JUDGMENT V. K. Khanna, J. 1. The petitioners are butchers by profession and their business is to purchase animals and sell them after getting them slaughtered in the slaughter-house maintained by Nagar Palika, Moradabad, Respondent no. 1. 2. The main dispute raised in the present writ petition is that the blood oozing out from the animals belonging to the petitioners upon their slaughter in slaughter-house is not allowed to be taken by the petitioners and the respondent claims that it has become the owner of that blood and is entitled to auction the same. At the admission stage this Court had directed the petitioners to serve the respondents who have been duly served and the parties have exchanged counter and rejoinder affidavits. The present writ petition is thus being disposed of finally in accordance with the Rule of the Court. 3. For deciding the question raised in this writ petition it will be useful to reproduce Section 116 (d) of the U. P. Municipalities Act which runs as under :- "116. Property vested in Board-Subject to any special reservation made by the State Government all property of the nature hereinafter in this section specified and situated within the Municipality shall vest in and belong to the Board and shall with all other property which may become vested in the Board be under its direction, management and control, that is to say :- (d) all dust, dung (night soil), ashes refused animal matter or filth or rubbish of any kind or dead bodies of animals, collected by the Board from the streets, houses, privies, sewers, cesspools or elsewhere or deposited in places appointed by the Board under Section 273". 4. It may be useful to notice that the Nagar Palika, Moradabad has framed bye-laws on '"slaughter house" in exercise of its powers under Section 298-F (D), J (d), 299 (1) of the United Provinces Act which have been confirmed by the State Government and have been duly published as required by Section 301 (2) of the said Act. The relevant bye-law for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised in this writ petition is provided under Section 26 of the bye-laws which runs as under :- "26. The relevant bye-law for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised in this writ petition is provided under Section 26 of the bye-laws which runs as under :- "26. Skin, entrails and offal shall be removed from the slaughter-house by that butcher and any skin, entrails or offal not removed before the time at which the slaughter-house is closed for the day shall become the property of the board and may be disposed of in such manner as seems to it fit. Provided that, if the board so prefers, it may delegate to the officer in charge the power to have such skins, entrails or offal removed at the owner's or butcher's expense; and the officer-in-charge may refuse to such butcher or owner or his servant, any subsequent admission to the slaughter-house; until such expense is made good to the board." 5. From the material filed in the present writ petition it appears that an Original Suit no. 401 of 1962 was filed by the butchers against the Municipal Board, Moradabad and others, for the reliefs which are being claimed in this writ petition. The aforesaid suit was dismissed. A Civil Appeal No. 366 of 1965 was thereafter filed which too was dismissed on 30th January, 1966. A copy of the judgment in the aforesaid civil appeal has been annexed as Annexure R.A. I to the rejoinder affidavit In the aforesaid appeal it has been held as follows :- ".........The owner of the animal if he so likes can collect the blood inside the slaughter house and sell it to either butcher or any other person but the moment it leaves the slaughter house and collects in the cesspool, the ownership of any other person comes to an end and vests in the Municipal Board. The Board will then have a right to dispose of the blood in any manner in which it like and butchers can have no claim to it simply because the animal was slaughtered by them. Thus the result is that the blood of the slaughtered animals which the butchers claim to be their cannot be held to be their property. They are only employed for performing the particular act and the only persons who could lay any claim to the blood could be the owners of the slaughtered animals and not the butchers by any stretch of imagination........." 6. They are only employed for performing the particular act and the only persons who could lay any claim to the blood could be the owners of the slaughtered animals and not the butchers by any stretch of imagination........." 6. From the aforesaid it is, therefore, clear that the suit was dismissed on the ground that the animals in respect of which it was being claimed that the plaintiffs were entitled to get the blood are not the property of the plaintiffs as they are only butchers and not owners of the animals. However, it was laid down that except the blood which goes in cesspool, the owner of the animal is entitled to the blood and can collect it inside the slaughterhouse. Section 116 (d) of the Act clearly lays down that the refused animal matter or filth or rubbish of any kind or dead bodies of animals collected by the Board from the streets, houses, privies, sewers, cesspools or else where shall vest in and belong to the Board. It may also be noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioners have not even contended that the blood after slaughter of the animals which goes to cesspool will become their property. The only claim they have raised is that the blood which the owners of the animals can collect before it goes to cesspool at the time of slaughtering of the animals is the property of the owners and Nagar Palika, Moradabad can have no claim over it. Shri Prem Chand learned counsel appearing for Nagar Palika, Moradabad could also not show us the provision under which the Nagar Palika will become owner of such blood. A reading of Section 116 (d) of the bye-laws framed by Nagar Palika, Moradabad would also clearly show that Nagar Palika, Moradabad can claim right on the blood which goes to cesspool and can have no right on the blood which is collected by the owners of the animals at the time of slaughter and before it goes to the cesspools. The owners of the animals thus can validly take away the aforesaid blood (except the blood going in cesspool) as it is their property and they can even sell it to others unless there is some prohibition under any law restraining them from doing so. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The owners of the animals thus can validly take away the aforesaid blood (except the blood going in cesspool) as it is their property and they can even sell it to others unless there is some prohibition under any law restraining them from doing so. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is allowed. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.