Ghulam Rasool v. Zilla Parishad, Etawah — 1990 DIGILAW 325 (ALL)

JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. - By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking, in main, the relief for issuance of (a) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the condition imposed on the licence issued to them by the Zila Parishad, Etawah, in from 25 (Annexure I to the Writ Petition) (which only relates to Gulam Rasoof, petitioner No. 1). (b) a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue the licence in accordance with Section 3 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1956 (hereinafter to he referred to as 'the Act') and not to prohibit the petitioners from doing the said business, and also fora direction for commanding them to observe the Government directions contained in the Government order. (No Government order has been filed with the petition and no details of any such Government order have been given.). 2. The petitioners have set up the facts that they are butchers and are residents of village Khanpur, Tehsil Auraiya, District Etawah where they carryon their business of slaughtering animals after obtaining due licence from the competent authority since the time of their ancestors, which is their fundamental right, and the only source of livelihood. They slaughter bull and bullocks in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act after obtaining licence from the respondent No. 3 (prescribed authority under the Act). After the constitution of the Zila Parishad, Etawah (for brevity hereinafter referred to as Zila Parishad) under the provisions of the U.P. Kshettra Samitis and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Zila Parishad Act) the Respondent No. 3 issued licences from time to time to the persons who desired to obtain the same for running slaughter house for slaughtering' purposes on their depositing requisite licence fee. The last licence, which is the subject matter of dispute in the present writ petition, was issued in favour of petitioner No. 1, Gulam Rasool, vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition on 24-5-1989 for the period ending on 3l.3.1990. The licence so issued contained endordsement at the top to the effect :-- " xk; rFkk xks&lUrhr dk o/k oftZr gSA " 3. The licence so issued contained endordsement at the top to the effect :-- " xk; rFkk xks&lUrhr dk o/k oftZr gSA " 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of lie Zila Parishad (respondent No. 1) and the Licensing Authority, Zila Parishad (respondent No. 2) denying the avernments as made in the petition and setting up the case that the bye-laws of the Zila Parishad only regulate the running of the slaughter houses in the rural areas but the Act has placed ban on the slaughter of cow and its progeny unless the competent authority, under the Act, has granted a certificate in writing for slaughter of hull or bullocks certifying that it is fit for slaughter. In the present case, the endorsement in question was made with a view to prevent the abuse of the licence. It has further been stated that this condition does not come in the way of the petitioners and they are free to apply before the District Magistrate for permission to slaughter cow and its progeny, who is the competent authority, under the Act, for granting the licence. It has further been stated that the Zila Parishad has made it clear to the officials and also to the petitioners that no slaughter of cows and its progeny can be done without obtaining permission and licence from the District Magistrate under the Act and in the present case, the petitioners have not even approached the competent authority in the matter. 4. We have seen the record of the case and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 5. In the present case, no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 6. Before dealing with the controversy, as raised in the petition, it would be apt to consider certain provisions of law. 7. Section 239(2)(d) of the Zila Parishad Act authorised the Zila Parishad for-making the bye laws in regard to slaughter houses etc. 3 and 4. 6. Before dealing with the controversy, as raised in the petition, it would be apt to consider certain provisions of law. 7. Section 239(2)(d) of the Zila Parishad Act authorised the Zila Parishad for-making the bye laws in regard to slaughter houses etc. : - (a) prohibiting the use of any place as it slaughter house, or as it market or shop for the sale of animals intended for human food or of meat; or of fish, in default of a licence granted by the Kshettra Samiti or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of a licence so granted : (b) prescribing the conditions subject to which and the circumstances in which, and the areas or localities in respect of which licences for such use may be granted, refused, suspended or withdrawn : (c) providing for the inspection of, and regulation of the conduct of business in, a place used as aforesaid, so as to secure cleanliness therein or to minimise any injuries, offensive or dangerous effect arising or likely to arise therefrom : (d) providing for the establishment, and for the regulation and inspection of markets and slaughter house, of livery stables, of encamping grounds, of sarras, of flour mills, of bakeries, of places for the manufacture, preparation or sale of specified article of food or drink, or for keeping or exhibiting animals for sale or hire or animals of which the produce is sold, and of places of public entertainment or resort, and for the proper and cleanly conduct of business therein; and (e) proscribing the conditions subject to which, and the circumstances in which, and the areas or locality in respect of which, licences for the purposes of sub-head (d) may be granted, refused, suspended or withdrawn, and fixing the fees payable for such licences, and prohibiting the establishment of business places, mentioned in sub-head (d) in default of licence granted by the Kshettra Samiti or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of licence so granted 8. The Bye-laws framed by the District Board, Etawah, which by virtue of Section 266 of the Zila Parishad Act was construed as Zila Parishad, Etawah, and bye-laws were to remain in force in so far as the same were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Zila Parishad Act. 9. The Bye-laws framed by the District Board, Etawah, which by virtue of Section 266 of the Zila Parishad Act was construed as Zila Parishad, Etawah, and bye-laws were to remain in force in so far as the same were not inconsistent with the provisions of the Zila Parishad Act. 9. These bye-laws provide that no one shall conduct a slaughter house or slaughter cattle in the district for any purpose, except under conditions laid down in the bye-laws and after obtaining licence from the District Board, Etawah. One of the conditions is that slaughter and import of meat of cow calf heifer, bull, bullock, buffaloes or their young ones is prohibited within the rural areas of the Etawah district. These bye-laws were framed under Section 174(2)(k) of the United Provinces District Boards Act, 1922 vide Notification No. 630/XXX I-33(2)-45, dated November 14, 1946 and are of the period anterior to coming into force of the Act. 10. Rule 101 of the U.P. Zila Parishads and Kshettra Samitis (Budget and General Accounts) Rules, 1965 provides that the licence shall he in form 25 except where it different form has been specifically provided under any rules, bye-laws or orders of the State Government for any specified purpose. The licence in question to run it slaughter house was issued in form 25 under this rule. 11. The argument of the petitioners is that the condition as written on the top of the licence is invalid. It has no substance in view of the averments as have been made in the counter affidavit and have already been stated heretobefore. The indorsement in question at the top of the licence is only to check the misuse and the same cannot override the provisions of the Act. 12. Section 3(1) of the Act provides for prohibition of cow slaughter and says that no person shall slaughter or cause to be slaughtered, or offer or cause to be offered for slaughter (a) 'a cow, or (b) a bull or bullock, unless he has obtained is respect thereof it certificate in writing, front the competent authority of the area in which the bull or bullock is to be slaughtered, certifying that it is fit for slaughter. The slaughter of the cow is completely banned under the Act. For the establishment of it slaughter house, the Act does not make any provision. The slaughter of the cow is completely banned under the Act. For the establishment of it slaughter house, the Act does not make any provision. Section 5-A of the Act prohibits any person to transport or offer for transport or cause to he transported any cow, or bull or bullock, the slaughter whereof is punishable under the Act from any place within the State except under it permit issued by an officer authorised by the State Government. The rules framed under the Act prohibit that no person shall sell or transport or offer for sale or transport or cause to he sold or transported beef or beef products except under and in terms of it licence in Form F. The District Magistrate or any other officer authorised by him is to perform the function of the Licensing Authority for issuing permit as stated above. 13. Rule 3 framed under the Act provides that any person intending to slaughter or to cause to be slaughtered or intending to offer or to cause to he offered for slaughter a bull or bullock shall apply in Form A to the competent authority of the area in which the bull or, bullock is to be slaughtered for the issue of a certificate that the bull or bullock is fit for slaughter. 14. The definition of `Competent 'authority' as defined under S. 2(cc) of the Act is as hereunder:- "2. Definitions - In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. (cc) competent authority means the person or persons appointed in this behalf by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette to exercise the powers and perform the functions of a competent authority under this Act or the Rules made thereunder for such area or areas and for such period as may be specified in the notification." 15. For the purposes of Section 3 of the Act, as has been held by this Court in Writ No. 8838 of 1984, Abdul Karim v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 26th May 1984, the competent authority is the Pashu Dhan Vikas Adhikari. 16. For the purposes of Section 3 of the Act, as has been held by this Court in Writ No. 8838 of 1984, Abdul Karim v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 26th May 1984, the competent authority is the Pashu Dhan Vikas Adhikari. 16. In the present case, the petitioners who is possessed of the licence, from Zila Parishad for running slaughter house has not applied to the competent authority under Section 3 of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the Act in Form A for obtaining certificate, which is issued in Form 'B' that the bull or bullock is fit for slaughter. 17. In paras 10 and 12 of the petition, the averments are these : "Para 10. That it appears that due to above noted prohibition, the opposite party No. 3 stopped checking and giving certificate as provided under Section 3 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 therefore the petitioners moved an application dated 20-2-1981 and 16-11-1981 to opposite party No. I directing opposite party No. 3 to do the needful. Para 12. That the petitioners gave several applications to opposite party No. 3 but he has not replied any and thus he has actually declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under Section 3 of the. U.P. Cow Slaughter Act without any reason. The true copy of the one such latest application dated 26-4-1989 is being filed as Annexure No. II to the petition." 18. From the above averments, it is clear' that no application was ever made to the competent authority under the Act for certificate under S. 3 thereof in Form A. The application was made to opposite party No. 1, Zila Parishad, for direction to opposite party No. 3. The application dated 26-4-1989, which is Annexure 2 to the petition, is addressed to Adhyaksh, Zila Parishad and not to the competent authority under the Act. 19. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled to either of the reliefs prayed for as it is clear that there is no question of quashing of the condition as endorsed on the licence by the Zila Parishad as the same is subject to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled to either of the reliefs prayed for as it is clear that there is no question of quashing of the condition as endorsed on the licence by the Zila Parishad as the same is subject to the provisions of Section 3 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. No mandamus can he issued to the respondent No. 3 as has been prayed for, and the remedy for the petitioners available is to have recourse to the provisions of law as contained in the Act and the.Rules framed thereunder. The petition is misconceived. No details of any of the Government orders have been provided in the petition whereby it could he seen as to what obedience has to he enforced. 20. In the circumstances, and in the light of the observations made hereinbefore, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of any relief. 21. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.