JUDGMENT -A.V. SAVANT, J.:---By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of seizure of 193 live goats made by the respondents from the petitioner on 5th November, 1988 on the ground that the seizure and the subsequent disposal thereof was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The few facts leading to the dispute can be summarised as under. 2. On 5th November, 1988 the officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation had a prior intimation that some goats were likely to be carried by some persons on behalf of the petitioner either to Ghatkoper, Kurla or Chembur for slaughter and not to Denoar abattoir where they ought to have been carried in accordance with the scheme of the provisions of sections 410, 411, and 412 of the B.M.C. Act, 1888. The officers of the Corporation claimed to have kept a watch on 5th November, 1988 on the Eastern Express Highway which leads to Ghatkopar Linking Road. One Arvind Balwant Naiksatam alongwith Dr. Badwe and Shri Kadam, Inspector of Police and his staff waited on the Eastern Express Highway. In the evening they noticed a truck bearing No. MHL 4406 coming from Mulund Check-naka on the Eastern Express Highway and taking a turn on the road which was leading to Ghatkopar. They gave a signal to the truck driver to stop the same. However, the truck driver did not stop but proceeded towards Ghatkopar Linking Road. Naiksatam claims to have chased the truck alongwith the police staff and overtook it near Shreyas Talkies On Agra road and on enquiries it transpired that 107 goats were being carried to Kurla for being slaughtered. The statement of the driver Ismail Shabbirkhan has been recorded on the same day and he claims to have undertaken the job of carrying the goats for the consideration of Rs. 400/-. The goats were to be carried from Kalyan market to Kurla. Similarly the other batch of Corporation Officers including Baban Patsute, Harun Adam, Sayyad Manaf and the police staff kept watch for the second vehicle and truck bearing No. MHD 1352 was chased when it took a turn towards Ghatkopar Linking Road from the Eastern Express Highway. 400/-. The goats were to be carried from Kalyan market to Kurla. Similarly the other batch of Corporation Officers including Baban Patsute, Harun Adam, Sayyad Manaf and the police staff kept watch for the second vehicle and truck bearing No. MHD 1352 was chased when it took a turn towards Ghatkopar Linking Road from the Eastern Express Highway. This second truck was found to be carrying 86 goats and the consideration agreed to be paid to the driver Suresh Natha Jaibhai for carrying the goats from Kalyan market to Kurla was fixed at Rs. 325/-. The statement of driver Suresh Jaibhai was also recorded on the spot on the same day. 3. On 6th November, 1988 the petitioner sent a telegram to the concerned officer of the first respondent-Corporation at Deonar informing him that the petitioner was moving the Court in respect of 193 goats seized on 5th November, 1988 and that the same should not be disposed of in the mean-while. On 7th November, 1988 the petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate, Holiday Court at Bhoiwada, Dadar purporting to be an application under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was prayed in the said application that the notice be issued to the first respondents officers and the property namely 193 goats be returned to the petitioner since he was the owner of the said property. The learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to serve the respondents and then move for ad-interim orders. On 8th November, 1988 the petitioner brought this order of the Holiday Court to the notice of the Manager of Deonar abattoir requesting him to attend the 31st Regular Court on 14th November, 1988 and in the mean-while not to dispose of the said 193(107+ 86) goats seized on the Eastern Express Highway in two separate vehicles. Counsel for the parties have stated before me that no further orders were passed on 14th November, 1988 and thereafter the proceedings in the Criminal Court became infructuous. 4. The present petition which is dated 21st November, 1988 was filed on 13th December, 1988. Counsel for the parties have stated before me that no further orders were passed on 14th November, 1988 and thereafter the proceedings in the Criminal Court became infructuous. 4. The present petition which is dated 21st November, 1988 was filed on 13th December, 1988. The petitioner has made a grievance of the alleged high handed action on the part of the officers of the first respondent-Corporation in, first seizing the 193 goats and, thereafter disposing them of without giving the petitioner any notice in that behalf or without giving the petitioner any opportunity of showing that he was not guilty of violation of any of the provisions of sections 410, 411 and 412 of the said Act. It is contended that both, the initial seizure as also the subsequent disposal of goats was illegal and high handed and was done in a most arbitrary manner in definance of the rule of law. 5. At the admission stage, affidavit of A.B. Naiksatam was filed which summarises the case of the Corporation, namely, that on 6th November, 1988 two vehicles were carrying goats elsewhere to Ghatkopar for slaughter and not to Deonar abattoir. It is alleged that there was a breach of Condition No. 1 and Condition No. 5 of the licence which is normally issued under section 411(b) of the said Act. The two conditions read as under: Condition No. 1: "That the licensee shall not carry on any trade or business other than that mentioned or described in this Licence." Condition No. 5 : "That the licensee or his agent shall not make purchases or sales of any animals outside the boundaries of the Deonar Abattoir but he shall confine transactions of sale or purchase of animals in the yeard of the premises specially reserved for the purpose." The learned Judge who heard the matter at the admission stage issued rule on 6th November, 1989 which was made returnable on 12th June, 1989. In the mean-while Notice of Motion No. 1116 of 1989 was taken out by the petitioner and upon hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following order on 25th August, 1989: "Heard Counsel on either side. 2. It is not possible to pass an order as claimed in this motion. In the mean-while Notice of Motion No. 1116 of 1989 was taken out by the petitioner and upon hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following order on 25th August, 1989: "Heard Counsel on either side. 2. It is not possible to pass an order as claimed in this motion. However, with a view to protect the petitioner and also compensate him for the loss of time in getting the amount to which he may become entitled in the event of his main writ petition ultimately succeeding, the following order is passed on this motion: In the event of the petitioner ultimately succeeding in Writ Petition No. 3743 of 1988, the first respondent Municipal Corporation shall then pay to the petitioner such amount as this Court may determine at the hearing of the petition with interest thereon at 12% per annum for such period as the Court at the hearing of the petition may direct. 3. Order accordingly on this motion which is thus disposed of with no order as to costs. 4. Hearing of the writ petition is expedited." 6. I have heard Shri Kanuga for the petitioner and Smt. Mandhyan for respondent-Corporation and its officers. Shri Kanuga has invited my attention to the scheme of the provisions of the sections 410,411 and 412 of the said Act. Section 410 deals with the prohibition of sale or supply of animals except in the market. Section 411 dealing with the licences of butchers etc. contemplates grant of licence to butchers and persons who sell or supply flesh of animals. Section 410 deals with the prohibition of sale or supply of animals except in the market. Section 411 dealing with the licences of butchers etc. contemplates grant of licence to butchers and persons who sell or supply flesh of animals. Section 412 on which the main argument has rested reads as under : Section 412 : (1) "No person shall without the written permission of the Commissioner bring into Greater Bombay any cattle, sheep goats or swine intended for human food or the flesh of any such animal which has been slaughtered at any slaughter-house or place not maintained or licenced under this Act." Sub-section (2) reads as under: (2) "Any animal brought into Greater Bombay in contravention of this section may be seized by the Commissioner or by any Municipal Officer or servant and any flesh brought into Greater Bombay in contravention of this section may be seized by the commissioner or by Municipal Officer or servant or by any Police Officer or in or upon railway premises by any Railway servant and any animal or flesh so seized may be sold or otherwise disposed of as the Commissioner shall direct. The proceeds, if any, shall belong to the Corporation." (3) "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to cured or preserved meat." 7. Shri Kanuga contends that the petitioner was holding a licence for sale or supply of animals as contemplated by section 410 of the Act. If that be so, he could sell, supply or exhibit for sale or supply any four-footed animal or any meat or fish intended for human food, in any place other than a municipal or private market. The licence which is claimed to be under section 410 is not produced before me. Under section 411 the petitioner is required to possess a licence to carry on within Greater Bombay or at any municipal slaughter-house the trade of a butcher or use any place in Greater Bombay for the sale or supply of flesh of any animal intended for human food. Even such a licence is not produced for my perusal. Coming to section 412 it restricts the person, without the written permission of the Commissioner, to bring into Greater Bombay any cattle, sheep, goats or swine intended for human food. Even such a licence is not produced for my perusal. Coming to section 412 it restricts the person, without the written permission of the Commissioner, to bring into Greater Bombay any cattle, sheep, goats or swine intended for human food. We are not concerned with the second part of sub-section (1) of section 412 which deals with bringing into Greater Bombay flesh of any such animal which has been slaughtered at any slaugher house or place not maintained or licensed under this Act. On the pleadings before me, the controversy which arises is this. Whereas the petitioner claims that goats were meant for being taken to the Deonar abattoir for sale and eventual slaughtering, the case of the respondent-Corporation is that as goats were being taken to some unknown private destination for sale and slaughter for which no licence is possessed by the petitioner. The place and manner in which the two vehicles were chased-says Smt. Mandhyan -indicates that the petitioner was carrying the goats to Ghatkopar for slaughter and had not intended to carry them to Deonar abattoir. 8. A.B. Naiksatam has filed a further affidavit on 22nd February 1993 in which he has reiterated the earlier contentions raised in his affidavit dated 23rd January, 1989 which was filed for the purpose of opposing the admission. It has further been contended that the statement of the two drivers namely Ismail Shabirkhan and Suresh Natha Jaibhai clearly indicated that the two vehicles were being taken to some private destination to Ghatkopar for slaughter and not to Deonar abattoir. It is true that in the initial affidavit filed by Naiksatam on 23rd January, 1989 the date of disposal as 7th November, 1988 was not mentioned which has been mentioned in the subsequent affidavit. Smt. Mandhyan has produced before me the original receipt book which shows that receipt No. 076401 was issued on 7th November, 1988 and consideration received by the Corporation by sale of those 193 goats at Rs. 241/- per goat was Rs. 46,513. This cannot be doubted. 9. Shri Kanuga has invited my attention to the order dated 22nd November, 1989 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1989 where the facts were some what identical. While admitting Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1989 this Court passed the following order : "Prima facie the action of the Municipality is high handed. Mr. 9. Shri Kanuga has invited my attention to the order dated 22nd November, 1989 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1989 where the facts were some what identical. While admitting Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1989 this Court passed the following order : "Prima facie the action of the Municipality is high handed. Mr. Trivedi appearing for the Bombay Municipal Corporation states that the animals have been seized and by this time have been disposed of by auction. All this without notice to the petitioner." When the said Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1989 was heard finally, this Court made the rule partly absolute by directing the Corporation to hear the petitioner and pass an order indicating the particulars of the 25 animals seized as reflected in the seizure memo and to corelate the same with the particulars of the said animals which were sold in the auction and on the basis of the sale proceeds of the 25 animals fetched in the open market, decide the compensation. On such determination, the Corporation was directed to refund the amount to the petitioner. Four weeks time was given to comply with this order passed on 19th July, 1993 in Writ petition No. 3231 of 1989. Relying upon the said order passed by Jahagirdar, J., on 21st November, 1989 the final judgment delivered by Kapadia, J., on 19th July, 1993 in Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1989, Shri Kanuga contended that if the seizure and the subsequent disposal of animals is ex-facie illegal then the action of the Corporation was liable to be struck down and the petitioner was entitled to the compensation in view of the order passed by this Court in Notice of Motion No. 1116 of 1989 in the present writ petition on 25th August, 1989. 10. Shri Kanugas second contention is that before exercising powers under sub-section (2) of section 412, the officer concerned must give an opportunity to the petitioner of showing that the animals were brought into Greater Bombay lawfully and not in contravention of the provisions of section 412 sub-section (1). It is only when the Municipal Officer comes to the conclusion that the animal is brought into Greater Bombay in contravention of the provisions of section 412 that he is authorised to seize such an animal. It is only when the Municipal Officer comes to the conclusion that the animal is brought into Greater Bombay in contravention of the provisions of section 412 that he is authorised to seize such an animal. It is after such seizure that the animal or flesh so seized can be sold or otherwise disposed of as the Commissioner shall direct. Counsel contends that in the very nature of the scheme or provisions of section 412 a citizen must be given some opportunity of being heard before effecting both seizure as also disposal. He invited my attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of (The Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association (Reg.) and another v. State of Karnataka and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 1117. Reliance was placed on the observations in para 15 at page 1121 which reads as under : It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. If there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power and the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the body of persons appointed for that purpose. It is only where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit the giving of an opportunity to be heard, but on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed itself necessarily implied an obligation to hear before deciding that the audi alteram partem rule could be imported." 11. On the other hand Smt. Mandhyan appearing for the Corporation contends that as long as section 412 stands on the statute book, the officers of the Corporation have undisputed powers of seizure of the animal if the officers was so satisfied that the animal has been brought into Greater Bombay in contravention of the provisions of section 412. She says that in the very nature of these offences giving of a notice or sufficient opportunity before recording the seizure may not be possible. She says that in the very nature of these offences giving of a notice or sufficient opportunity before recording the seizure may not be possible. The clandestine manner in which animals and flesh is being brought in Greater Bombay requires exercise of the speedy action and taking speedy decision on the spot such as seizure of animals in the present case. Any delay in taking action any defeat the very scheme of the provisions of section 412. Her further argument is that once the animal or flesh is seized under sub-section (2) of section 412, the Corporation is further authorised to sell or dispose of the said property and proceeds, if any must belong to the Corporation. The contention is that subsequent stage of disposal is mere a formality to be completed after effecting seizure and hence it is not even necessary to give the citizen any notice before selling or otherwise disposing of the animal or flesh. Since the initial exercise of power is complete on effecting the seizure where the animal or flesh is found to have been brought into Greater Bombay in contravention of the provisions of section 412 - Counsel contends that no useful purpose will be served by giving any notice subsequent to effecting seizure and before effecting sale of the said animal or flesh. Smt. Mandhyan also stated before me that the judgment of Kapadia, J., dated 19th July, 1993 in Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1989 has been challenged in appeal and appeal has been admitted and certain interim order has been passed. However, the said order is not produced for my perusal. 12. On facts which are pleaded in this petition, in my view, it is not possible to find fault with the officers of the Corporation when they effected seizure of 193 goats in the evening of 5th November, 1988. Affidavits filed by Naiksatam alongwith the statements of two drivers prima facie indicate that the goats were being brought into Greater Bombay in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 412. The petitioner must possess the written permission of the Commissioner to bring into Greater Bombay the said goats. The affidavits filed by Naiksatam alongwith the statements of two drivers support the case of the Corporation that the goats were being taken to some private slaughter house at Ghatkopar and not to Deonar abattoir. 13. The petitioner must possess the written permission of the Commissioner to bring into Greater Bombay the said goats. The affidavits filed by Naiksatam alongwith the statements of two drivers support the case of the Corporation that the goats were being taken to some private slaughter house at Ghatkopar and not to Deonar abattoir. 13. However, assuming that this justifies the action of seizure, I am at a loss to find any justification on the part of the officers of the respondent-Corporation in not giving the petitioner any notice after seizure but before disposal of the goats. As stated earlier, the petitioner sent a telegram on 6th November, 1988, moved the Magistrates Court on 7th November, 1988 and gave notice to the Manager, Deonar abattoir on 8th November, 1988. Atleast after receipt of the telegram on 6th November, 1988 the officers of the Corporation could have issued a notice to the petitioner bringing to his attention the alleged violation which he had committed and calling upon him to explain his conduct within a reasonable time failing which further orders would be passed. Assuming for the sake of arguments that Smt. Mandhyan is justified in her contention that the nature of exercise of powers of seizure in these clandestine operations justifies prompt action and makes it difficult to comply with the principles of natural justice before effecting seizure, it is not possible to accept her contention that once a seizure is effected the sale or disposal must follow, as of course, without giving the petitioner any opportunity of being heard in the matter. One can well imagine that on a prima facie view, the officer of the Corporation may be satisfied that the animal or flesh that was being brought into was in contravention of sub-section (1) of section 412. The Municipal Officer may, therefore, be justified in effecting the seizure under sub-section (2). Thereafter, however, he can give some notice, may be of a short duration, to the concerned citizen pointing out to him the prima facie conclusion reached by him on the basis of which the seizure was effected and sale or disposal of the property was proposed to be effected some time later. The citizen could be called upon to furnish his reply as expeditiously as possible. The citizen could be called upon to furnish his reply as expeditiously as possible. He could also be called upon to deposit the charges for maintenance of the cattle or flesh including charges for feeding the cattle. It is after considering the citizens objections, if any, that the final order could be passed for sale or disposal of the property seized. In my view, this would obviate a grievance of any arbitrariness or hasty decision being taken by the officers of the first respondent Corporation. If there was a bona fide mistake in effecting the seizure, the same could be corrected and property could be restored to the citizen concerned. This also seems to be a trend of orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1989 and the order passed by this Court in Notice of Motion No. 1116 of 1989 in the present writ petition. Infact in Writ Petition No. 3231 of 1989 it was not possible to ascertain the exact particulars of the sale proceeds recovered by the sale of 25 animals seized from the petitioner in that case. It was, therefore, that the learned Judge directed the Corporation to ascertain the sale proceeds of 25 animals seized from the petitioner and then refund the said compensation to the petitioner. 14. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, it is not possible to dispute the contention of the respondent Corporation that Rs. 46,513/- have been recovered by way of sale proceeds of 193 goats. I have come to the conclusion that the subsequent sale and disposal of goats without giving the petitioner any opportunity was not justified in the facts of the present case. In my view, in the light of the order passed on 25th August, 1989 in, Notice of Motion No. 1116 of 1989 in this petition, the petitioner would be entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 46,513/- with 12% interest thereon from 8th November, 1988 till the date of payment. Rule is accordingly made partly absolute. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 15. It must be mentioned that Shri Kanuga had at one stage contended that sub-section (2) of section 412 is un-constitutional since it confers absolute and arbitrary powers on the officers of the Corporation to effect seizure and sale of the property seized. Rule is accordingly made partly absolute. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 15. It must be mentioned that Shri Kanuga had at one stage contended that sub-section (2) of section 412 is un-constitutional since it confers absolute and arbitrary powers on the officers of the Corporation to effect seizure and sale of the property seized. In the alternative he had suggested that sub-section (2) of section 412 should be so read down as to suggest that atleast after effecting the seizure but before effecting the sale, the officer concerned should comply with the principles of natural justice. On the first part of his submission, he had placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the matter of The Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association (Reg.) and another v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in A.I.R. 1991 Supreme Court 1117. In the view that I am taking is not necessary for me to express any opinion on this part of his submission. However, on the alternative submission of Shri Kanuga, in my view, the Corporation should consider the advisability of framing some rules for the exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of section 412. The citizen should be given an opportunity to show cause why the seizure should not be confirmed and sale should not be effected. It may be that having regard to the perishable nature of an animal or flesh seized, the notice may be a short notice, its duration may vary depending upon the facts of each case. But, in my view, there should be some semblance of compliance with the principles of natural justice before acting upon the seizure and effecting the sale. Indeed, Shri Kanuga went to the extent of saying that powers under sub-section (2) of section 412 are being misused by some unscrupolous officers. Whereas one must appreciate the anxiety of the Corporation to protect the health and hygiene of the citizens by ensuring the quality of animals and flesh brought into Greater Bombay, one must also guard against the possible mis-use of the arbitrary powers under sub-section (2) of section 412. Since, however, the matter is pending before the Division Bench I do not wish to express any final opinion on these questions. Since, however, the matter is pending before the Division Bench I do not wish to express any final opinion on these questions. In facts of the present case, in view of the order passed in Notice of Motion No. 1116 of 1989 the petitioner would be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 46,513/- with 12% interest from 8th November, 1988 till the date of payment as indicated above. However, the Corporation may consider the advisibility of framing appropriate rules for exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of section 412 in the light of this judgment. 16. Smt. Mandhyan applies for stay of operation of the order for two weeks, since the desires to challenge the order in appeal. Hence the impugned order is stayed for two weeks. Order accordingly.