SCR.A/1865/2008 1/6 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 1. RULE. Mr.Pranav Shah, learned advocate and Mr.R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, waive the SCR.A/1865/2008 2/6 JUDGMENT service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2 & 3, respectively. 2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. 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 (“PCA Act” for short), Indian Penal Code, Bombay Provincial and Municipal Corporation Act (“BPMC 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. SCR.A/1865/2008 3/6 JUDGMENT 4. 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 (“RI 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 SCR.A/1865/2008 4/6 JUDGMENT 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 SCR.A/1865/2008 5/6 JUDGMENT that for running the slaughter house, licence of the Corporation is must. 7. 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. 8. 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 SCR.A/1865/2008 6/6 JUDGMENT 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