Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 969
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Marry Mandenoza Vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corpn. (Lodha, J.)
HON'BLE SANGEET LODHA, J.
Marry Mandenoza Jodhpur & Ors.
Versus
The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5371 of 2012, decided on 18.09.2012
Nishant Motsara, for Petitioner;
Rajesh Choudhary, for Respondents No. 1 & 2;
Jitendra Chopra, for Respondent No. 5
Headnote:Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959, Sec. 90(1)(b), 235; Act of 2009, Secs. 269, 340(1)(j); Municipal Council, Jodhpur (Sale of Meat, site Inspection) Bye Laws, 1991, Bye Law 3(B) — Definition of Meat — Scope — Petitioner was issued Licence in 1977 to operate meat shop — On selling the shop to respondent No. 5 in 2006, who made complaint against him — Licence suspended on the ground of selling pork, which is not including in Bye law 3 (B) — Held — Sale of pork is not prohibited under any law — No action was taken against other license holders engaged in sale of pork within municipal area — Many more varieties of meat not specifically included such as Chicken, Broiler and even pork are being sold at meat shops under the license issued by respondent, yet no action has been taken against them — Directed to renew the licence — Petitioner was a 70 years old lady, she was harassed unnecessary and deprived of from carrying on her business for no fault on her part — Violation of Art. 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India. (Paras 18 to 23)
Writ petition allowed with costs of Rs. 5000/-.
jktLFkku uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1959] /kkjk 90¼1½¼[k½] 235( 2009 dk vf/kfu;e] /kkjk 269] 340¼1½¼j½( uxj ifj"kn] tks/kiqj ¼ekal foØ;] LFky fujh{k.k½ mifu;e] 1991] mifu;e] 3¼B½ & eakl dh ifjHkk"kk O;kfIr & izkFkhZ dks 1977 esa ekal dh nqdku pykus dk ykbZlsal tkjh fd;k x;k & o"kZ 2006 esa izR;FkhZ la- 5 dks nqdku dk foØ; gksus ij Øsrk us nqdkunkj ds fo:) ifjokn fd;k & lqvj dk ekal cspus ds vk/kkj ij ykblsal fuyfEcr fd;k] tks fd mifu;e 3¼B½ esa lfEefyr ugha gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & lwvj dk ekal fdlh Hkh dkuwu ds rgr izfrcaf/kr ugha gS & uxj ikfydk {ks= esa lwvj ds ekal dh fcØh esa layXu vU; ykblsal /kkfj;ksa ds fo:) dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ & ekal dh vU; vusd fd'esa tSlh eqxhZ ds cPps] pqTts ,oa ;gka rd fd lqvj dk ekal Hkh blesa fofufnf"Vr :i ls lfEefyr ugha gS fQj Hkh izR;FkhZ }kjk tkjh ykblsal ds rgr ekal dh nqdkuksa ij cspk tk jgk gS] fQj Hkh muds fo:) dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ gS & ykbZlsal ds uohuhdj.k ds funsZ'k fn;s & izkfFkZ;ka 70 o"kZ dh vk;q dh o`)k Fkh mls vuko';d :i ls ijs'kku fd;k x;k rFkk mls viuk O;olk; pykus ls oafpr fd;k x;k ftlds fy, mldh dksbZ xyrh ugha Fkh & lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 vkSj 19¼1½¼g½ dk mYya?ku gSA ¼in la[;k 18 ls 23½
;kfpdk 5]000@- #- dh dher lfgr Lohdkj dhA
2. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage.
3. The petitioner was granted a license in the year 1977 by then Municipal Council, Jodhpur to operate a meat shop at UIT Shopping Center Near Railway Hospital, Jodhpur, which was renewed from time to time. Under the licence initially issued, the petitioner was specifically permitted to operate Piggery Meat Shop.
4. The petitioner was operating the meat shop for last more than 30 years at the location in question peacefully and was selling meat and meat products including pork, however, no objection was raised by the residents of nearby colony or anybody else. It is submitted that trouble started only when the petitioner's landlord sold the shop in question to the respondent No. 5 herein on 24.11.2006. It is alleged that at the behest of the petitioner's landlord's landlord, the respondent No. 5 herein, the authorities of the Municipal Corporation and the police authorities started harassing the petitioner and threatened to seize the shop.
5. Aggrieved by action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner's business unauthorisedly, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 10564/2011 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 2.11.2011 with the observations and directions in the following terms:
"5. Indisputably, the operation of the meat shops within the municipal area are regulated by the concerned municipality by issuing licence in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2009 and the Rules made thereunder. There is nothing on record to suggest that the running of the shop by the petitioner is being interfered with by the authorities of the Municipal Corporation unauthorisedly. Moreover, the petitioner has already made representation to the commissioner, Municipal Corporation raising the grievances.
6. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur to consider the representation made by the petitioner objectively in accordance with law."
6. After disposal of the writ petitioner as aforesaid, the petitioner made yet another representation dated 9.4.2012, accompanied by a copy of order dated 2.11.2011 before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, for renewal of her licence for the year 2012. The petitioner deposited the renewal fee and a receipt was issued by the Municipal Corporation in this regard. Since, the license of the petitioner was not renewed, she made an application under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking explanation in writing as to why renewal of her license was being delayed. It is submitted that so as to operate the business in peaceful manner, the petitioner stopped selling pork at the shop in question, though there is no prohibition under the law on sale of pork as such.
7. On 13.5.2012, the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent Corporation, the respondent No. 2 herein, alleged to have inspected the business premises of the petitioner and since she was found selling pork and the person present at the shop Mr. Deepak allegedly misbehaved with the municipal authorities therefore, police help was sought. The petitioner's shop was sealed and the person present at the shop Mr. Deepak was taken in custody by the police and a complaint was submitted before the Assistant Commissioner Police cum Executive Magistrate, Jodhpur Commissionerate under Section 151 Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, in her absence, the shop was reopened and inspected by a team constituted by the
