.e.f. 23rd April, 2019 for a period of five years. 4. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Singh, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State respondents. 5. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated August, 2024 though rejecting his application for claiming payment of money from the Chief Development Officer/ competent authority of the district under the Government order dated 20th September, 2023. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the authority has manifestly erred in rejecting the claim on the ground that petitioner is a religious institution which is running goshala and, therefore, would be barred from raising such claim even though registered under the U.P. Goshala Act, 1964. 7. This view has been taken by the authority competent in the matter pursuant to the Government order dated 11nd February, 2019, which Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Km. Madhubala, Mithilesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vinod Kumar Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) creates such a bar vide its clause 2.1 (iv). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before us government order dated 2nd January, 2019 which lays down a policy for taking care of such animals of cow progeny as with the passage of time and use of mechanical tools for agriculture work, those have rendered useless and hence use of these animals have got reduced to the negligible extent and also the government order dated 11th February, 2019 which creates such a bar. 9. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned does not refer to any such documents from which it could have been inferred that the petitioner's society was a religious society and was running a cow shelter/ goshala of animals of cow progeny for itself and for commercial purposes. 10. Meeting the submissions, learned Brief Holder appearing for the State respondents submits that after the order impugned was passed in the month of August, 2024 and inspection was done of the cow shelter of the petitioner being run in the name of goshala, on 6th September, 2024 by the Chief Veterinary Officer, Azamgarh along with the Block Development Officer and other Veterinary Officers of Mirzapur and there only one animal was found and the manager was also not found on the spot and even after the correspondence being made he did not respond. Thus, it is contended that petitioner in fact is not running of cow shelter, rather has set up a case in the name of society registered under the U.P. Goshala Act, 1964 for maintaining claims. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, we find that the order impugned was passed in a most casual manner without referring to any such material on the basis of which petitioner’s cow shelter was taken to be falling within the exception clause of the government order dated 11th February, 2019 and the authority has been so casual in passing the order that even the date of order has not been mentioned in the order. We further find that the subsequently inspection has been carried out only to improve upon the order impugned. 12. It is settled legal proposition that no amount of counter affidavit can improve upon the order impugned as the order impugned is to be tested on the basis of the findings taken therein. We find the findings, therefore, to be absolutely perverse being not supported by any documents even through the counter affidavit and hence we are not able to sustain the order. 13. Accordingly, an undated order of August, 2024 passed by the Chief Development Officer, Azamgarh impugned in this petition as Annexure - 1 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. WRIC No. 40073 of 2024 2 14. The matter is remitted to the authority again to pass a order afresh after carrying out a fresh inspection of the cow shelter of the petitioner in his presence. 15. The inspection shall be carried out and final order shall be passed within a period of two months from today provided of course, petitioner’s society continues to be registered under the U.P. Goshala Act, 1964. 16. Needless to add, the order to be passed by the authority concerned as directed herein above, shall be reasoned and speaking one. March 19, 2026 Atmesh WRIC No. 40073 of 2024 3 (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad