Municipal refusal of NOC for slaughterhouse veterinary appointments illegal if based on appeal pendency without stay, disregarding operative civil decree; writ maintainable to enforce public duty for regulated operations.

JUDGMENT :

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is instituted by a partnership firm claiming to be an agro-based enterprise operating from Dondaicha, District Dhule, Maharashtra. The reliefs are directed substantially against respondent nos.1 to 3 (the Nagar Parishad and its authorities) and seek (i) a direction to issue forthwith a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to enable respondent no.4 to appoint veterinary doctors for ante-mortem examination for running the slaughterhouse, and for consequential inspection/approval processes of respondent no.5 (APEDA), and (ii) a direction to respondent nos.1 to 3 to reinstate and renew the licences, permissions and NOCs which, according to the petitioner, were in existence prior to the events surrounding Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2017. The cause action trigger pleaded is the communication dated 17.02.2025 by which the Animal Husbandry department informed the petitioner that the Nagar Parishad has refused to grant NOC on the ground of pendency of civil appeal and alleged cancellation of earlier permissions.

3. The factual background, as emerges from the pleadings and documents placed on the record is that Gut No.123 at Dondaicha was originally owned by one Baburao Banjara who donated the land on 8 August 2008 to the municipal body-respondent No.1 for a public purpose. A Government Resolution dated 19.01.2009 is stated to have contemplated implementation of an integrated housing/slum development programme, and the State, through the Collector’s supervision, constructed a slaughterhouse on the donated land in 2010. The slaughterhouse was placed under the municipal council. As the municipal body was allegedly unable to run and manage the slaughterhouse for want of funds and manpower, therefore, it resolved to lease it out through public auction. Pursuant to a public tender/auction notice, the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder, and after completing the process, was handed possession on 03.01.2011, and a lease agreement for five years was executed on 17.012011. The petitioner states that, given the nature of investment required, it applied for extension of the tenure, and by resolution of the Standing Committee dated 15.04.2011 the tenure was extended to 30 years with effect from April 2011, culminating in a fresh agreement dated 24.05.2012. The petitioner asserts that it invested substantial amounts, employed personnel, and obtained regulatory approvals including pollution control consents, factory licence, food safety licence, ETP NOC, APEDA-related documents, GST registration, MSME/Udyam registration and ISO/HACCP certifications. The municipal council passed Resolution No.12 dated 27.04.2012 approving commencement and issued an NOC on 04.10.2012.

4. The dispute thereafter arose between the petitioner and respondent No.1 due to slaughter house. Political opposition and complaints that led to passing of Resolution to close the proceedings before the Collector by petitioner; and by order dated 16.05.2013 Collector stayed Resolution No.12, but the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik by order dated 30.07.2013 set aside the Collector’s order, which, on the materials shown, was not challenged further and thus attained finality. In 2017, the petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit No.3 of 2017 seeking perma