Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1865/2008 3/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1865 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
BOMBAY
HUMANITARIAN LEAGUE THRO' ARATIBEN KALPESHKUMAR - Applicant(s)
Versus
MUNICIPAL
COMMISSIONER, & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NM KAPADIA for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR PRANAV V SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR RC
KODEKAR ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent(s) : 3,
NONE
for Respondent
No.2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 30/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
RULE.
Mr.Pranav Shah, learned advocate and Mr.R.C. Kodekar, learned
Additional
Public Prosecutor, waive the service of notice of
rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2 & 3, respectively.
With
the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
By
way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or
direction directing the respondents more particularly respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to take adequate effective step to curb, stop and
prevent the illegal business of slaughtering of animals going on in
the city of Rajkot by registering criminal cases against such
persons under relevant provisions of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal
Act, 1960 (?SPCA Act?? for short), Indian Penal Code, Bombay
Provincial and Municipal Corporation Act (?SBPMC Act?? for
convenience) etc. by arresting the offenders, and by closing down
illegal slaughter houses, as suggested in the notices dtd.18/7/2006
and 27/7/2007 at the earliest so as to save the lives of thousands
of innocent living creatures.
It
is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that in the area of
Krushnapura situated at Khatkiwada, Rajkot several persons used to
run illegal business of selling fish and slaughter houses and at the
relevant time the respondent No.1 had issued notices under sec.373A
of the BPMC Act and the same were challenged by some persons by way
of Special Civil Application Nos.7040 and 7041 of 1990, which
came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It
is submitted that in Rajkot City more particularly in the aforesaid
area many illegal slaughtering houses are running without licence
and therefore, to prevent the same, representations have been made
to the respondent No.1, but no actions have been taken. It is
further submitted that as such under Right to Information Act, 2005
(?SRI Act?? for short), the petitioner demanded certain important
particulars/documents from the Public Officer of Department of Urban
Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar regarding illegal slaughter
houses in the Krushnapura area of Rajkot City and in response to the
same, it was intimated to the petitioner that no policy is
formulated by the State of Gujarat for slaughter house. It is also
further submitted that even the petitioner made an application under
RI Act to the respondent No.1 ? Municipal Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Rajkot demanding explanation/clarification
and in reply to the same, even the Corporation has also admitted
that the slaughter house was run illegally and the details of the
operators doing illegal activities were also supplied. It is also
submitted that no licences have been given by the Corporation to
run the slaughter house. It is submitted that it is the statutory
duty of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to close down the illegal
slaughter house and to stop the illegal business of slaughtering.
Mr.Kapadia,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied
upon para 72 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Gujarat Vs. Mirza Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat,
reported in 2006 (2) GLH 201. Submitting accordingly,
it is requested to allow the present petition.
Mr.Pranav
Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 ?
Corporation is not in a position to dispute that slaughter houses
are running in Krushnapura Area of Rajkot City without licence. It
is also not disputed that for running the slaughter house, licence
of the Corporation is must.
Having
heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective
parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it
is clear that it is statutory duty of the Corporation to see that
illegal slaughter houses which are being run without licence is
stopped after following due process of law. Any slaughter house
which is being run without licence is illegal and such illegal
activity of slaughtering is against the provisions of PCA as well
as BPMC Act and not stopping activity of such illegal slaughter
house can be said to be failing in performing statutory duty by the
Corporation and/or appropriate authorities. Under the
circumstances, the respondents are required to be directed to
perform their statutory duty in accordance with law.
In
the result, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to
take adequate effective step to curb, stop and prevent the illegal
business of slaughtering of animals going on in the city of Rajkot
in accordance with law at the earliest However, the same shall be
done after following due process of law and principles of natural
justice at the earliest. While taking any action if a request is
made by the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajkot, –
respondent No.1 or its officer, for police protection, the
Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City, Rajiot ? respondent No.2 is
directed to provide sufficient police protection to them so as to
avoid disturbance of law and order and safety. Rule is made
absolute accordingly.
[M.R.
SHAH, J.]
rafik
Top