(»> IN TME HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NQ. SM7^ /2003 !^i:: i ii 1 PfiT]TI6WRS^ 1 • Ku. A. Indira D/0 Shri A.Venket Typist,Distri©tBarAssociation ; Raipur,Distt.Raipur(C.G.) i i .:•"•• 2. ManoharJethani S/0 Dr. Varial Das Jethani Aged about 35 Years R/OGanesh Ram Nagar,Bans -Taal Amardeep talkies Road, Post & Tehsil-Raipur Distt. Raipur.[Chhattisgarh] VERSUS RESPONDENTS; [1]StateofChhattisgarh Through Secretary Urban DevelopmentAdmjnistration DKSBhawan Raipur.[Chhattisgarh] Cteite.10 ^ MOtii [2]Secretary Health Die'partment DKSBh^wan Raipur [Chhattisgarh] ^5^ ">"' [3]Municipal Corporation Raipur Through, Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur ,District Raipur (C.G.) [4] Secretary Health & Family Welfare Medical EduGation D.K.S.Bhawan ,Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITtON UNDER ^RTIGI.E 22^ / 22f QF THE C©NSIITUTIONORilNDI^gi©MSSII ffiOF?I^^^ NATU&E 0F^ Ml^lJ^@gRilEUil|B!E©{2)RJSiyiYOIH DIRECTIONS©R0f^eK^( @i!lltJiffii@INTHE^ XI-HC-22 STlt^'ER Riiich ^t^tt sft^ich'^t^ •g^-'iWi^PI, •^idlW^.'ftal'K^ ^I^?T 'q33R , «.^-T,te->a-s-^-4::1-^4(U 2iu *<l*1<rt! sb11«h T J ' ' V •^^-—---••---- ^IF^I iNIS^ ^^^ 23-1-20C-4 Shri Vipin Punjabi, counsel f| Shri Sdnjay K.Agrawai, respondents 1, 2 aid 4. Heard both .the counsel. Tne petitioner has preferr^ 226/227 of the Constitution M respondents that they be direct^ and connecting shops which are b^ notified area of the flAunicipai Corji TTie case ofl+se petitioner^ Raipur Municipal.i-orporution.situi •^' h i^h ly populated dred, m^t of complex, main post office, talkies, Institdtions are situated in this' persons, without any licence, a" chicken.in their shops •A'hic'i i^ Annexure-P/2. 50 years dgo respondent Ns n^r Jawahar Mdrket for siauahti sale of fishes.fflUttorefleshesarid notitication some of fne persond it|i|tel''it;i WKff^ ft1^ <&<$< ^•oit^a^ ^i^i ;r'rtie petitioners. ^ Deputy Advocate Genera\, for :d tiiis writ petition undep Article Indig seeking direction aoainst 1 .d to remove the slaughter^ house ing run by their pwiers out of thfe oration, faiipur. iAt is that -rtrey are the residents gf s^ted in the heart of the •afy and the business complex; shopptns |©ovemmentand Semi-Sovernmenlt ^rea. However, in .thisarea fflttn^ seliing fish, mut*on fleshes dny evident from the photographs, <3 nofified and appro^d'the lan^ ^ I- sr'house @nd fliven permissiori for ehicken. HoweveF;jin spife ofjtha^ gre doing that business^wi|h^ui /«~>\ L i'-ii» :iMa 11111 aa XI-HC-22 3(1^1-W ft-fi.* 3Il|!?I i^^fi<<»ti[?a 'S^'^PIRra, axtl'M'ie, ficiiua'1- %n^?r TR?R ^_..+...,.»...-£(AA4..l&- wwiigi'n^ •w-^-^^r-^ ^S^fS' hcildlng VCnd iicSHG€figuF MfnGrdi the provisions of Sections 255 an| ACT, 1956 "no person shall or ex^ fish intended for human food ir or market. counsel for the p; [p taikies at Raipur, whereas as per Ifl 257 of the Municipal Corporation » ~ ' for any animat or meat or ^ny place other than a Corporation of the Sections 255 ana 257 of Afflardeep talkies certain persc| without valid licence. The p^ ^titioners submits that in vioiation fhe Municipa! Corporation Ac* near ns are selling fflutton, fish etc. 9TI Annexure-P/3 to the Sscreta No.4 and Municipul Co| but so fsr thsy hsvg not pafiscd u| r^resentution Counsei furt^i to comply wlth the provisions c| flAunicipal fcdrporation Act, 1956 has no objection. Having heard the learned regard to the facts and circumsljan ars ailowed to make a fresh r^p raising utl Tneir grievances aia appropriate orderlas per the le< action within 30 ddys from the da <t)(3ii<i<<it fli*i<;ff'^ f^^ <f^i$i< ^ aipOT SII^CT tioner made a representation, \y, t-1eulth and Fumily Welfare hporation,.Daipur, resporident No.3, [i~Y order or tuken any action on the bubmits that u direction be issued •f Sections 255 and 2.57 of the to which the learned couns«:i jor ^ounsel for the parties having ^nces of the case, the petitioners Ipresentation to respondent No.3 •turn respondent No.3 will pass y prov'isions and take uppropriate \eof receipt of representation. /"^. '•'<,