Gurugram Cattle Contractor Fined Rs 6.05 Lakh

GURUGRAM: The Municipal Corporation of Gurugram has imposed penalties totalling Rs 6.05 lakh on an agency hired to remove stray cattle, after performance records showed limited captures and no reported work during three recent months.

The agency recorded 1,211 cattle captures over seven months, according to the civic review. Only 96 were reported in April, followed by zero in May, June and July. Those figures have raised questions about whether the contract is delivering a continuous citywide service or responding only intermittently.

The accumulated fine was imposed across different dates rather than as a single punishment. Civic officials are also examining stronger contractual action, including possible blacklisting. That step, if pursued, must follow the tender conditions and give the contractor the process required to respond. A performance concern or proposed blacklisting is not the same as a final debarment order.

There are also allegations that money was collected improperly from some dairy operators. Those claims require a separate, evidence-based inquiry and should not be treated as established fact. Payment records, complaint statements and the contractual authority to levy any charge would need to be examined before responsibility is fixed.

For road users, the service failure is not abstract. Cattle standing on an unlit carriageway can be difficult to see in rain or at night, and a frightened animal may move unpredictably when horns or vehicles approach. The risk extends to the animal as well as drivers, riders and pedestrians. Simply chasing cattle from one sector to another does not count as resolution.

A credible programme needs a full chain: a verified complaint, a trained capture team, humane transport, space at a recognised shelter, veterinary screening and a record that prevents the same animal from being repeatedly lifted and released. Ear tags or other lawful identification can help trace ownership where cattle have been abandoned.

Enforcement against owners must accompany contractor oversight. If a dairy repeatedly allows animals onto public roads, the civic body should document the animal, inspect the premises and use the applicable penalty process. Otherwise, shelter capacity fills while the source of the problem remains untouched.

The corporation should now publish a ward-wise dashboard showing complaints, response time, cattle safely relocated, repeat locations and shelter capacity. That would make contractor payment depend on verifiable outcomes rather than headline capture totals. The Rs 6.05 lakh fine signals dissatisfaction; safer roads will require a replacement service plan if the present agency cannot meet the contract.