BINOD KUMAR ROY, K. D, SHAHI, JJ. ( 1 ) THE writ-petitioner has come up with following prayers : (i) To command respondent Nos. 2 to 7 not to Interfere with his right to carry on business, of slaughtering of such animals which are not prohibited under the U. P. Prevention of Cow slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and from transporting flesh of such slaughtered animals in accordance with the Act after obtaining certificate from the competent authority (respondent No. 7) under the Act. (ii) To command the respondents not to insist him to obtain licence in Form f for transporting flesh of such animals. (iii) To command respondent No. 7 to issue certificate in respect of slaughtering such animals. ( 2 ) IN a series of writ petitions, a larger question involved whether in view of the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in regard to upkeep and maintenance of health of citizens and non-citizens whether the State Government should put seal of fitness/non-fitness for consumption on the flesh of such animals which may be slaughtered strictly under the provisions of the Act have been disposed of today in the light of the stand taken by the State Government that they had taken a decision to put such a seal. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit, it has been stated, inter alia that in terms of the bye-laws of the Town area Swar, District Rampur a slaughter house is permitted to run and maintain only to make available meat to the town area only and no animal can be permitted for slaughtering for the purposes of transporting the meat outside the town area ; that the business of transportation of meat is regulated by Meat Food Product Order, 1973 as well as Prevention of Food Adulteration act, 1955 and the rules framed thereunder, which cannot be by-passed by the petitioner ; that terms of the licence granted to the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-1 are conditional which had also expired on 31. 3. 3. 1999 and, therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous ; that he is not holder of any licence for transporting flesh of bulls and bullocks as claimed by him for slaughtering them in a general way but only such bulls and bullocks who are over the age of 15 years and have become permanently unfit and unserviceable as envisaged under the provisions of the Act and Indicated in the counter-affidavit ; that a similar writ petition bearing C. M. W. P. No. 38469 of 1994 was dismissed vide order dated 1. 8. 1997 as contained In Annexure-CA-2 to the counter-affidavit ; that the petitioner has no legal right to slaughter any kind of animals on the basis of the restricted terms of the licence : that for making varied statements falsely on affidavit a proceeding in contempt be initiated against him ; and that the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed with cost. ( 4 ) TODAY a supplementary-affidavit to the writ petition as well as a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. ( 5 ) SRI Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, makes a statement that since licence of the petitioner has been renewed and is effective up to 31st March, 2001, this writ petition has not become infructuous. He also shows us a X-rox copy of this licence and submits that the prayers of the petitioner are fit to be allowed. 5a. Two X-rox copies of the latest licence of the petitioner, which have been shown to us by Sri ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, are being kept on the record. ( 6 ) SRI Vinod Swaroop. the learned additional advocate general, appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand with reference to renewed licence contended that it is a conditional one and not an open licence and accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed for. ( 7 ) HAVING perused the X-rox copy of the licence dated 10. 5. 2000 granted by the Licensing officer, Nagar Pallka Parishad, Swar. ( 7 ) HAVING perused the X-rox copy of the licence dated 10. 5. 2000 granted by the Licensing officer, Nagar Pallka Parishad, Swar. Rampur (U. P.), it is clear that it is not an open licence, rather it has been granted subject to the conditions, regulations and control to sell the meat with these riders : (i) The licensee will not sell meat on Mahaveer Jayantl Day, Gandhi Jayantl Day, Buddh Jayantl day and during Shivratrt festival. (ii) He will carry on the orders passed from time to time by the Government or the Municipality, (iii) He will sell meat no-where except his own shop. (iv) He will put chik (curtain) on his shop and will keep the meat by covering it. ( 8 ) IN the aforementioned view of the matter, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot be permitted to violate the terms of the licence and is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed for by him. In fact Mr. Singh very fairly did not suggest that the petitioner Intends to violate the terms of the licence. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, this writ petition is dismissed, but in view of the fair stand taken by Mr. Singh without there being any order as to cost. ( 10 ) THE office is directed to hand over a copy of this order within one week to Sri Vinod swaroop, the learned additional advocate general, U. P. , for its intimation to the authority concerned. .