drp {1} Cri.W.P.No.1004/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1004 OF 2010 Ismailkhan s/o Gafarkhan Pathan PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.B.V.Dhage, Advocate for petitioner Mr.N.H.Borade, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 17th February 2011 PER COURT: 1. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to restrain respondents No.5 to 8 from carrying on business of slaughtering of animals and selling the meat in the village Ambelhol, Taluka-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad in the premises bearing CTS No.537 and 538 of village Ambelhol, Tq-Gangapur, Dist-Aurangabad. drp {2} Cri.W.P.No.1004/2010 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing CTS No.538. It appears that the so called slaughtering of the animals and selling of meat is carried out in CTS No.537 and 539. 3. It further appears that the brother of the petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit No.303/2008 praying therein for issuance of a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and his relatives. It also appears that an inunction application came to be filed by the plaintiff in the said suit praying for grant of temporary injunction, which was allowed by the trial court. It further appears that the defendants therein, being aggrieved by the grant of injunction, had filed Miscellaneous Appeal No.148/2009 before the District Judge-1, Aurangabad. Incidentally, we may state that the defendants in the said suit are shown as respondents No.5 to 8 in the present petition. Copy of the order of the District Judge, allowing appeal and setting aside the injunction granted by the trial court, has been placed on record. Upon perusal of the order of the appellate court, it appears that the appellate court has referred to the finding of the trial court that the premises were not owned by the plaintiff. It further appears that the slaughtering of the animals in the aforesaid premises has been going on, on the basis of certain permission or sanction given by the Gram Panchayat. In fact, this very question regarding illegal slaughtering of animals in the said premises was subject matter of the injunction application drp {3} Cri.W.P.No.1004/2010 as well as decision of the appellate court. 4. Mr.Dhage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that a public nuisance is being caused on account of slaughtering of animals. From the judgment of the appellate court it transpires that this practice of slaughtering of animals has been going on for quite sometime, possibly with the permission or license given by village Panchayat. In such circumstances, according to us, no writ of mandamus can be invoked directing respondents or restraining respondents from carrying on their trade. The petitioner has other alternative remedies, to which the petitioner may resort to. This petition, therefore, being sans substance, is dismissed summarily, with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/cwp1004-10