Meat Shop Licenses Prohibited Within 50-Meter Radius of Public Temples Under Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-09-11

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Cancellation of Meat Shop Licenses Near Public Temple, Cites 50-Meter Rule

JAIPUR – The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has affirmed the authority of municipal bodies to cancel licenses for meat shops operating within a 50-meter radius of a place of public worship. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by meat shop owners, holding that such a restriction is legally sound under both the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and national food safety regulations.

The court also clarified that any temple situated in an open, publicly accessible area, such as a market, will be considered a "public temple" for the purpose of this rule, regardless of whether it is officially registered with the Devasthan Department.

Background of the Case

The petitioners, including Aayush Narania, had challenged orders passed by the Nagar Nigam (Greater) Jaipur and the District Collector, Jaipur, which resulted in the cancellation of their licenses to operate meat shops. The primary basis for the cancellation was a Standard of Procedure (SoP) which prohibits granting such licenses if the shop is located within 50 meters of a public temple or school.

The petitioners were initially issued show-cause notices on October 1, 2024, and their licenses were subsequently cancelled on February 17, 2025. An appeal to the District Collector was also dismissed on March 11, 2025, prompting the shop owners to approach the High Court.

Key Arguments Presented

• Petitioners' Stance: The counsel for the petitioners argued that the SoP lacked statutory force and could not override the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. They contended that the temple in question was a "personal temple" of other shopkeepers and not a registered public temple. Therefore, the 50-meter rule was wrongly applied.

• Respondents' Stance: The State contended that the SoP was issued in line with Sections 269 and 340 of the Act of 2009. They argued that the temple, being located in an open market and accessible to all for worship, is unequivocally a public temple. The respondents asserted that the rule is designed to maintain public harmony and respect for religious sentiments.

Court's Rationale and Legal Principles

Justice Dhand, after a thorough review of the arguments and material on record, rejected the petitioners' contentions. The court's decision was anchored in several key legal and factual observations:

• Status of the SoP: The court found that the SoP was issued in pursuance of the powers granted under the Municipalities Act and was therefore valid. It noted, "Unless and until the validity of Clause-4 of the SoP is challenged by the petitioner and the same is quashed, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief."

• Definition of a Public Temple: The court provided a crucial interpretation of what constitutes a "public temple." It ruled that official registration is not the sole determinant. > "Temple means a place, by whatever designation known, used for public religious worship where anyone can worship and the same is accessible to the public at large. Thus, every temple is a public property unless proved otherwise... In the instant case, the temple in question is situated in an open area of a market and the same is accessible to the public at large, therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be treated as a private temple."

• Corroboration from Food Safety Regulations: The court reinforced its decision by citing national-level regulations, stating: > "Even otherwise, as per Regulation 2.1.2(1)(5) under Chapter 2 read with Schedule-4 under Part IV of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses), Regulations 2011, the minimum distance between the licensed meat shop and any place of worship should not be less than 50 meters."

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding no illegality in the actions of the municipal authorities, the High Court concluded that the licenses were rightly cancelled as the shops were indisputably located within the prohibited 50-meter radius of a public temple.

The court dismissed all three writ petitions, stating they were "devoid of merit." This judgment reinforces the regulatory framework governing the location of businesses like meat shops and provides a clear judicial definition of a "public temple" in the context of municipal licensing. It serves as a precedent affirming that proximity rules aimed at maintaining social and religious harmony are legally enforceable.