2026:JHHC:21382 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2119 of 2025 ------ Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal, Jharkhand, a Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, having its office at B-2/1057, Sector-II, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi, through its Chairman Om Prakash Singh, son of Late Buddhan Singh, resident of Buddhan Singh Lane, Lohardaga, P.O., P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Cooperative Society, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Nepal House, Doranda, P.O., P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. 2. The Director, Animal Husbandry-cum-Member Secretary, State Animal Welfare Board, Jharkhand having its office at Hesag, Hatia, P.O. Nift, P.S. Jaganathpur, District Ranchi. 3. The District Animal Husbandry Officer-cum-Member Secretary, District SPCA, Koderma, having its office at Koderma, P.O., P.S. & District Koderma. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mrs. Prerna Jhunjhunwala, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : AC ------ 04/ 20.07.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) For issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the letter contained in memo no.97 dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure-18) issued under the pen and signature of respondent no. 2 and other consequential orders whereby and whereunder the respondents have stopped the petitioner society and its Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors from working in any kind of activity under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 on the 2026:JHHC:21382 2 erroneous ground that the recognition of the petitioner society has been cancelled by the Animal Welfare Board of India on 25.01.2019; AND (ii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents particularly respondent no.1 & 2 to allow the petitioner society and its Inspectors/Sub-Inspectors to work as per the notifications no. 538 & 539 both dated 01.06.2011;” 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. This writ petition can be disposed of on a small issue. The petitioner - Society has challenged the aforesaid impugned order on the ground that the petitioner-Society was not given an opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned, which is to the detriment of the petitioner – Society. There are other grounds also. 4. Paragraph-36 of this writ petition is a specific statement given by the petitioner – Society on oath, that the impugned order dated 24.03.2025 is liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner - Society was neither served with a show cause notice nor was afforded any opportunity of hearing and thus the same is violative of principles of natural justice. 5. Paragraph-27 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, is the reply to the assertion made in paragraph-36 of the writ petition. In the said paragraph of the counter affidavit i.e. paragraph-27, the respondents have 2026:JHHC:21382 3 specifically stated that the petitioner-Society has been relieved as partner Agency in view of order dated 24.03.2025, for the reason being that the petitioner-Society has been derecognized by the Animal Welfare Board of India. They have nowhere disputed the specific and positive assertion made by the petitioner-Society that before passing the impugned order, they were not noticed. 6. By virtue of the impugned order, the respondents have ordered that the services of the petitioner-Society as partner Agency will not be taken any further. The ground mentioned therein is that petitioner’s recognition with the Animal Welfare Board has been cancelled. 7. Since the order impugned adversely effects the petitioner-Society, it was necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Society. By not giving an opportunity to the petitioner-Society of being heard and thereafter passing an order, which is detrimental to the interest of the petitioner-Society, can be said to be violative of principles of natural justice. 8. At this stage, the petitioner-Society claims that it is not necessary to get themselves registered with the Animal Welfare Board of India. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, only on the limited issue, I am allowing this writ petition by setting aside the impugned order as contained in Memo No.97 dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition); and remitting the matter back to the Director, Animal Husbandry-cum-Member Secretary, State Animal Welfare Board, Jharkhand, to pass an appropriate order, 2026:JHHC:21382 4 after giving an opportunity to the petitioner-Society of being heard. 10. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands allowed. 11. Pending interlocutory application being I.A. No.9399 of 2025, stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 20th July, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 22.07.2026