Back
1993 Supreme(HP) 91
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
D.P.SOOD
MOOL CHAND - Appellant
Versus
AMARJIT SINGH - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 43 of 1993
Decided On : 05/28/1993
For the petitioner(s): Sh. K :D. Sood, Advocate. For the respondent(s):Sh. Chhabil Dass, Advocate, for respondent No. I. Sh. H. R. Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No, 2.
THE SALE OF DIFFERENT COMMODITIES FROM THE SAME PLATFORM OR IN THE SAME MARKET IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANY BYE-LAW OR PROVISION OF THE ACT UNLESS IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED.
Headnote:
INJUNCTION - MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - SALE OF MEAT AND FISH - BYE-LAWS - PUBLIC HEALTH - [SECTION 327, 328, 395, 397 OF HIMACHAL PRADESH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1979] - THE COURT HELD THAT THE SALE OF MEAT AND FISH FROM THE SAME PLATFORM OR IN THE SAME MARKET IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANY BYE-LAW OR PROVISION OF THE ACT AND THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE GRANT OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.
Fact of the Case:
PLAINTIFFS, MEAT VENDORS, FILED A SUIT FOR PERMANENT PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE SALE OF MEAT IN A FISH MARKET BY DEFENDANT NO. 1, A LESSEE OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS UNHYGIENIC, INJURIOUS TO PUBLIC HEALTH, AND AFFECTED THEIR BUSINESS.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO BYE-LAW OR PROVISION OF THE ACT THAT PROHIBITED THE SALE OF DIFFERENT COMMODITIES FROM THE SAME PLATFORM OR IN THE SAME MARKET. IT ALSO FOUND THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAD NOT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE GRANT OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE SALE OF MEAT AND FISH FROM THE SAME PLATFORM OR IN THE SAME MARKET IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY BYE-LAW OR PROVISION OF THE ACT? 2. WHETHER THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE GRANT OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION?
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE SALE OF MEAT AND FISH FROM THE SAME PLATFORM OR IN THE SAME MARKET IS NOT IN VIOLATION OF ANY BYE-LAW OR PROVISION OF THE ACT. IT ALSO HELD THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE GRANT OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.
Final Decision: THE COURT DISMISSED THE REVISION PETITION AND LEFT THE PARTIES TO SUFFER THEIR RESPECTIVE COSTS.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The court examined whether the sale of different commodities, specifically meat and fish, from the same platform or in the same market violates any bye-law or statutory provision. It was found that there is no specific bye-law or provision that prohibits the sale of multiple commodities from the same platform or market (!) (!) .
-
The case involved a dispute where plaintiffs, who are meat vendors, sought a permanent prohibitory injunction to prevent the sale of meat in a fish market by the defendant, who was a lessee authorized to sell meat. The plaintiffs argued that such sales were unhygienic, harmful to public health, and affected their business (!) (!) .
-
The court observed that the sale of meat and fish in the same market is not explicitly prohibited by any bye-law or regulation, and there was no evidence of a policy decision to restrict such sales. The absence of specific statutory or bye-law restrictions was a significant factor in the court's decision (!) (!) .
-
The court noted that the license issued to the defendant for selling meat was valid and that the defendant had constructed a hygienic cabin, indicating compliance with licensing conditions. The defendant's right to choose his trade within the scope of the license was recognized (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that the mere opinion of a market authority regarding potential health risks does not constitute sufficient grounds to restrict lawful commercial activity without clear legal backing or evidence of actual health hazards (!) (!) .
-
The court highlighted that the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was rightly refused, as essential conditions such as establishing a prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience were not satisfied. The exercise of judicial discretion was deemed appropriate in this context (!) (!) .
-
The court reaffirmed that the decision to grant or deny a temporary injunction involves a wide judicial discretion, which should be exercised judiciously and based on the circumstances of each case. Interference with such orders is only justified under exceptional circumstances (!) (!) .
-
The court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, affirming that the plaintiffs did not meet the necessary criteria for the issuance of a temporary injunction, and the parties would bear their respective costs (!) .
-
It was also clarified that observations or opinions expressed in the judgment do not affect the merits of the case and that the parties should proceed with the trial as scheduled (!) (!) .
These points summarize the court's reasoning and decision, emphasizing the importance of clear legal provisions and evidence in granting interim relief, and recognizing the defendant’s right to conduct lawful business within the existing legal framework.
D. P. Sood, J.— In this revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs 1 to 3 are petitioners and defendants 1 and 2 have been arrayed as respondents in the same sequence as shown in the plaint. Thus, hereinafter they are being referred to as plaintiffs and defendants,
2. Two markets (fish market and meat market) adjoining each other but separated by 9 inch thick brick wail having independent and separate approach, had been constructed by defendant No 2. Fish market and meat market were meant for exclusive sale of fish and meat respectively. Stalls have been constructed in each market The allotment thereof is regulated by defendant No. 2, the owner, under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1979 (shortly hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Bye-laws framed there under Similarly, sale of articles like fish, meat, eggs and pork etc. is regulated by issuance of licences under a separate set of Bye-laws framed under the Act
3. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the allottees of stall Nos 10, 1 3 and in meat market and defendant No ! is a lessee of disputed stall, namely, fish stall No 2 in fish market under defendant No 2-Muoicipal Corporation, Shimla. Under the respective licences issued by defendant No 2, the plaintiffs are regulating the sale of meat in their respective stalls referred to above, whereas defendant No 1. earlier to November, 1V89, used to sell fish in his stall but thereafter carried on the sale of meat therein till the filing of (he suit.
4. Licences for the sale of a particular commodity in particular stall in the above said markets used to be and are issued year-wise by the defendant No. 2.
5. The facts leading to this revision are that plaintiffs filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining defendant No. 2 from issuing any licence for the sale of meat in favour of defendant No. 1 in the disputed stall No. 2 on various grounds, viz. (i) that defendant No 1 procured licence for the sale of meat in the disputed stall in between the period 1989 till the filing of the suit Dot only by mis-representation of facts but also by exercising political pressure upon the authorities and contrary to the provisions of the Act and Bye-laws framed there under (ii) that fish market was meant for the sale of fish exclusively and sale of meat by defendant No. 1 in the disputed stall No 2 is illegal, unauthorised and affected the business of the plaintiffs inasmuch as defendant No 1 has started the sale of meat cot only in meat market through his family members in stall No. 7 thereof, but defendant No. 2 is also allowing the sale of meat in fish market also ; (iii) that the sale of the two commodities—fish and meat, Is not only contrary to the policy decision of defendant No. 2 but also is unhygienic and injurious to the health of the public in general, as the same is likely to spread epidemic diseases like, botulism, vibroisis, fugue, gestro-entritis and USD etc,; (iv) that the exhibition of meat in the stall in question is visible to the passers-by on the main road confronting the fish market and the sale of meat in such a situation, affects religious feelings not only of the plaintiffs but also of citizens of Shimla in general, particularly, vegetarians.
6. Defendants contested the suit but admitted the regulation of allotment of stalls and issuance of licence in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Bye-laws However’ it is pleaded that there is no Bye law prohibiting the sale of different commodities like fish and meat etc. in one and the same market. They further pleaded that there exist no such bye- law framed under the Act which prohibits the conversion of a stall used earlier for a particular purpose, to another purpose in future. Thus, as per their contention, the licence for the sale of meat in the disputed stall has validly been issued by defendant No 2 Defendant No. 1 further contended that though he had to involve himself in liti
