Back
Can a Slaughterhouse Reopen with Just Registration? Answers with Key Distinction
The has made it clear that a mere under the Food Safety and Standards Act cannot substitute for a when operating a slaughterhouse beyond the capacity of a . A division bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad dismissed a petition by Junaid Alam, who sought to reopen his two-unit slaughterhouse in Kanpur Nagar after the District Magistrate rejected his application on .
The Core Dispute: Registration vs Licence
The petitioner relied on a Food Safety issued on , valid until , which described his business as “Slaughtering units, Distributor.” He also produced GST and Udyam registrations, laboratory test reports, and a No Objection Certificate from the . Alam argued that these documents permitted operation of the two slaughtering units and that he should have been given a hearing and reasonable time to modernise before being stopped.
The State countered that the petitioner had been given a on , and that the June 29 document was only a , not the required for the proposed scale. Alam’s online application for a State licence, filed on , disclosed a proposed capacity of 20 large animals per day. That application was returned on , for removal of deficiencies, and no had been granted when the District Magistrate passed the .
Why 20 Large Animals Matter
The High Court examined , noting that prohibits any food business without a licence, while allows only petty food manufacturers to operate on registration. defines a slaughtering activity as a only if its daily capacity does not exceed two large animals, ten small animals, or 50 poultry birds.
Since Alam proposed to slaughter 20 large animals daily—ten times the petty business limit—the court held that a under read with was mandatory. The , the bench observed, “was insufficient for the scale at which the petitioner proposed to operate the slaughter house.”
Filing an Application Does Not Authorise Operations
The court rejected the argument that merely applying for a State licence gave Alam the right to run the slaughterhouse. The application had been returned for deficiencies and never granted. The bench stated: “Its acknowledgement proves only the submission of an application and does not authorise the activity for which the licence was sought.”
Other documents—GST registration, Udyam registration, laboratory reports, and the municipal NOC—were dismissed as “” that could not replace the . The court emphasised that the District Magistrate’s order did not cancel any subsisting ; it simply rejected the reopening request because no such licence existed.
Constitutional Right Not a Blank Cheque
Alam invoked his right to carry on business under . The court firmly rejected this, observing: “The right under does not dispense with a valid licensing requirement imposed in the interest of food safety and public health. In the absence of the required licence, no direction permitting the petitioner to reopen and operate the slaughter house can be issued.”
The bench also referred to the ’s directions in Laxmi Narain Modi v. Union of India (2014), which ordered that must remain closed until they obtain the necessary licence and comply with applicable rules and regulations.
The Decision and Its Implications
The was dismissed. However, the court granted Alam liberty to remove the deficiencies and pursue his pending State licence application or submit a fresh one with the prescribed documents. Any such application, the court said, shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.
The judgment reinforces the distinction between registration for small-scale food businesses and the required for larger operations. It serves as a reminder that food safety and public health considerations can override individual business rights, and that compliance with licensing norms is not optional.
No order was made as to costs. The court declined to adjudicate allegations of police harassment, noting that no specific relief had been sought on that ground.
