JUDGMENT : K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs: “1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of ‘mandamus’ commanding the respondents to strictly implement the provisions and safeguards provided under the Municipal Corporation Act and Bureau of Indian Standards IS 7053:1996. 2. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of “mandamus” directing the respondents to initiate proceedings under the law against the unregistered meat shops operating in District Udham Singh Nagar who are found in violation of the above stated rules and safeguards.” 2. The complaint, essentially, is that there are number of unregistered meat shops, which are being set up in District Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioner would complain that though under the law, an owner must acquire a licence by following the procedure, the meat shop owners have set up shops on random basis at desired places, without following the mandatory conditions. Petitioner has made a representation. Petitioner also relies on the Bureau of Indian Standards IS 7053:1993, which has laid down, according to him, specific Rules regarding the sale of meat of small and large animals through the meat shops, but they are not being followed. He also adverts to meat shop owners, who are not registered with the Nagar Nigam or with the Zila Panchayat, who are allegedly selling the meat derived from sick and unhealthy animals. He complains that people are bound to buy it giving rise to number of diseases, which has to be stopped in the interest of the public at large. Petitioner also relies on the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “2001 Rules”). 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, who is the Designated Officer, Food Safety Administration, Udham Singh Nagar. Therein, it is inter alia stated as follows: “4. That the contents of para 2 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence denied. In reply it is stated that from time to time Health Department under the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 inspect the Meat Shop running in the District Udham Singh Nagar and in case of violation of Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 by the Meat Shop owners proceedings against such offenders is initiated in accordance to law. 7. In reply it is stated that from time to time Health Department under the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 inspect the Meat Shop running in the District Udham Singh Nagar and in case of violation of Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 by the Meat Shop owners proceedings against such offenders is initiated in accordance to law. 7. That the contents of para 5 of the writ petition are not as stated admitted hence denied. In reply it is state that the petitioner has file the instant writ petition being aggrieved by the Meat shop situated in front of his house, however, it is relevant to state here that proceedings against the said meat shop has been initiated for violation of the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006. Copy of the proceedings initiated in respect of the said Meat Shop is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure no. CA-1 to this affidavit. 8. That the contents of para 6 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated hence denied. In reply it is stated that before opening meat Shop it is mandatory to obtained license/registration from the department under the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006. It is relevant to state here that regular inspection is carried out of Meat Shop either registered or unregistered and case of violation of the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 by the Meat Shop owners legal proceedings is initiated against the owners of such Meat Shop in accordance to law. 10. That in reply to the contents of para 8 & 9 of the writ petition it is stated that the Health Department carried out a regular inspection of Meat Shop either registered or unregistered and case of violation of the Food, Safety and Standard Act, 2006 by the Meat Shop owners legal proceedings is initiated against the owners of such Meat Shop in accordance to law. Apart from aforesaid regular inspection in case any complaint is received the same is also acted upon. Till date in District Udham Singh Nagar case has been registered against 21 meat Shop owners before the Prescribed Authority i.e. Additional District Magistrate (F & R) out of which 16 cases has been decided imposing penalty upon the offenders. Copy of the suit registered and decision taken therein is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure no. CA-3 to this affidavit. 12. Copy of the suit registered and decision taken therein is being filed herewith and is marked as Annexure no. CA-3 to this affidavit. 12. That the contents of para 12 of the writ petition require no comments being legal, however, it is relevant to state here that slaughter house has not been established in District Udham Singh Nagar as contemplated under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 in District Udham Singh Nagar.” 4. We also take note of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 7, who is the Chief Veterinary Officer in District Udham Singh Nagar. Therein, we take note of the following paragraphs: “4. That in reply to the contents of para 8 of the writ petition it is stated that Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 provides that animals not to be slaughtered except in recognized or licensed houses. As of today, there are no slaughter houses in District Udham Singh Nagar as per the standard of Slaughter House Rules, 2001. According to Slaughter House, 2001 Rules, Veterinary Officer has to examined the animal before slaughtered (Ante mortem) and after slaughtered (Postmortem) in the Slaughtered Houses itself, therefore, examination of animal before and after slaughter as contemplated in Slaughter House Rules, 2001 is not possible by the Veterinary Department. Copy of the representation dated 10.8.2015 and the copy of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 has already been annexed as Annexure no.- 2 and Annexure no.-5 respectively to the writ petition. 6. That in reply to the contents of para 12 of the writ petition it is stated that as stated in para 4 above there are no recognized and licensed slaughter houses in District Udham Singh Nagar as contemplated in Slaughter House Rules, 2001. However, in compliance of the Government Order no. 2720/XV-1/10/7(50)/08 for inspection of temporary slaughter house a committee has been constituted presided by Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police. The said committee from time to time inspects the temporary slaughter houses and the same do not fulfill the standard as contemplated in the Slaughter House Rules, 2001. A copy of the committee constituted and copy of the report of the committee are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no. CA-1 and Annexure no. CA-2 to this affidavit.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. A copy of the committee constituted and copy of the report of the committee are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure no. CA-1 and Annexure no. CA-2 to this affidavit.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also drew our attention to certain provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959(hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), which is the law relating to the matter at hand. We may notice certain provisions as hereunder: (i) Section 421 of the said Act provides that for the purposes of this Chapter all markets and slaughter-houses other than Corporation markets and slaughter-houses shall be deemed to be private markets and slaughter-houses. (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on Section 422 (a) of the said Act, which reads as under: “422. Municipal Commissioner’s powers in respect of Corporation markets and slaughter-houses, etc.-Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rule and bye-laws framed thereunder the Municipal Commissioner shall have the power– (a) upon being authorised by the Corporation in that behalf, to construct, purchase, take on lease or otherwise acquire any building or land for the purpose of establishing a Corporation market or a Corporation slaughter-house or stockyard within, and with the prior sanction of the State Government, without the limits of the Corporation and of extending or improving any existing Corporation market or slaughter-house;” (iii) Section 423 of the said Act deals with establishment of new private markets or the establishment or maintenance of private slaughter-houses. (iv) Section 424 of the said Act deals with the requirement under law of written permission of the Municipal Commissioner and payment of fees before removal of any live cattle, sheep, goats or swine from any Corporation slaughter-house. (v) Section 426 of the said Act being relevant, we extract the same as follows: “426. Prohibition of sale in Corporation markets without licence.– (1) No person shall, without licence from the Municipal Commissioner, sell or expose for sale any animal or article in any Corporation market. (2) Any person contravening this section may be summarily removed by any corporation officer or servant.” Therefore, no person can, without licence from the Municipal Commissioner, sell or expose for sale any animal or article in any Corporation market. (vi) Sections 427 and 428 of the said Act being equally relevant, we extract the same as follows: “427. (2) Any person contravening this section may be summarily removed by any corporation officer or servant.” Therefore, no person can, without licence from the Municipal Commissioner, sell or expose for sale any animal or article in any Corporation market. (vi) Sections 427 and 428 of the said Act being equally relevant, we extract the same as follows: “427. Prohibition of sale in unauthorised private markets.– No person who knows that any private market has been established without the sanction of the Municipal Commissioner, or is kept open after a licence for keeping the same open has been refused, cancelled or suspended by the Municipal Commissioner, shall sell or expose for sale therein any animal or articles of human food or any livestock or food for livestock. 428. Prohibition of sale of animals, etc. except in markets.–No person shall, without a licence from the Municipal Commissioner, sell or expose for sale- (a) any four-footed animal or any meat or fish intended for human food, in any place other than a Corporation or private market ; (b) ices and syrups or aerated waters, kulfi, sugarcane juice, cut or peeled fruit and vegetables, any confectionery or sweetmeat whatsoever or such other cooked food or other articles intended for human consumption as may from time to time by public notice be specified by the Municipal Commissioner in any place other than a Corporation or private market or licensed eating house or sweetmeat shop.” (vii) Section 429 of the said Act provides that no person shall without the permission of the Municipal Commissioner slaughter or cause to be slaughtered any animal for sale in the City except in a Corporation slaughter-house or a licensed private slaughter-house. (viii) Section 432 of the said Act being relevant, we extract the same as follows: “432. Prohibition of import of cattle, etc., into City without permission.–(1) No person shall without the written permission of the Municipal Commissioner bring into the City any cattle, sheep, goats or swine intended for human consumption, or the flesh of any such animal which has been slaughtered at any slaughter-house or place not maintained or licensed under this Act. (2) Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person bringing into the City any animal or flesh in contravention of sub-section(1). (2) Any police officer may arrest without warrant any person bringing into the City any animal or flesh in contravention of sub-section(1). (3) Any animal brought into the City in contravention of this section may be seized by the Municipal Commissioner or by any Corporation officer or servant or by any Police Officer or in or upon Railway premises by the Railway servant and any animal or flesh so seized may be sold or otherwise disposed of as the Municipal Commissioner shall direct and the proceeds, if any, shall belong to the Corporation. (4) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to cured or preserved meat.” (ix) We may also advert to Section 435 of the said Act, as it deals with the power to seize unwholesome articles, which reads as follows: “435. Unwholesome articles, etc., to be seized.- (1) The Municipal Commissioner may at all reasonable times inspect and examine any such animal or article as aforesaid and any utensil or vessel used for preparing, manufacturing or containing the same. (2) If any such animal or article appears to the Municipal Commissioner to be diseased or unsound or unwholesome or unfit for human consumption, as the case may be, or is not what it is represented to be, or if any such utensil or vessel is of such kind or in such state as to render any article prepared, manufactured or contained therein unwholesome or unfit for human consumption, he may seize and carry away such animal, article, utensil or vessel, in order that the same may be dealt with as hereinafter provided and he may arrest and take to the nearest police station any person in charge of any such animal or article.” (x) Section 439 of the said Act deals with the requirement of a licence for butchers and persons who sell flesh of animals, which provides as follows: “439. Butchers and persons who sell flesh of animals to be licensed.- No person shall, without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of a licence granted by the Municipal Commissioner in this behalf – (a) carry on within the City, or at any Corporation slaughter-house, the trade of a butcher ; (b) use any place in the City for the sale of the flesh of any animal intended for human consumption or any place without the City for the sale of such flesh for consumption in the City.” 7. Thus, the aforesaid provisions makes it mandatory for a person, in order to carry on within the city or at any Corporation slaughter-house the trade of a butcher, that he should possess a licence. Equally, use of any place in the city for the sale of flesh of any animal intended for human consumption or any place without the city for the sale of such flesh for consumption in the city requires a licence. 8. Rule 3 of the 2001 Rules being significant for the purpose of this case, is hereinafter extracted as follows: “3. Animals not to be slaughtered except in recognised or licensed houses.– (1) No person shall slaughter any animal within a municipal area except in a slaughter house recognised or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law for the time being in force to do so. (2) No animal which, – (i) is pregnant, or (ii) has an offspring less than three months old, or (iii) is under the age of three months, or (iv) has not been certified by a veterinary doctor that it is in a fit condition to be slaughtered, shall be slaughtered. (3) The municipal or other local authority specified by the Central Government for this purpose shall, having regard to the capacity of the slaughter house and the requirement of the local population of the area in which a slaughter house is situated, determine the maximum number of animals that may be slaughtered in a day.” 9. It is clear that the Rules which came into force on 26.03.2001, which is more than 15 years ago, mandate that no person shall slaughter any animal within the Municipal area except in a slaughter-house recognised or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law for the time being in force. It is clear that the Rules which came into force on 26.03.2001, which is more than 15 years ago, mandate that no person shall slaughter any animal within the Municipal area except in a slaughter-house recognised or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law for the time being in force. Equally under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 3, it is provided that no animal, which has not been certified by a veterinary doctor that it is in a fit condition to be slaughtered, can be slaughtered. This is besides prohibiting slaughtering of a pregnant animal or an animal which has an offspring of less than three months or an animal which is under the age of three months. Sub Rule (3) of Rule 3 provides that the municipal or the other local authority has to determine the maximum number of animals that may be slaughtered in a day. 10. There cannot be even the slightest doubt in our minds that these provisions are intended to be followed strictly and there cannot be any violation, which is what apparently the petitioner is alleging. In fact, Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned Standing Counsel for the State would submit that there is indeed no slaughter-house, as contemplated in the Rules and at present, there is only arrangement of a temporary slaughter-house. This certainly cannot be allowed to continue. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, however, would submit that a slaughter-house will be constructed within a period of three months from today. 11. We record the above submission made by the learned Standing Counsel and dispose of the writ petition by directing that the mandatory provisions, as contained in the said Act and the Rules made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 will be strictly enforced by all the authorities/respondents. The requirement as to licensing of the meat traders will not be observed in its breach but will be observed and enforced strictly.