1 srk app-L-731-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (LODGING) NO.731 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2331 OF 2010 All India Meat & Live Stock Export Association and another. ... Appellants Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others. ... Respondents Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin with Mr. Charles De Souza and Mr. Mahesh Sahasranaman for the appellants. Mr. S.S. Pakale with Ms. T.H. Puranik for BMC. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Tuesday, October 26, 2010 P .C. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20 October 2010 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging the orders of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, putting a restriction on the use of Abattoir at Deonar to the extent of only 2500 sheep by the appellants- petitioners, for export. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal, briefly stated are as under: Section 61(h) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (the said Act) provides that it shall be incumbent on the Corporation to make adequate provision, by any means or measures to construct and maintain public markets and slaughter houses in the City of Greater Mumbai. According to the Corporation, the object of the provision is to provide adequate and quality supply of meat to Mumbai City at a reasonable price. The Corporation 2 srk app-L-731-10.sxw therefore, constructed the Deonar Abattoir in or around 1972-73 for slaughter activities. Since the Abattoir had certain spare capacity, in the year 1979, the Corporation permitted the petitioners to utilize the excess capacity of the Abattoir for slaughtering of the animals for export purposes on payment of a slaughter fee per animal. There is no agreement under which the petitioners have been allowed to make use of the spare capacity of the Abattoir. The only agreement that exists between the petitioner and the respondent -Corporation is an agreement of leave and licence, whereunder the respondent as licensor has allowed the petitioners as licensees to occupy the premises of Devnar Abattoir (independent of slaughter lines) admeasuring about 561.38 square meters for the purpose of chilling halls and chilling plant for the period 13 December 2009 to 12 November 2010 at a monthly compensation of Rs.30,202/-. According to the Corporation, since the last five years, there is scarcity of sheep and goats and the Corporation is facing problems of adequate supply of live sheep and goats. As against this, there is tremendous increase in demand of meat in local market. The Corporation by its letter dated 10 October 2008 informed the petitioners that they will be allowed to slaughter upto 1500 goats per day for export at the Abattoir. In view of the representations received from several quarters including the petitioners, the Corporation by its order dated 13 October 2008, stayed its said order dated 10 October 2008. The said order was modified and the petitioners were allowed to slaughter 4000 sheep/goats per day till 10 October 2010. On 29 September 2010, the Corporation by its letter addressed to the President of the petitioner No.1 informed the petitioners that they will be allowed to slaughter 2500 sheep per day and further informed the petitioners that the said order shall be implemented with effect from 10 October 2010. 3 srk app-L-731-10.sxw 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have not established any case of concluded contract between the petitioners and the Corporation and that it is for the Corporation to decide the spare capacity of the Abattoir and to what extent the appellant should be punished to use its slaughter lines. The learned Single Judge also noted that the Corporation has no objection to the petitioners' carrying on their slaughter activities for export at some other slaughter house. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants admitted that the respondent-Corporation cannot make any distinction between supply of meat for local sale and for export. It is also submitted that there is no material on record to show that there is no sufficient supply of meat to the City. 5. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, on the other hand, has supported the decision of the learned Single Judge and submitted that as per the provisions of section 61(h), it is incumbent upon the Corporation to make adequate provision to construct and maintain the public markets and slaughter houses in the City of Greater Mumbai. The learned counsel submits that the object of the statutory provision is to ensure that adequate and quality supply of meat is available to the people in the City of Mumbai at a reasonable price and, therefore, the Corporation constructed the Deonar Abattoir in or around 1972-73 for slaughter activities. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the Corporation has power to regulate, regular and sufficient supply of meat to the City at a reasonable price and, therefore, it is for the Corporation to decide what is the spare capacity of the Abattoir and to what extent it can allow the appellants to use its slaughter lines. 4 srk app-L-731-10.sxw 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appellants have not shown any agreement between the Corporation and the appellants of how many sheep the appellants are entitled to slaughter at the slaughter house of the Corporation. We find considerable substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondent-Corporation that the object of the statutory provision is to provide adequate and quality supply of meat in Mumbai city at reasonable price and, therefore, the appellants who are using the slaughter lines for export purposes, cannot claim as a matter of right that they are entitled to use the slaughter lines at the Abattoir for particular number of sheep or cattle. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is summarily dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.