Civil Writ Petition No.7559 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7559 of 2011 Date of Decision:29.04.2011 Surinder Kumar and others ......Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The brief facts culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petition and emanating from the record, are that the petitioners were stated to have been dealing in the business of selling slaughtered Meat/Non-vegetarian stuff, for the last about 50-55 years, under the valid licenses granted by the Municipal Council of Sultanpur Lodhi-respondent No.6(for brevity “the Municipal Council”). Their licenses were not renewed. They filed the representation dated 14.11.2007(Annexure P-2) in this regard. The Municipal Council informed the petitioners vide letter dated 31.05.2008(Annexure P-3) that since, the Municipal area of Sultanpur Lodhi has been declared a Holy City by the Government, so, their Meat shops were required to be shifted outside the city. 2. Dissatisfied with the reply, the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No.11894 of 2008. In view of the reply filed by the Municipal Council, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court, as not pressed by way of order dated 15.01.2009(Annexure P-4). 3. The case of the petitioners further proceeds that they were running their business of selling slaughtered Meat/Non-vegetarian items in pursuance of Civil Writ Petition No.7559 of 2011 2 the licenses, but the Municipal Council has refused to renew their licenses, in view of Notification dated 13.10.2010(Annexure P-8) and the order of the Municipal Council dated 27.10.2010(Annexure P-7). The petitioners again moved representation(Annexure P-9) to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, for the renewal of the licenses, but in vain. They again filed Civil Writ Petition No.5587 of 2011, which came to be disposed of by this Court, by virtue of order dated 29.03.2011, directing the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, to decide the representation of the petitioners, for renewal of their licenses, in accordance with law, by means of order dated 29.03.2011(Annexure P-10). The representation was dismissed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, by virtue of impugned order dated 07.04.2011(Annexure P-11), which in substance is, as under:- “Subject: Regarding renewal of licence. Reference: Regarding your application dated 31.03.2011. Regarding above captioned subject, it is requested that the Punjab Govt. vide its Notification No.4/28/06-4H7/2518 dated 13.10.2010 has declared Municipal Council Sultanpur Lodhi as a holly city. Meat, liquor, cigarette, tobacco etc. are prohibited within the limits of Municipal Council Sultanpur Lodhi. Therefore, the Municipal Council is unable to renew your licence in written.” 4. The petitioners still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned Notification dated 13.10.2010(Annexure P-8) and the impugned order dated 07.04.2011(Annexure P-11), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present writ petition in this regard. 6. As is evident from the record that the State of Punjab has issued the Notification(Annexure P-8) vide which, Sultanpur Lodhi in Kapurthala District, was declared the holy city, which was conveyed by the Executive Officer of the Civil Writ Petition No.7559 of 2011 3 Municipal Council, by way of office order(Annexure P-7). 7. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that Sultanpur Lodhi, cannot be declared the Holy City, by means of the Executive Officer order/Notification(Annexure P-8), is not only devoid of merit but misconceived as well. As is clear that, Chapter II of the Constitution of India empowers the State Government to exercise its executive power in general and Article 162 of the Constitution of India in particular which postulates that subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the State, shall extend to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws. 8. Meaning thereby, the State Government has the Constitutional executive power to issue such Notification(Annexure P-8) to declare Sultanpur Lodhi as a Holy City, as contemplated under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Once, Sultanpur Lodhi has been declared as a Holy City, then the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council, did not have the power to renew the licenses and rightly negatived the claim of the petitioners, vide impugned order(Annexure P-11) in this context. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. April 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE