IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 1211 of 2009 1 Md Zakir son of late Md Abdul Qayyum 2 Md Isha Quraishi son of Md Subhan 3 Md Ishaque son of late Md Bihari Miyan 4 Rasool Bux son of Md Haji Nathuni, resident of village - Chak Nizam, P S - Mahua, District - Vaishali 5 Md Salahuddin son of Md Idris, resident of village - Mahua Mukundpur, P S - Mahua, District - Vaishali 6 Md Yaqub son of late Md Ghafoor, resident of village - Mahua Mukundpur, P S - Mahua, District - Vaishali --- Petitioners No 1 - 3 are residents of village Chak Mujahid, P S - Mahua, District - Vaishali - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The District Magistrate, Vaishali 3 Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Tirhut Commissionery, Muzaffarpur 4 Civil Surgeon -cum- Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali 5 S D O Mahua, District - Vaishali 6 The Officer-in-Charge, P S Mahua, Vaishali 7 The Block Health Inspector, Mahua, Vaishali - Respondents ----------- 2 18.02.2009 The petitioners are butchers by profession. They maintain small slaughter houses in village areas of Vaishali district. Their licences, granted under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act under which the licensing authority is the Civil Surgeon -cum- Chief Medical Officer, have been cancelled on ground of improper payment of renewal fee. As apparent from Annexure-1, the order of the respondent-Civil Surgeon -cum- licensing authority, with effect from 2005 provisions under that Act had changed and renewal fee was to be deposited for renewal of licenses in blocks of five years instead the Basic Health Worker whose responsibility was to collect the renewal fee had collected renewal fee on basis of every year as per renewal. It is only on this technicality for the fault of the Basic Health Worker, petitioners’ licenses under the Prevention of Food Adulteration 2 Act has been cancelled. They appealed to the Regional Deputy Director against the order who clearly found that the irregularity was a mere technicality and a mistake committed by the Basic Health Worker who should have been aware of the provisions of the Act and for the fault of the Basic Health Worker, petitioners ought not to suffer. He, thus, directed the Civil Surgeon to reconsider the matter on recalling his order. Now when the matter goes back to the Civil Surgeon, he passes yet another curious order. He states that he has no power to grant licence as that power has vested by virtue of Section 345 of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007 in the Chief Municipal Officer. I find it curious because when it came to cancellation of licence, he assumed authority but when the question of restoring the same licence comes, he turns around and says he has no authority. Either he had authority and has authority or he had no authority and has no authority. At present in either event, he is obliged to undo the wrong done by him. He cannot shirk his responsibility on these spacious pleas. I may mention one thing because there appears to be some confusion in the minds of authorities. The provisions of Municipal Act prohibit storing, buying and selling meat, fish and poultry in municipal market except in accordance with the provisions of Section 246 of the Municipal Act. Further, in view of provisions of Section 345, establishment of slaughter houses, storing, buying, selling meat, fish and poultry in other places is prohibited except under licenses granted by the Chief Municipal Officer. These licences are independent of and in addition to licences which are required under the Prevention of Food 3 Adulteration Act. Under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act as meat, fish and poultry are food items, a person dealing therewith have to take licences under that Act and conform to those provisions as well. I may also point out that for establishing slaughter houses, persons would further be required to take licences under the provisions of Water Pollution Control Regulations. The authorities may also be well advised to look to the provisions of the Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act 1956 and the Rules made thereunder in respect of provisions made under Section 3 thereof which deals with prohibition of slaughter of cow, calf, bull, bullock or she buffalo. All these three are independent and unless the three are complied with, the business of running and establishing a slaughter house cannot be carried out. For each there is independent statutory authority and independent regulatory provisions. The stand of the Civil Surgeon -cum- Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali is wholly misconceived and he is under a misconception that merely because a licensing provision in terms of Section 345 of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007, no licence is required under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The position is, as I have stated above. In my view, looking at the order of the Civil Surgeon -cum- Chief Medical Officer, it is apparent that for the fault of the Basic Health Worker, petitioners’ Prevention of Food Adulteration Act licenses have been cancelled. The Regional Deputy Director rightly held that for the fault of Basic Health Worker, who was supposed to 4 know the law, the petitioners cannot suffer. That view is the correct view. Therefore, I set aside the order of the Civil Surgeon -cum- Chief Medical Officer dated 20.07.2008 as contained in Annexure-1 in respect of the petitioners who are six in number and direct that their licenses under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act be renewed in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)