JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to stop the general public and the devotees in particular along with goats from seeking blessings from Maa Nanda and Maa Sunanda on the auspicious day of Ashtami (falling on 9th September, 2016 this year & in future) during the Nanda Devi festival in Shri Maa Nayna Devi Mandir premises, Mallital, Nainital.” 2. Before recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be appropriate to quote the following observation made by another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 77 of 2010 & Writ Petition (PIL) No. 73 of 2010 in a similar matter hereinbelow: “11. We, accordingly, conclude the matter and direct the State and its agencies to ensure that no destruction/killing/sacrifice of any nature of any animal takes place outside a registered or licensed slaughter house, if such destruction/killing/sacrifice is to take place in any city, town or urban or semiurban areas of the State, which areas are within the jurisdiction of municipalities or other local authorities, and to ensure that the purpose of such destruction/killing/sacrifice is to arrange food for mankind and for no other purpose. Though it is not necessary that destruction/killing/sacrifice of animals in rural area should take place within slaughter house, it is obligatory on the part of the State to ensure that such destruction/killing/sacrifice is for the purpose of arranging food for mankind and for no other purpose. We, accordingly, direct the State and its agencies to adhere to their obligations, as indicated above, and to implement the same vigorously, with an appeal to the people of the State as above. 12. While parting, it would be appropriate to record that on the records of these petitions, there is no information whether in the areas coming under municipalities and other local authorities, there are adequate number of slaughter houses or not. 12. While parting, it would be appropriate to record that on the records of these petitions, there is no information whether in the areas coming under municipalities and other local authorities, there are adequate number of slaughter houses or not. Therefore, in the event for non-availability of slaughter houses, it becomes necessary to destroy or kill animals outside slaughter houses in the areas coming under municipalities or other local authorities, it would be necessary for the protection of human health, hygiene and sentiment to arrange such destruction/killing outside the public view and to ensure removal of the corpse and blood in such manner that the same do not cause any harm to the public health, hygiene and sentiment. The same is also applicable to rural areas outside the purview of municipalities and other local authorities. The State and its agencies are, accordingly, directed to ensure the same. It would be appropriate on the part of the State and its agencies to ensure that adequate number of slaughter houses are available in the areas coming under the municipalities and other local authorities within a period of three years. 13. After we had dictated the order, in the Court, learned Amicus Curiae submitted that no religion directs sacrifice of animal, and the case of the petitioners is founded on Section 28 of the Act. While Section 28 of the Act gives emphasis to the manner of killing as may be required by religion of any community, sub-Rule (5) of Rule 6 of the said Rules contemplates ritual slaughter, and, accordingly, the contention to the effect, that no religion authorizes sacrifice of animals and, accordingly, Section 28 prevents sacrifice of animal, is not acceptable. According to us, Section 28 of the Act accepts that killing of an animal in a manner may be required by the religion of any community. The learned Amicus Curiae has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and Another, reported in 2004 (2) Supreme 427 , which is totally misplaced, since in the instant case the Statute recognizes killing in a manner required by the religion of any community.” 3. The learned Amicus Curiae has cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others Vs. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and Another, reported in 2004 (2) Supreme 427 , which is totally misplaced, since in the instant case the Statute recognizes killing in a manner required by the religion of any community.” 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 77 of 2010 & Writ Petition (PIL) No. 73 of 2010, this Court issued some directions; but, in the garb of that Public Interest Litigation, the devotees are being stopped even 10 kms. away from Maa Nayna Devi Mandir, Nainital. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that nobody is bringing goats for sacrifice in Maa Nayna Devi Mandir; but, few devotees are bringing goats to the said temple only for performing certain pooja and they will take them back to their homes and, in no case, the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 77 of 2010 & Writ Petition (PIL) No. 73 of 2010 will be flouted. 4. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand, after seeking proper instructions from the District Magistrate, Nainital, submitted before us that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 77 of 2010 & Writ Petition (PIL) No. 73 of 2010 will strictly be followed and nobody will be permitted to sacrifice the goats in the Maa Nayana Devi Mandir premises as well as in the entire mela area. He submitted that the administration will ensure that nobody is stopped at different places for bringing the goats to the temple premises for the purpose of pooja only and for making the same, they will carve out their own mechanism. 5. We record the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and close the writ petition. 6. Let a certified copy of this judgment be issued today itself.