IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 813 OF 2004 / ^. * PETITIONER VERSUS RAJENDRA S. BR.^MHANK.'Ul. aged 36 years, S/o, S.S. Branihaiikar, / near Water Tank, Sector II, Shankar Nagar, Raipur. RESPONDENTS 1. ^ ..- . ^^^ 2. State ofChhattisgarh, tlirougii Secretary, Urban Developnient and Admimstration, Mantralaya, D,K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^^^% ^ . ^°\"^. • ^" "-/''^ '"\2- Secretary, l Department of Health and Family Welfare, Maiitralaya, Mantralaya, ,^^^/n ^/^fe/ <4^ D-K-S: Bhawan- RaiPur <C-G^ f C^'^^ M^ 13'e"<'<A \.» .^ nyHic^A£ (^.rpo^.^^R^^yr, } ^ \^(K.^y^' '^^^ Co;^u'S&^€Y,Kyfi^. -^A. 1 -__-X_'0,3 WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 &F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE'OF WMT IN THE NATURE QF MANDAMUS, CERTIGRARY AND/OR ANY OTHER SL'ITABLE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE XI-HC-22 3^T^f f^TT^W^T ^t^^rf?cT ^)^l<=h ^'^-^ 3^'^1^8<n^, ^Tfl^Ko, f^C?1l^^< 3ii^i 451 cn wwTTgiirra?'^ ' "y'^^T^ 200</- 2 3TT^T ^•cTTW^TT^cT ^ 2-§-2005 - M.r, Roop Naik, coun^el for Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Govt A2. Mr. &.P, Sh€xrma/coun^©if Th©petitioner has prefe 227 of the Constitutidn of Corporation be directed not to connectlon wlth so.ie of birds / j: made to this effect, The of the petitjon^ pouitry farm for the tast 20 the municspai Jimit^ of Raspur at other shops in the iocai area of| Rdpur haying a local market/meat and pouitr/ to be soid for the entire dty. <^ hav^ com^. up in th©ioeai vicinit^ and they are not notified, bu| adjacent to the grown up pia^ declared any ptace a5 market pl^ aiiotted smali hutment tj thc petitioncr, Advocate for fhe State/re^ponde-nts No<l or re^pondent No.3. 'red this writ petition under Articie 226/ I|idia, with a prayer that the re^pondent nitsate any action again^t the petitlon^r in ^oultry products uniess a provision of iaw is markfct produ|cts cbi^?^i41'i ^i*i<nT^tel:A<p3i^i< ^3Tf^T3:n^T y^ar; ^r js that he is engaged in the of ^ars, His pouitn/ farm is situated outside T^libandha (Ravi &ram, ftaipur), Th^ra ar© [RavJ <?ram, Telibandha. Eariier the town of caiied Jawahar Market and in the GS weil as grocery and vegetables used fn account of 9radua! growth, smaii markets of diff^rant Mohaila^/scctor^ of tho city, ^ they .are settied in a convenient place ^e, Thc r^^pondent Corporation ha^ not .c^, but in some parts of the city they have the vendors for sale of goods including XI-HC-22 ^s: 3TST ^NM^, ^Tfl^^l^, ^TRTgI 311^1 M5<Cft ^INdl rib^Jch "~t""^"^^""/'W[ 200^- 3TI^T^T R^i^W^T ^IW^cT J.'- 3TI^T ^RTTW ;fff?cT -<2j grocery, vegetables/meat etc., b| made, The poultry farm bu^ine^ <t)i^I<n41-i ^i^idt ^'tel:^t<[^^i< ^3Tf^T3Tr^T ^t in piaces no such diotments ane is not eowrcd under Section of the Chhatti^gGrh MunlcipG! Corporatic^n Act, 1956, because thi^ provi^ion dpe^ noT cover blrds and chicken, bul| provides for selilng animals, meaT, etc., outsid^ a markct without a licenl that is noother p| for management, sale of chicken^ Municipai Corporatlon by virtue o 257 of the ChhatTlsgGrh Municipa| their own honds, T have heard jearned couns^ ce, Chicken i^ not ^ynonvmou^ to meat. ^Qvision in the Municipal Corporation Act ^irds. By Anne-xure P-1, the Offic-ers of ^ wrong intsrpr^tation of S^ctions 255 4i Corpomtion Act, 1956/have Taksn iaw in for* the parties. Section 255 of the Act of 1956. illegai. On the other hand, M.r. ~-\/. Learned counsei for the p^titjoner submitted tnat as the petitiQner i^ d@aiin9 in th©bu^in®^^of poi|sitry farm, a^ ^uch, h@ i^ dealing in the business of chicken and eggs, tl^erefore, the same is not covered under Hence, the action of the re^pondent^ k B.P. Sharma, iearned counsei for the Municipal CorporatJon, Ralpur, ar^u^d that chickan is inciuded within th^ definltion of 5efition 255 of th^ Act of 1956. as such, the petitioner eannot be ailowed to do the bu^inc^s of poyltry farm, chicken and ©93^ without arsy iicence. XMK-22 ./ /'•^ ^^ ?WIRPT, 8'^PT^, ^W^^ iwi^nr^ww 3ii^i y^* ^^^-.^^V.^^A, ^ 290^ In thi^ connection, provi^ enylsage that *i^y41*i NiN^^te^ <^i<^K ^^f^ra^ on^ of S&ction 255 of th^ Act of 1956, ^Sciling animal^, m^at, etc./ out^ide a market without a !lcence,;a(l) WJThout| Q ilcence from the Coi&nniissioner no per^on ^hail ^el! or4^p°^e for sall€^iy Gnimai or any rrseat or fi^h intended for^ hurhan food in any pbcc othcr than a CorDoratlon or market." It is admitted positlon tha^ the petitioner is engagsd In seiiing 0995 and chick^n/ thsrefor^/ the bu^in^^^ of th^ p^tltion^r i^ covered under Section 255 of the Act of 1956, for the |reason that the same Is covsred under The word^ '^a!^ any animai or any msa^ or fi^h int^nd^d far human food". Chicten comes under 'any animd'. The wo^id 'animai' has to be Interpreted In the iight of S^ction 255 of tha Act of 195^, Tha ^aid provi^ion ha^ bgan incorporated In the Act of 1956 in order to c|ontro! saie of aTiima! or me^t or fl^h at a ^p^cifiad plac^ ^o a^ to meet th^ hyQJanlc eonditioni^ of th^ area and ai^o in order to avold hurt to the feelin^s of The citlzens w'ho are yegetarians. As ^uch, the petitioner l^ not €ntitkd]to^ell chicten without any iic^nce granted by the AAuniclpd Corporatlon, Adm|Ttedly, The petltioner has no ilcence to deai with of chicten, Therefore, ction of the re^pondent^ cannot be ^ald to be contrary To the proylslons of ia^. Zn thc eircum^tanca^, thi^ v<|ri+ p^tition of th^ p^tition^.r6 ha^ no m^rit/ it is to be dl^ml^ed, and acc^ rdlngiy, It i^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge