Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2016 Supreme(UK) 706

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
K.M. JOSEPH, ALOK SINGH, JJ.
Kailash Agarwal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 123 of 2016
Decided on : 15-11-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vikas Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Prateek Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate

Strict enforcement of provisions and safeguards under the Municipal Corporation Act and related Acts and Rules, including the licensing requirements for meat traders.

Headnote:
Municipal Corporation Act - Enforcement of Provisions and Safeguards - Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Bureau of Indian Standards IS 7053:1996 - Section 421, 422, 423, 424, 426, 427, 428, 429, 432, 435, 439, Rule 3 of the 2001 Rules
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the enforcement of provisions and safeguards under the Municipal Corporation Act and Bureau of Indian Standards IS 7053:1996 to address the issue of unregistered meat shops operating in District Udham Singh Nagar, allegedly violating mandatory conditions and selling meat from sick animals.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 and the Rules made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 were being violated. The court directed strict enforcement of these provisions by all authorities and emphasized the need for licensing of meat traders.
Issues: Violation of provisions and safeguards under the Municipal Corporation Act and Bureau of Indian Standards IS 7053:1996, unregistered meat shops selling meat from sick animals, failure to enforce licensing requirements for meat traders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the strict enforcement of the mandatory provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 and the Rules made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, including the licensing requirements for meat traders.
Final Decision: The court directed the authorities to strictly enforce the provisions of the Acts and Rules, ensuring the licensing of meat traders and prohibiting the sale of meat from sick animals.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court directed strict enforcement of provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 and Rules under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, including licensing of meat traders. (!) (!) (!) (!) - There were no slaughter houses in District Udham Singh Nagar as per Slaughter House Rules, 2001, and temporary slaughter houses did not meet standards; committee reports indicate non-compliance. (!) (!) (!) - Regular inspections by Health Department under Food, Safety and Standards Act, 2006; proceedings initiated against violators; actions taken against unregistered meat shops. (!) (!) - Rule 3 of the 2001 Rules prohibits slaughter except in recognised or licensed slaughter houses and imposes conditions on animals before slaughter. (!) (!) (!) - The Municipal Commissioner’s licensing requirements apply to sale of meat and prohibition of sale without licence. (!) (!) (!) - The court disposed of the writ petition by mandating strict enforcement of mandatory provisions and licensing requirements within a specified period. (!) (!)

What is the extent of mandatory enforcement of the Municipal Corporation Act provisions and related Acts and Rules, including licensing of meat traders?

What is the status of slaughter houses and licensing requirements under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and related Rules in District Udham Singh Nagar?

What are the authorities' duties to strictly enforce licensing and prohibit sale of meat from unlicensed or unregistered shops?

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, C.J.

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:

“1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of ‘mandamus’ commanding the respondents to strictly implement the provisions and safeguards provided under the Municipal Corporation Act and Bureau of Indian Standards IS 7053:1996.

2. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of “mandamus” directing the respondents to initiate proceedings under the law against the unregistered meat shops operating in District Udham Singh Nagar who are found in violation of the above stated rules and safeguards.”

2. The complaint, essentially, is that there are number of unregistered meat shops, which are being set up in District Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner would complain that though under the law, an owner must acquire a licence by following the procedure, the meat shop owners have set up shops on random basis at desired places, without following the mandatory conditions. Petitioner has made a representation. Petitioner also relies on the Bureau of Indian Standards IS 7053:1993, which has laid down, according to him, specific Rules regarding the sale of meat of small and large animals through the meat shops, but they are not being followed. He also adverts to meat shop owners, who are not registered with the Nagar Nigam or with the Zila Panchayat, who are allegedly selling the meat derived from sick and unhealthy animals. He complains that people are bound to buy it giving rise to number of diseases, which has to be stopped in the interest of the public at large. Petitioner also relies on the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “2001 Rules”).

3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, who is the Designated Officer, Food Safety Administration, Udham Singh Nagar. Therein, it is inter alia stated as follows:

“4. That the contents of para 2 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence denied. In reply it is stated that from time to time Health Department under the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 inspect the Meat Shop running in the District Udham Singh Nagar and in case of violation of Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 by the Meat Shop owners proceedings against such offenders is initiated in accordance to law.

7. That the contents of para 5 of the writ petition are not as stated admitted hence denied. In reply it is state that the petitioner has file the instant writ petition being aggrieved by the Meat shop situated in front of his house, however, it is relevant to state here that proceedings against the said meat shop has been initiated for violation of the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006. Copy of the proceedings initiated in respect of the said Meat Shop is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure no. CA-1 to this affidavit.

8. That the contents of para 6 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence denied. In reply it is stated that before opening meat Shop it is mandatory to obtained license/registration from the department under the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006. It is relevant to state here that regular inspection is carried out of Meat Shop either registered or unregistered and case of violation of the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 by the Meat Shop owners legal proceedings is initiated against the owners of such Meat Shop in accordance to law.

10. That in reply to the contents of para 8 & 9 of the writ petition it is stated that the Health Department carried out a regular inspection of Meat Shop either registered or unregistered and case of violation of the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 by the Meat Shop owners legal proceedings is initiated against the owners of such Meat Shop in accordance to law.

Apart from aforesaid regular inspection in case any complaint is received the same is also acted upon. Till date in District Udham Singh Nagar case has been registered against 21 meat Shop owners be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document