Judicial intervention requires specific grievances rather than vague allegations to take actionable relief.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR WP No. 6642 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 7215 OF 2026 S.Muralidharan Founder Indian Centre for Animal Rights and Education (INCARE), S/o. Mr. P. Sivalingam, F1, No.40, R.S. Sridhar Street, Kottur, Chennai-600 085 ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Commissioner Greater chennai corporation Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003.

2. The Commissioner of Food Safety Government of Tamil Nadu, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai-600 006 ..Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to strictly enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and allied laws to exercise statutory powers of inspection, licensing and enforcement against retail meat outlets carrying out illegal slaughter within Chennai District.

For Petitioner : Mr. Muralidharan, Party-in-Person For Respondents : Mr. E. Vijay Anand, Additional Government Pleader - For R2 Mr. A. Arunbabu Standing Counsel - For R1 Order (Order of the Court was made by The Chief Justice)

The relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the respondents to strictly enforce the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001, Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and allied laws to exercise statutory powers of inspection, licensing and enforcement against retail meat outlets carrying out illegal slaughter within Chennai District, and take action against illegal slaughter without mandatory veterinary supervision and humane stunning methods, ensure scientific lawful disposal of animal waste and file a detailed compliance and status report.

2. The entire petition does not contain any specific allegation against any particular shop or shops. During the course of arguments, the petitioner-in-person submits that all the shops and the entire slaughtering activity is illegal and against the provisions of law and nothing is being done by the respondents.

3. On such a vague allegation, no direction can be issued only for the personal satisfaction of the petitioner. In case the petitioner has any specific grievance in a given particular case, it is open for him to submit a complaint before the authorities for taking appropriate action.

4. Giving such liberty, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.