Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 140 (CAL)

V. Karunanidhi v. Port Blair Municipal Council

2018-01-18

SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI

body2018
JUDGMENT : SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J. This writ petition is directed against an advertisement, dated February 9, 2017 and an order dated April 18, 2017, both issued by the Port Blair Municipal Council. 2. By the advertisement, Municipal Council invited applications from veterinary surgeons who were willing to carry out ante and post mortem examinations of the animals to be slaughtered at slaughter house of the Municipal Council as per the terms and conditions specified therein. One of the terms and conditions was that the veterinary surgeon might collect Rs. 100/- per animal for such examination and that he would have to follow all the guidelines and instructions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the relevant Acts. By order dated April 18, 2017, the Revenue Officer of the Municipal Council on the recommendation of the Sub-Committee for Finance Taxation and Accounts passed an order revising the slaughtering and littering fees. 3. It is worth mentioning that after the writ petition was filed the respondents have issued a fresh order reducing the revised rate by a considerable extent. 4. The petitioner sales chicken and mutton at Mohanpura Market, Port Blair for several years. In April 2016 the respondent nos. 1 and 2 directed the petitioner along with other persons selling the same food items to produce their animals to the slaughter house for conducting ante and post mortem examination of animals by Veterinary Surgeon. Previously the petitioner was not required to pay anything for such examination but the effect of the impugned advertisement is that the petitioner will have to pay Rs. 100/- per animal. The other grievance of the petitioner is that slaughtering and littering fee has been exorbitantly enhanced. 5. The respondents have contested this case by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The respondents state that a decision had to be taken following the order of the Supreme Court for implementation of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughters House) Rules, 2000. The Supreme Court observed that there was no periodical supervision or inspection of the various slaughter houses functioning in various parts of the country. Action taken reports would indicate that in many States slaughter houses are functioning without any licence and even the licenced slaughter houses are not following all the rules and guidelines of the Environment Protection Act. The Supreme Court observed that there was no periodical supervision or inspection of the various slaughter houses functioning in various parts of the country. Action taken reports would indicate that in many States slaughter houses are functioning without any licence and even the licenced slaughter houses are not following all the rules and guidelines of the Environment Protection Act. Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, dated October 10, 2012 almost all the States and Union Territories constituted a State Committee. The Supreme Court observed that the presence of Judicial Officers in the said committee would give life and light to them. The Convener was directed to see that the committee meets quite often and follow and implement the provisions of the Act as well as the guidelines issued by the appropriate authority. The Chief Justices of various High Courts were requested to nominate the name of a retired District Judge for a period of two years as a Convener of the Committee so as to enable him to send quarterly reports to the Court. 6. A committee was constituted by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and a meeting was held on May 26, 2015 when the Director of Animal Husbandry submitted that for the shortage of veterinary doctors the work of inspection could not be carried out properly. It was decided to engage unemployed veterinary doctors on contract basis for inspection work. That is why the Municipal Council published an advertisement on February 9, 2017 for engaging veterinary surgeon to carry out ante and post mortem examination at slaughtering house of the respondent authorities. 7. A very major point taken by the respondents is that the health of the citizens is a paramount consideration. Slaughtering activities undertaken without obtaining a certificate from a veterinary surgeon would make citizens vulnerable to various infectious diseases. 8. The respondents further contend that the order dated April 18, 2017 has been modified by another order, dated May 18, 2017 which was to the knowledge of the petitioner but that has never been challenged either by filing a supplementary affidavit or by amending the writ petition. 9. The grievance of the writ petitioner appears to be two fold. First, the revised rates are exorbitant and, secondly the fee to be collected by the veterinary doctor is a new introduction which the petitioner previously was not required to pay. 10. 9. The grievance of the writ petitioner appears to be two fold. First, the revised rates are exorbitant and, secondly the fee to be collected by the veterinary doctor is a new introduction which the petitioner previously was not required to pay. 10. The respondents have made it very clear in their affidavit-in-opposition that the required standard of inspection and examination of animals could not be done earlier for shortage of doctors as was reported by the Director of Animal Husbandry. 11. The Supreme Court had laid down stress on the necessity for such an inspection as to save unsuspecting customers from various infective and communicable diseases with which they may eventually be afflicted if the chicken and mutton they consume contain any such infection. 12. The photographs annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition clearly show the disease that the concerned animals were suffering from, some were suggestive of the deadly infection of tuberculosis. The Supreme Court had to pass successive orders in this regard for compelling reasons. The importance of functioning of the committee was such that the apex court had to direct the presence of a Judicial Officer in this committee to act as a Convener. 13. Public health and hygiene are such important issues that the State and the Municipality have to take adequate steps to safeguard the same. It falls within the duty of the Municipal Council to ensure that food products sold in the market are of a certain minimum standard and not something which is injurious to public health. For that engagement of veterinary surgeon is very important. The petitioner cannot expect the veterinary surgeon should undertake the work without payment of any fees. The petitioner cannot be heard to agitate that he as a seller and shop owner of chicken and mutton will make exorbitant profit but others will not be paid any remuneration. Considerations of public health cannot be compromised on any ground whatsoever. 14. The stand of the petitioner that previously for such examination no fee was charged is hardly any reason to strike down the advertisement. It is a part of common experience that for many of our activities we did not have to pay any fee earlier which with changed circumstances have been imposed subsequently. 14. The stand of the petitioner that previously for such examination no fee was charged is hardly any reason to strike down the advertisement. It is a part of common experience that for many of our activities we did not have to pay any fee earlier which with changed circumstances have been imposed subsequently. If the order of the Supreme Court has to be carried out in its true letter and spirit and if public health and hygiene are to be protected against the possibility of a contagious disease, the step taken by the Municipal Council must be held to be a laudable one. If the argument of the petitioner is to be accepted it would mean that no new tax can be imposed as the tax payer was not required to pay it earlier. 15. Mr. Prasanth, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner, or for that any chicken and mutton seller, has no moral right to call the payment of examination fee or the rates so revised exorbitant in view of the huge profit that these men may make. 16. It is a settled principle of law that payment to be made by an individual cannot be challenged on the ground that they appear to be exorbitant. So long as the authorities act within the competence and in discharge of its duties, a taxation provision cannot be challenged as it relates to the policy decision of the respondents. In S. Narayan v. Union of India, reported in (1976) 3 SCC 428 : AIR 1976 SC 1986 , the Supreme Court held that under Article 226 the Constitution of India a court has no jurisdiction to go into reasonableness of tariff rates (telephone in that case) as these are decided in policy matter in fiscal planning. 17. Moreover, after the Municipal Council had considerably reduced the rate, the petitioner cannot really assail the previously revised rate which is no longer a valid rate. In recent past a very major part of India had experienced the affliction of a deadly disease in animals, particularly chicken as a result of which lakhs of chicken had to be killed to prevent the spread of such disease in human beings. In recent past a very major part of India had experienced the affliction of a deadly disease in animals, particularly chicken as a result of which lakhs of chicken had to be killed to prevent the spread of such disease in human beings. It is only to prevent the recurrence of any such possibility that the authority must exercise very constant and ceaseless vigil on the quality of meat and chicken or for that matter on all food items so that its consumers do not fall prey to the sale of infected food products for any negligence on the part of the authority. 18. A very major part of the writ petition, so far as it relates to the order of April 18, 2017, has now become infructuous in view of the subsequent modification of the rate on May 18, 2017. So far as the advertisement is concerned, the challenge of the petitioner to the same is absolutely without any basis. 19. I not only find no merit in the submission of the petitioner, I consider the steps taken by the Municipal Council to be in discharge of their essential duties to take appropriate steps for ensuring health and hygiene of its inhabitants. 20. The writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed. 21. There shall be no order as to costs.