JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
Page 1928
1. By this petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, directions to initiate contempt proceedings for willful disobedience of the directions contained in a judgment and order of the Court dated 23.12.2003 in WP 5098/1997 have been sought.
2. The petitioner had approached this court, in the writ proceedings, on a complaint that renewal of license to carry on trade of sale of non-vegetarian food items, in his ‘dhaba’ refused in 1997, was illegal. The respondents had justified their stand on the basis of a policy formulated in 1983 that dhabas selling non-vegetarian food items could not be permitted within 100 metre Page 1929 radius of a religious institution. The court, by its order dated 16-12-2003 had disposed off the petition, inter alia holding as follows:
“The ground for cancellation of the license, as stated in the impugned order, is the fact that the petitioner has been running a non-vegetarian Dhaba with meat products hanging outside. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in terms of the policy decision of the respondent, standard meat shop should be at least 100 meters away from a place of worship. There is no challenge to the policy. In fact, the policy is such that really speaking there can be no grievance made in respect of the same.
However, the aforesaid cannot give a right to the petitioner to continue to sell the non-vegetarian food stuff. In my considered view, in case the petitioner is willing to run a vegetarian dhaba, the case of the petitioner for renewal of the license can be considered by the respondent Corporation on the petitioner’s fulfillling the necessary formalities. However, there cannot be any right to run a non-vegetarian dhaba contrary to the policy of the respondent not to have such dhabas within the radius of 100 metres of a religious place.
A grievance has been made in the petition that there are other shops running within the radius of 100 meters and selling non-vegetarian food. I am of the considered view that the policy must be uniformly implemented and in so far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned of discrimination, directions are liable to be issued to the Respondent ” Corporation, to forthwith take action in respect of whatever shops are selling non-vegetarian.”
3. It is alleged that the respondents required the petitioner to cease carrying on sale of non-vegetarian food items; however, at the same time, despite orders of court, the MCD has issued licenses that permit sale of non-vegetarian food to about four establishments, which are located within 100 square meters of one or the other place of religious worship. The petitioner represented against this action, and caused legal notice to be issued, before approaching the court, in these contempt proceedings.
4. After issuance of show cause notice, the MCD has filed an affidavit, in response, alleging that in due compliance with orders of court in the previous proceedings, it had issued show cause notices to various establishments and dhabas, for stopping sale of non-vegetarian food. Copies of show cause notices, and the action taken, by way of undertakings/affidavits of the establishments of such parties have been produced in court. The MCD has also relied upon a resolution of the Standing committee, pursuant to an Expert committee report ( i.e the Nagendra Sharma committee), which had recommended review of the policy. A fresh policy was formulated in 2004; a copy of the policy has been placed on record. The relevant portion of the new policy reads as follow:
“Location of Meat Shop the meat shop/ sale outlet should preferably be a unit of meat market located away from Vegetable, fish or other food markets and shall be free from undesirable odor, smoke dust or other contaminants. Wherever the meat markets are not available, individual meat shop licenses can also be granted considering the above factors, which have a direct bearing on the hygiene of premises and health of consumers.
Page 1930
The sale of meat in the city so as to fulfill the requirement of non-vegetarian population should be a matter of hygiene and health. , it may not be linked with the location of shop to a particular distance from any religious place. However, considering the sentiments of people visiting the religious places, the committee recommended that-
a) For the purpose of granting the license to a mat shop, the minimum distance between the license meat shop and place of worship except Mashed should not be less than 50 meter;
b) The condition of not less than 50 metres distance from Mashed will apply for the licensed pork shop only.
c) The condition of 100 meters distance will apply in case premises is situated directly opposite of the entry gate of religious place of any community”
All the meat shops located in the vicinity of religious places shall be fitted with black glass doors, which must be kept closed all the times except in case of entry or exit. It must be the responsibility of the meat shop owners to maintain a high standard of hygiene not only inside the shops but also in the way leading to the shops as far as any in sanitary conditions due to meat business for example, presence of blood, part of offal, meat scraps on road pavements or other adjoining places etc., are concerned.”
5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner alleged that the MCD had not averred correct facts. It is alleged that the MCD has adopted a pick and choose policy. The MCD had stated, in an additional affidavit, that two establishments were found to be indulging in sale of non-vegetarian food, contrary to the policy. Those establishments were sealed with assistance of the police; copies of orders dated 28th January, 2005 have been produced. The MCD has filed another, additional affidavit, dated 14th March, 2005. In this, the details of all establishments which were initially closed, or not permitted to carry out trade in non-vegetarian food, have been given. Additionally, particulars of establishments that were granted license as per the new policy, have also been disclosed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the MCD has acted in deliberate and willful disregard of directions of this court, in permitting other establishments to carry on sale of non-vegetarian food, and denying the petitioner such a trade license. He submitted that in spite of directions that the MCD should behave in a non-discriminatory manner, it has proceeded to grant license; the case of one Shafeequddin has been cited.
7. It was also contended that the change in policy of the MCD was an eye-wash; the MCD could not have changed its policy, once it was upheld by the court, in previous proceedings. He relied upon the judgment reported as P.J. Joseph “v.- Asst. Excise Commissioner AIR 1953 Trav Cochin 146 to say that when a writ petition is filed, claiming a prohibition, and after issuance of notice by the court, the party against whom the petition is filed, does the very thing which is sought to be prohibited, there is on need for a separate Page 1931 injunction. It is therefore claimed that the court has always got the power to secure ends of justice. Therefore, the change of policy cannot be put as a ground to defeat the writ of court.
8. Learned senior counsel for the respondent MCD, on the other hand, submitted that being an executive or administrative authority, it can always review its policy, having regard to exigencies of a particular situation. It was submitted that the court only y enjoined implementation of the earlier policy, not the change of policy in exercise of MCDG’s undoubted statutory power. It was also submitted that the three affidavits filed during the course of these proceedings establish that there was no violation willful, or deliberate of the court’s order. All those covered by the previous policy were dealt with, and asked to conform to it; the show cause notices and their undertakings are on record; after the changed policy, those who were eligible, were granted the concerned licenses. In the absence of a challenge to the new policy, the petitioner cannot complain of any illegality, least of all contempt of the court’s order.
9. The right of an administrative authority, such as the MCD, possessing of statutory power, to change, review, alter or modify its policies, in view of changing situations, cannot be denied. In the present case, the original prohibition against establishments to sell non-vegetarian food within 100 meters radius from a religious institution, has been relieved, to an extent; the distance has been reduced to 50 meters, if the establishment does not face the place of worship directly. If it does, the original restriction of 100 meters applies. The further change appears to be the definition of religious place of worship; it means one with a puce structure.
10. In the present case, while there can be no challenge to the change in policy, the only issue that can and ought to be gone into by the court, is whether the writ issued in the previous proceeding, for not discriminating any one on the basis of the policy, has been complied with. It has been averred in the affidavit of the MCD, that several establishments were issued with notices, and action taken. Subsequently, on the basis of the new, changed policy, their applications were considered, and those entitled to be considered and given licenses for sale of all cooked food, were granted that. In one case, the license was issued after the trader had approached the court.
11. In view of the pleadings and materials on record, and having regard to the submissions made, I am of the opinion that there is no willful or deliberate disregard of the court’s directions, dated 16th December, 2003. The MCD has been able to show that it issued notices, and restricted existing licenses of various parties. Thereafter, when the policy changed, several persons approached it, in the light of the changed circumstance; it processed and dealt with such applications, on their merits. This approach cannot be called as contumacious.
12. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that no ground has been made out by the petitioner, for initiation of contempt proceedings. Notice discharged. The petition is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.