JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the public notice as contained in Letter No. 638/Swa. dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC), Ranchi [the respondent No.4] whereby all the mutton sellers carrying on their business within the municipal area of RMC have been directed to ensure slaughtering of animals (goat/sheep) for supply of mutton only at the Municipal Slaughter House situated at Kanke, Ranchi w.e.f. 18.10.2018 or to ensure getting hygienic mutton from five model mutton shops established by the RMC at fixed places specified in the said public notice and any mutton seller acting in contravention of the said public notice would be liable to be prosecuted in terms with Section 310(3) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2011’) as well as such unhygienic meat would be destroyed by forfeiting the same under Section 467 of the Act, 2011. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the members of the petitioner No.1 are engaged in the business of selling goat/sheep meat after obtaining registration certificate from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand as well as taking licences from the RMC. 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison & Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand issued letter dated 27.03.2017 addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners, Superintendents of Police, Municipal Bodies/Notified Area Committees of all the districts of Jharkhand to ensure closure of illegal slaughter houses/Abattoirs and thereafter notices were issued to all the licensees of the mutton shops within the State of Jharkhand for closing their respective shops. Accordingly, all the members of the petitioner No.1 closed their shops. Subsequently, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand issued a letter on 28.07.2017 directing the Deputy Commissioners of all the districts of Jharkhand to issue licences/No Objection Certificates for slaughter houses/meat sellers under the provisions of Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations, 2011’) as per the guidelines issued vide Departmental Notification No. 170(16) dated 23.11.2015 by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. 4. 4. Subsequently, a Single Window System was established through the ‘Pragya Kendra’ and the mutton shopkeepers and owners of slaughter houses were directed to register their shops by way of online application. A public notice/press release was also issued in different newspapers and through other modes directing the mutton shopkeepers and owners of slaughter houses for registration of their respective shops, if they were slaughtering goat, sheep and pig up to maximum of 10 in numbers as well as poultry birds up to maximum of 50 in numbers. 5. Thereafter, the members of the petitioner No.1 including the petitioner No.2 got Registration Certificates of their shops issued by the Food Safety Administration, Department of Health, Government of Jharkhand under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2006’) as well as Clause 2.1.1(5) of the Regulations, 2011 and started carrying on their business/trade of slaughter/sale of mutton in their respective shops. However, the respondent No.4 issued a public notice dated 01.10.2018 directing all the mutton sellers to stop slaughtering of animals for sale of mutton in their respective shops and to sell the mutton only after getting their animals slaughtered in the Municipal Slaughter House established by RMC at Kanke, Ranchi or to ensure getting hygienic mutton from five model mutton shops established by the RMC at fixed places within the city of Ranchi. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are 112 registered shopkeepers engaged in the business of selling mutton in the market after slaughtering the goat/sheep in their respective shops. Section 3(1)(j) of the Act, 2006 defines the term ‘food’ and the product of slaughtering i.e. ‘meat’ comes within the said definition. Sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act, 2006 provides that no person shall commence or carry on any food business, except under a license. However, sub-section (2) of Section 31 carves out an exception to the said general rule by providing that nothing contained in Section 31(1) of the Act, 2006 shall apply to a petty food manufacturer who himself manufacturers or sells any article of food or a petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor, tiny food business operator etc., but they shall register themselves with such authority and in such manner as may be specified by regulations, without prejudice to the availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption or affecting the interests of the consumers. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 92(2)(o) read with Section 31 of the Act, 2006, the Regulations, 2011 has been framed which inter alia provides for licensing and registration of Petty Food Manufacturers. The term ‘Petty Food Manufacturer’ has been defined in Clause 1.2(4) of the Regulations, 2011 which includes any food manufacturer whose slaughtering capacity is 02 large animals or 10 small animals or 50 poultry birds per day or less. Clause 2.1.1(2) provides that the petty food manufacturer shall follow the basic hygiene and safety requirements as provided in Part-I of Schedule 4 of the Regulations, 2011. Clause 2.1.1(4) provides that the registering authority shall grant registration only after being satisfied with the safety, hygiene and sanitary conditions of the premises, as contained in Part-II of Schedule 4. Admittedly, all the members of the petitioner association have applied and obtained registration certificates in terms with the Regulations, 2011. 7. Moreover, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2001’] was framed with an aim to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals and to regulate proper functioning of slaughter houses. The term "Slaughter House" has been defined in Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 2001 which states that ‘slaughter house’ means a place where 10 or more than 10 animals are slaughtered per day and is duly licensed or recognized under a Central, State or Provincial Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder. The Rules, 2001 clearly restricts the slaughtering of any animal within a municipal area, except in a slaughter house running under a license issued by the concerned Municipal Authorities. Though the Rules, 2001 does not provide for the licensing procedure, yet it lays down certain conditions which are required to be satisfied to carry out slaughtering of animals in a slaughter house which has to be given effect to and implemented by a licensed slaughter house and so far as licensing of slaughter houses is concerned, it is governed by the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2011’). 8. The Act, 2011 defines the term ‘slaughter house’ under Section 2(90) and it means any place used for the slaughter of cattle, sheep, goats, kids or pigs for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof as meat. 8. The Act, 2011 defines the term ‘slaughter house’ under Section 2(90) and it means any place used for the slaughter of cattle, sheep, goats, kids or pigs for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof as meat. Chapter 30 of the Act, 2011 deals with markets, commercial infrastructure and slaughter houses and under the said chapter, two kinds of slaughter houses are contemplated. Section 307 of the Act, 2011 provides that a slaughter house which belongs to or is maintained by the Municipality, shall be called a municipal slaughter house and all other slaughter houses shall be deemed to be private. Therefore, operation of a private slaughter house is also permitted subject to a license being obtained from the Municipality. 9. Section 310 of the Act, 2011 provides that the Municipality may fix places within the limits of the Municipality and grant licences for use of such places for the slaughter of animals for sale and when such premises are fixed, no person shall be allowed to slaughter any animal for sale at any other place. Section 315 of the Act, 2011 provides for framing of regulations for markets and slaughter houses. It gives the power to the Municipal Commissioner or the Executive Officer to frame regulations not inconsistent with any provision of this Act or of any regulation made thereunder for the time being in force with the approval of the Standing Committee. In order to give effect to the provisions of Section 310 of the Act, 2011, it has been provided under Sections 315 & 327 that the Municipality may make regulations for slaughter houses. In terms with Section 315, the Municipality is empowered to make regulations for achieving 5 purposes mentioned inter alia whereas under Section 327, the Municipality has the power to make regulations prescribing the conditions and circumstances as well as the areas or localities in respect of which licenses for use of any place as a slaughter house/market or shop for the sale of animals., meat or fish intended for human food may be granted, refused, suspended or withdrawn. The Act, 2006 and the Regulations, 2011 provide for registering of "petty food operators" which includes a person who slaughters 2 large animals, 10 small animals and 50 poultry birds per day or less whereas the Rules, 2001 deals with slaughter house which means a place where 10 or more than 10 animals are slaughtered per day and is duly licensed or recognized under a Central, State or Provincial Act or any rule or regulation made thereunder. Both the statutes operate in different fields and there appears to be no overlap. 10. The orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmi Narain Modi Vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (Civil) No. 309 of 2003] mandating implementation of the provisions of the Rules, 2001 and the same will not be attracted where less than 10 animals per day are slaughtered. The reliance placed thereupon by the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 is completely misconceived inasmuch as the members of the petitioner association have been carrying on the business of slaughtering and sale of less than 10 animals per day and are also registered under the Regulations, 2011. 11. On close scrutiny of the provisions of both the statutes, it would appear that there is no overlap on majority of the aspects and even if there is overlapping on certain aspects, the provisions of the Act, 2006 would prevail. The Act, 2006 does not provide for licensing or declaration of an area where slaughtering of animals can be carried out and such licensing and declaration has to be made under the Municipal law by framing a regulation providing the manner in which an application can be filed and an area can be declared to be fit for slaughtering. However, in absence of such regulations, the prohibition imposed by the statute cannot be given effect to. 12. It would be evident from the impugned letter dated 01.10.2018 that the RMC seeks to impose complete prohibition of slaughtering at any place other than a particular place fixed by the RMC which is ‘Municipal Slaughter House’ situated at Kanke, Ranchi. On harmonious reading of the Act, 2006, Regulations, 2011 and the Act, 2011, it would appear that a ‘petty food manufacturer’ is entitled to slaughter and sell meat and there cannot be complete and permanent prohibition on carrying on such trade and business. On harmonious reading of the Act, 2006, Regulations, 2011 and the Act, 2011, it would appear that a ‘petty food manufacturer’ is entitled to slaughter and sell meat and there cannot be complete and permanent prohibition on carrying on such trade and business. Total prohibition imposed through the impugned letter issued by the RMC not only violates the provisions of the Act, 2006 and the Act, 2011, but also infringes the fundamental right of the petitioners to carry on business in terms with Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as it is not possible for every meat shop owner to get the meat slaughtered in the slaughter house particularly when there is only one slaughter house established by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation at Kanke, Ranchi. 13. The impugned public notice will not only lead to monopoly in the trade of meat, but will also create uncertain market conditions of panic and chaos among the mutton sellers thereby adversely affecting their business interest particularly in the morning hours when there use to be huge demand and supply of meat. The respondents have not indicated any provision in the Act, 2011 under which a license can be obtained by the petitioners to carry on the business of slaughtering and sale of meat/mutton and as such it is impossible for the members of the petitioner No.1 to obtain any license for the said purpose. The law excuses non-performance of an impossible act. Until and unless regulations are framed by the Municipality in terms with Sections 315 & 327 of the Act, 2011, any person intending to carry on the business of slaughtering and sale of meat/mutton cannot be prohibited in terms with Section 310 merely on the ground that the Municipality has constructed a Municipal slaughter house. The Act, 2011 does not contemplate creation of a monopoly by the Municipality in its favour and if it is sought to be done, the same has to be struck down being unconstitutional. 14. It is further contended that generally the members of the petitioner No.1 open their shops for sale of mutton at around 6:30 A.M in the morning and most of the customers buy meat in the early morning hours. 14. It is further contended that generally the members of the petitioner No.1 open their shops for sale of mutton at around 6:30 A.M in the morning and most of the customers buy meat in the early morning hours. However, under the proposed system, the members of the petitioner No.1 will have to take the animals to the slaughter house, wait for their respective turn and after slaughtering of animals, the carcass will be returned after mandatorily keeping the same in deep freezer for approximately 2 hours. In any event, it is not possible for the members of the petitioner No.1 to predict as to what quantity of meat will be sold by them each day and if the meat obtained from the slaughter house is not sold, then they will have to necessarily keep the same in the deep freezer overnight or may be more than that. The position of supply of electricity in city of Ranchi is not good and thus one cannot depend on deep freezer to store meat even for one night. If there is erratic supply of electricity, the meat/mutton will get rotten which cannot be sold causing loss to the members of the society. 15. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 submits that the petitioners are having licences either for mutton shop or for retail meat processing unit and the relevant statutes does not allow slaughtering of animals in shops, rather such activity can only be carried out in a designated slaughter house after satisfying all the required criteria for lawful operation and functioning of slaughter house. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Modi (Supra) took note of the fact that many slaughter houses were being run without obtaining statutory consent and hence issued direction that all those unauthorized slaughter houses be closed down immediately and be not allowed to operate unless they obtain necessary licence as per the rules and regulations. It was further held that no licence should be granted to any of the slaughter houses which does not fulfill the conditions as per the Rules, 2001. 16. It is further submitted that there are three stages for vending meat i.e. slaughtering, processing and selling. Moreover, all the three stages are different from each other and the issue in question is concerned with the first stage of vending meat. 16. It is further submitted that there are three stages for vending meat i.e. slaughtering, processing and selling. Moreover, all the three stages are different from each other and the issue in question is concerned with the first stage of vending meat. However, the petitioners i.e. mutton sellers come into picture at the third stage of vending meat, who cannot seek privileges of first stage of vending meat. Rule 3 of the Rules, 2001 provides that the animals should not to be slaughtered, except in recognized or licensed houses. 17. It is also submitted that the members of the petitioner No.1 have no locus standi to file the present writ petition as they are the shop owners and not slaughter house owners. Moreover, the petitioners have alternative/efficacious remedy to represent the adjudicating officer under Section 68 of the Act, 2006 since Section 72 of the said Act ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of any matter which an adjudicating officer or the Tribunal is empowered by or under the said Act to determine. The petitioners may also seek remedy by pursuing their cause before the Competition Commission of India under the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2002’) since Section 61 of the said Act ousts the Civil Court jurisdiction with respect to monopoly. A long-standing practice which has been declared as illegal by the legislature and further upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Narain Modi (Supra) with a detailed direction for strict implementation of the laws relating to slaughtering of animals, the same cannot be allowed to continue only on the pretext of such long-continuing practice. 18. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is subject to reasonable restriction as provided under Article 19(5). There is no complete prohibition of slaughter of animals, rather vide impugned notice dated 01.10.2018, the respondent No.4 has only informed the public at large to have their animals slaughtered as per statutory norms by persuading the intending persons dealing in the business of selling meat/mutton to follow the law which has been made by taking care of citizen’s health to provide hygienic meat/mutton for consumption as well as taking note of environmental impact by ensuring proper disposal of the waste which comes out of slaughter house. It has also been ensured that the animals going to be slaughtered should bear least amount of pain which comes under the ambit of reasonable restriction. The apprehension of the members of the petitioner No.1 that on implementation of the impugned notice, they will be unemployed, lacks any basis as they are only required to get their animals slaughtered in the recognized slaughter house of the RMC for supplying mutton by paying a minimal service charge and then to sell the meat which will be procured from the slaughter house. The members of the petitioner No.1 being the registered mutton shop owners are duty bound to keep deep freezers in their shops also ensuring uninterrupted power supply in order to maintain the quality and freshness of meat. 19. It is further emphasized that every right has a collateral duty attached to it and as such right to profess business of mutton comes with a duty to ensure keeping of deep freezer with proper electric supply. The logistic inefficiency on the part of the members of the petitioner No.1 cannot be a ground to allow them to operate illegal business of slaughtering of animals as well as selling of meat in their mutton shops in contravention of the various statutory provisions operating in the field and the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as the same will amount to extending benefit of its own wrong to a person which is not legally permissible. Moreover, Part-IV of the Schedule-4 and Regulation 2.1.2(5) of the Regulations, 2011 provides for the basic requirements (safety, sanitary and hygiene) of slaughter houses/food business operators engaged in manufacture, processing, storing and selling of meat and meat products as well as procedure which needs to be followed before and during slaughtering to ensure humane slaughtering of animals. Any violation of the said provisions may amount to inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering as it is the right of animals to receive proper treatment before slaughtering coupled with the fact that they should not be slaughtered in presence of other animals and there is mandatory requirement of stunning them before slaughtering by inducing unconsciousness through various methods which needs to be strictly adhered to as the said process can avoid and minimize reactions of fear and anxiety as well as pain, suffering and distress in the concerned animals. 20. 20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-RMC submits that Section 310 of the Act, 2011 empowers the Municipality to fix places and further to grant licenses for use of such places for slaughtering of animals for sale. It further provides that no person shall be allowed to slaughter animals for sale at any other place than the one fixed by the Municipality. In compliance of the said provision, a public notice was published in the local newspaper prohibiting open slaughtering of animals. An advanced slaughter house established by the RMC at Kanke, Ranchi is operational since 04.07.2018 which is a place designated for slaughtering of animals to supply meat/mutton as mandated in the Act, 2011. Slaughtering of animals is done at the said slaughter house in a scientific and hygienic manner which prevents contamination of meat. There is a veterinary doctor at the slaughter house who examines the concerned animals before slaughtering thereby ensuring that no sick or unhealthy animal is slaughtered. Open slaughtering of animals is also against the public sentiments as also the method applied in open slaughtering amounts to cruelty. The RMC does not intend to restrict the mutton sellers from running their business/livelihood, rather to merely persuade them to ensure that henceforth no open slaughtering should take place. There are studies which do prove that meat kept in non-chilled condition after slaughtering leads to bacterial growth thereby contaminating the meat, which makes it unhealthy for human consumption. The meat sellers have not been given licenses to slaughter animals and hence they cannot slaughter animals at any open place other than the fixed/designated slaughter house. A regulation, namely, Ranchi Municipal Corporation Regulation for Municipal License for Slaughter House, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulation, 2017’] was also drafted under Section 592 of the Act, 2011 and sent to the State Government for its approval and publication in the official gazette under Section 594(1) of the Act, 2011. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand contends that the respondent No.4 had submitted the draft proposal of the Regulations, 2017 to the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand which was sent to the Department of Law and Justice, Government of Jharkhand for vetting whereupon the said department has opined that the provision of the Act, 2006 will prevail over the power of the RMC to frame regulation. It has been further opined that Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, a statutory body established under the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India has already made the Regulations, 2011 in exercise of the power conferred under Section 92 of the Act, 2006 and in the said Regulations, the construction and operation of slaughter house is also described. 22. In view of Section 89 of the Act, 2006, the provisions of the said Act have overriding effect over all other food related laws. As per the opinion of the Department of Law & Justice, Government of Jharkhand, the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand as well as Urban Local Bodies working under it, are not competent to frame the Regulations, 2017 in accordance with the Act, 2011. Moreover, a State Level Slaughter House Committee was constituted in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Modi (Supra) in the meeting dated 07.08.2018 held under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand wherein it was resolved that the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would be complied by the Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. The role of local authority is only to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to the slaughter house operators before grant of license as stated in Clause A(1.1) of Part-IV (specific hygienic and sanitary practices to be followed by food business operators engaged in manufacture, processing, storing and selling of meat and meat products) of Schedule-4 of the Regulations, 2011 and to that effect letter No. 1604 dated 11.05.2022 has been issued by the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand to all the Municipal Authorities/Urban Local Bodies. 23. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The members of the petitioner No.1 are aggrieved with the impugned public notice issued vide letter dated 01.10.2018 whereby the respondent No.4 has informed the mutton sellers including the members of the petitioner No.1 carrying on their business within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi to ensure that slaughtering of animals for supplying mutton is done only at the Municipal Slaughter House situated at Kanke, Ranchi or to get hygienic mutton from the five model mutton shops constructed at fixed places by the RMC. 24. 24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 has also raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition by submitting that the petitioners have alternative/efficacious remedy before the Competition Commission of India under the Competition Act, 2002 as Section 61 of the said Act ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Court with respect to the issues of monopoly. It is further contended that Section 72 of the Act, 2006 also ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to any matter of food safety for which an Adjudicating Officer or Food Safety Appellate Tribunal is empowered by the Act, 2006 to determine the same. Hence, considering the nature of issue raised by the petitioners, it needs to be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Officer under Section 68 of the Act, 2006. 25. To appreciate the said contention of learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6, it would be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Jahan Khan reported in (2007) 10 SCC 88 wherein it has been held as under: “12. Before parting with the case, we may also deal with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that a remedy by way of an appeal being available to the respondent, the High Court ought not to have entertained his petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying that in a given case, the High Court may not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, in at least three contingencies, namely, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. In these circumstances, an alternative remedy does not operate as a bar. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [ (1998) 8 SCC 1 ], Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [ (2003) 2 SCC 107 ] , State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. [ (2005) 6 SCC 499 ] and Sanjana M. Wig v. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. [ (2005) 8 SCC 242 ]” 26. In the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: “27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” 27. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” 27. In view of the aforesaid judgments, it is well settled that mere availability of alternative remedy is not a ground to decline exercise of the power of judicial review, rather in a given situation, a writ petition can be entertained particularly when the issue of violation of fundamental right of any person or class of persons is involved. 28. In the case in hand, the petitioners have alleged violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India contending that the RMC vide impugned public notice has completely banned the mutton sellers from slaughtering of animals for supplying mutton without formulating any regulation so as also to provide opportunity to a private person to open a slaughter house. Hence, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition is maintainable despite the fact that the petitioners may have alternative remedy before different forums. The question of maintainability as raised by learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 is thus not tenable. 29. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that vide the impugned public notice, the respondent-RMC has put complete ban on slaughtering of animals for supplying mutton which is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India conferring right to all the citizens to practice any profession, or to carry out any occupation, trade or business. It is also asserted that the members of the petitioner No.1 are running their shops after getting those registered under the Act, 2006 read with Regulations, 2011 and are fully complying the requirements to be followed for slaughtering of animals to supply mutton as mandated under the said laws. 30. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 has put forth his argument that the members of the petitioner No.1 are not having licenses for slaughtering of animals to supply mutton, rather they are having registration either for mutton shops or for retail meat processing units. 30. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 has put forth his argument that the members of the petitioner No.1 are not having licenses for slaughtering of animals to supply mutton, rather they are having registration either for mutton shops or for retail meat processing units. The impugned public notice is fully consistent with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Laxmi Narayan Modi (Supra) whereby the State of Jharkhand has been directed to ensure that all unauthorized slaughterhouses be closed down immediately and be not allowed to operate unless they obtain necessary licences as per the prevailing rules and regulations. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is subject to reasonable restriction as provided under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. Moreover, there is no complete prohibition of slaughtering of animals by the impugned public notice, rather it is only an information to the concerned mutton sellers doing their business within the jurisdictional limits of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi that slaughtering will be done as per statutory norms which is in the benefit of the public at large. 31. Before coming to the merit of the respective cases of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer the relevant provisions of the Rules, 2001, the Act, 2006, the Regulations, 2011 and the Act, 2011. 32. Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 2001 defines ‘slaughter house’ which reads as follows: “2.(c) Slaughter house means a slaughter house wherein 10 or more than 10 animals are slaughtered per day and is duly licensed or recognised under a Central, State or Provincial Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder.” 33. Rule 3(1) of the Rules, 2001 provides that no person shall slaughter any animal within a municipal area, except in a slaughter house recognized or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law for the time being in force to do so. The other provisions of the Rules, 2001 provide the requirements to be followed by the slaughter houses. 34. Section 31 of the Act, 2006 provides for licensing and registration of food business which reads as under: “31. Licensing and registration of food business.– (1) No person shall commence or carry on any food business except under a licence. The other provisions of the Rules, 2001 provide the requirements to be followed by the slaughter houses. 34. Section 31 of the Act, 2006 provides for licensing and registration of food business which reads as under: “31. Licensing and registration of food business.– (1) No person shall commence or carry on any food business except under a licence. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to a petty manufacturer who himself manufactures or sells any article of food or a petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor or a temporary stall holder or small scale or cottage or such other industries relating to food business or tiny food business operator; but they shall register themselves with such authority and in such manner as may be specified by regulations, without prejudice to the availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption or affecting the interests of the consumers. (3) Any person desirous to commence or carry on any food business shall make an application for grant of a licence to the Designated Officer in such manner containing such particulars and fees as may be specified by regulations. (4) The Designated Officer on receipt of an application under sub-section (3), may either grant the licence or after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard and for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to grant a licence to any applicant, if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interest of public health and shall make available to the applicant a copy of the order: Provided that if a licence is not issued within two months from the date of making the application or his application is not rejected, the applicant may start his food business after expiry of the said period and in such a case, the Designated Officer shall not refuse to issue a licence but may, if he considers necessary, issue an improvement notice, under section 32 and follow procedures in that regard. (5) Every licence shall be in such form and subject to such conditions as may be specified by regulations. (6) A single licence may be issued by the Designated Officer for one or more articles of food and also for different establishments or premises in the same area. (5) Every licence shall be in such form and subject to such conditions as may be specified by regulations. (6) A single licence may be issued by the Designated Officer for one or more articles of food and also for different establishments or premises in the same area. (7) If the articles of food are manufactured, stored, sold or exhibited for sale at different premises situated in more than one area, separate applications shall be made and separate licence shall be issued in respect of such premises not falling within the same area. (8) An appeal against the order of rejection for the grant of licence shall lie to the Commissioner of Food Safety. (9) A licence unless suspended or cancelled earlier shall be in force for such period as may be specified by regulations: Provided that if an application for a renewal of licence is made before the expiry of the period of validity of the licence, the licence shall continue to be in force until orders are passed on the application. (10) The licence shall subsist for the benefit of the deceased’s personal representative or any other member of his family, until the expiry of– (a) the period of three months beginning with his death; or (b) such longer period as the Designated Officer may allow.” 35. The Regulations, 2011 has been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 92(2)(o) and Section 31 of the Act, 2006, Clause 1.2.1(4) whereof defines ‘’Petty Food Manufacturer’’ which reads as under: “4. “Petty Food Manufacturer” means any food manufacturer, who (a) manufactures or sells any article of food himself or a petty retailer, hawker, itinerant vendor or temporary stall holder; or distributes foods including in any religious or social gathering except a caterer; or (b) such other food businesses including small scale or cottage or such other industries relating to food business or tiny food businesses with an annual turnover not exceeding Rs 12 lakhs and/or whose (i) production capacity of food (other than milk and milk products and meat and meat products) does not exceed 100 kg/ltr per day or (ii) procurement or handling and collection of milk is up to 500 litres of milk per day or (iii) slaughtering capacity is 2 large animals or 10 small animals or 50 poultry birds per day or less.” 36. Further, Clause 2.1 of the Regulations, 2011 (Chapter-2) provides for registration and licensing of food business. In view of the said provision, all food business operators in the country have to be registered or licensed in accordance with the procedures laid down in the said Regulations. Clause 2.1.1(1) provides for registration of petty food business operator by submitting an application before the Registering Authority in Form-A given under Schedule-2 of the Regulations, 2011 along with the fee as provided in Schedule 3. Clause 2.1.1(2) provides that the petty food manufacturer shall follow the basic hygiene and safety requirements provided in Part-I of Schedule 4 of the Regulations, 2011. Clause 2.1.2 provides for taking valid license before commencing any food business and such food business operators shall ensure that all conditions of licence as provided in Annexure-2 of Form-B in the Schedule-2 and safety sanitary and hygienic requirements provided in Schedule 4 (contained under different parts) of the said Regulations are complied at all times. Part-IV of Schedule-4 of the Regulations, 2011 provides for specific hygienic and sanitary practices to be followed by food business operators engaged in manufacture, processing, storing and selling of meat and meat products. 37. Different provisions have been made in the Act, 2011 relating to establishment of markets, commercial infrastructure and slaughter houses. Some of the provisions which are relevant for consideration of the present writ petition are quoted hereinbelow: “2 (90) “Slaughter house” means any place used for the slaughter of cattle, sheep, goats, kids or pigs for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof as meat 307. Municipal markets, slaughterhouses and stockyards. – All markets, slaughterhouses and stockyards which belong to or are maintained by the municipality shall be called municipal markets, municipal slaughterhouses and municipal stockyards. All other markets, slaughterhouses and stockyards shall be deemed to be private. 310. Places for Slaughter of animals for sale – (1) The municipality may, and when required by the State Government shall, fix places, within the limits of municipality, and grant or withdraw license for use of such places for the slaughter of animals for sale. (2). When any such premises have been fixed, no person shall slaughter any animal for sale at any other place. (3). (2). When any such premises have been fixed, no person shall slaughter any animal for sale at any other place. (3). Any person who slaughters for sale any animal at any place other than the one fixed by the municipality shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. 315. Regulations to be framed for markets and slaughterhouses – (1) The Municipal Commissioner or the Executive Officer, may, with the approval of the Standing Committee, from time to time, make regulations, not inconsistent with any provisions of this Act or of any regulation made under this Act for the time being in force – (a) for preventing nuisances or obstruction in any market building, market place or slaughterhouse or in the approaches thereto; (b) fixing the days and the hours on and during which any market or slaughterhouse may be held or kept open for use; (c) for keeping every market building, market place and slaughterhouse in a clean and proper state and for removing filth and refuse therefrom; (d) requiring that any market building, market place or slaughterhouse be properly ventilated and be provided with sufficient supply of water; (e) requiring that any market buildings and market places, passages be provided between the stalls of sufficient width for the convenient use of the public. (2) Any person who slaughters for sale any animal at any place within municipality, other than the one fixed by the municipality under this section 310 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. 327. Power to make regulations regarding slaughterhouses, etc. (2) Any person who slaughters for sale any animal at any place within municipality, other than the one fixed by the municipality under this section 310 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. 327. Power to make regulations regarding slaughterhouses, etc. – The municipality may make regulations consistent with this Act – (i) prohibiting the use of any place as a slaughterhouse, or as a market or shop for the sale of animals, meat or fish intended for human food, or as a market for the sale of butter, ghee, fruit or vegetables, without a license granted by the Municipal Commissioner or the Executive Officer or otherwise than in accordance with the conditions of a license so granted; (ii) prescribing the conditions subject to which, and the circumstances in which and the areas or localities in respect of which licenses for such use may be granted, refused, suspended or withdrawn; (iii) providing for the inspection of and regulation of the conduct of business in a place used as aforesaid, so as to secure cleanliness therein or to minimize any injurious, offensive and dangerous effect arising or likely to arise therefrom; (iv) controlling and regulating the admission within municipality for purpose of sale of the flesh (other than cured or preserved meat) of any cattle, sheep, goats or swine slaughtered at a slaughterhouse or a place not maintained or licensed under this Act; (v) prescribing the fees to be paid for the use of municipal grazing grounds, dairies and residences; (vi) regulating the sale or the manufacture, preparation, storage or exposure for sale of any specified articles of food; (vii) regulating the hours and manner of transport within municipality of any specified article of food; (viii) prescribing the standard weights and measures to be used within municipality and providing for the inspection of the same; and (ix) fixing the fees for the grant of any license under this chapter.” 38. Thus, in view of the definition of ‘slaughter house’ provided under Section 2(90) of the Act, 2011, any place used for slaughtering of cattle, sheep, goats, kids or pigs for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof as meat is a slaughter house. Thus, in view of the definition of ‘slaughter house’ provided under Section 2(90) of the Act, 2011, any place used for slaughtering of cattle, sheep, goats, kids or pigs for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof as meat is a slaughter house. Section 307 of the Act, 2011 speaks that all the slaughter houses which belong to or are maintained by the Municipality are called Municipal Slaughter Houses and all other slaughter houses shall be deemed to be private. Section 310 empowers the Municipality to fix places and to grant or withdraw license for use of such places for slaughter of animals for sale and only when such premises are fixed by the Municipality, no person shall slaughter any animal for sale at any other place, failing which there is provision for imposition of fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. Further, Sections 315 & 327 provide for framing of regulations for markets and slaughter houses which include fixing of places where slaughtering will be done, making provision for giving licenses to slaughter houses, prescribing fees for giving licenses etc. 39. Thus, it has not been provided under Section 307 of the Act, 2011 that there shall be only Municipal Slaughter Houses established by the Municipality, rather there is also a provision to establish other slaughter houses to be known as private slaughter houses to be established at the places fixed by the Municipality as well as to be run only by getting licenses from the Municipality. Fixing of places for slaughtering of animals for sale is a condition precedent for prohibiting any person within the municipal area to slaughter animals for sale at any other place. 40. In the present case, admittedly, the RMC has not yet framed any regulation in exercise of the power conferred under Sections 315 & 327 of the Act, 2011 fixing places of slaughtering, grant of license to any private individual who is desirous of getting license for slaughtering business, fixing fee for licence, fixing time of slaughtering etc. Thus, without any such regulation, it is impossible for any private individual to take license from the municipality for slaughtering of animals for sale. 41. Thus, without any such regulation, it is impossible for any private individual to take license from the municipality for slaughtering of animals for sale. 41. I have perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of In Re Presidential Poll reported in (1974) 2 SCC 33 as has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner wherein it has been held that the maxim of law ‘’impotentia excusat legam’’ is intimately connected with another maxim of law ‘’lex non cogit ad impossibilia’’. The meaning of ‘’Impotentia excusat legam’’ is that when there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law, that disability to perform the legal obligation is excused. The meaning of the ‘’lex non cogit ad impossibilia’’ is that law does not compel one to do such act which one cannot possibly be performed. Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statue has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested has no control, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse. 42. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India provides that all the citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Though Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India provides for imposing reasonable restrictions on exercise of such right in the interest of the general public, complete ban on slaughtering of animals for sale by the private individual cannot be said to be a reasonable restriction, that too when the existing municipal law i.e. the Act, 2011 itself provides for fixing of area for slaughtering as well as grant of license to private individuals for slaughtering of animals for which a regulation is required to be made by the Municipality. It is well settled that any restriction upon the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business must be imposed by reasons of law contemplated under Article 19(6). In absence of any valid law operating in the field, there would no legal source for imposing penalty. Thus, the impugned public notice whereby the mutton sellers have been informed to ensure that slaughtering of animals for supplying mutton will be done only in the municipal slaughter house is arbitrary, unreasonable as also against the scheme of the Act, 2011. 43. Thus, the impugned public notice whereby the mutton sellers have been informed to ensure that slaughtering of animals for supplying mutton will be done only in the municipal slaughter house is arbitrary, unreasonable as also against the scheme of the Act, 2011. 43. Now, coming to the stand taken by the respondent-State to the effect that the RMC is not empowered to make any regulation under the Act, 2011. The Act, 2006 read with Regulation, 2011 already provides for the establishment of slaughterhouses and in view of Section 89 of the Act, 2006, the provisions of the said Act have overriding effect over any other food related laws. 44. As per Section 89 of the Act, 2006, the provisions of the said Act shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the said Act. Thus, the Act, 2006 will have overriding effect over other Acts only to the extent of inconsistency. On mere ground that the similar subject matter, as has been provided under the Act, 2006, has also been provided in some other statues, does not make the provisions of the other statues redundant, if it is found that the said provisions are actually in supplement to and not in derogation with what has been provided under the Act, 2006. 45. Now the question is as to whether the provisions of the Act, 2006 read with Regulations, 2011 would completely exclude the municipal bodies to make any regulation or there is certain power left to be exercised by the municipal bodies in this regard. 46. Before coming to the said question, it would be relevant to refer few judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the law of interpretation of statues has been discussed. 47. In the case of P. S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2004) 11 SCC 672 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “15. Also it is a well-established rule of interpretation that if one interpretation leads to a conflict whereas another interpretation leads to a harmonious reading of the section, then an interpretation which leads to a harmonious reading must be adopted. reported in (2004) 11 SCC 672 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “15. Also it is a well-established rule of interpretation that if one interpretation leads to a conflict whereas another interpretation leads to a harmonious reading of the section, then an interpretation which leads to a harmonious reading must be adopted. In the guise of giving a purposive interpretation one cannot interpret a section in a manner which would lead to a conflict between two sub-sections of the same section. We clarify that, as stated above, there is no conflict, but if the interpretation, suggested by Mr Vaidyanathan, were to be accepted then there would clearly be a conflict. The only way a conflict can be avoided is to hold that sub-section (2) only bars such appeals as are not saved by sub-section (1) of Section 104.” 48. In the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma & Ors. (Demonetisation Case-5 J.) Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2023) 3 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: “148. It is thus clear that it is a settled principle that the modern approach of interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not pedantic. An interpretation which advances the purpose of the Act and which ensures its smooth and harmonious working must be chosen and the other which leads to absurdity, or confusion, or friction, or contradiction and conflict between its various provisions, or undermines, or tends to defeat or destroy the basic scheme and purpose of the enactment must be eschewed. The primary and foremost task of the Court in interpreting a statute is to gather the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, it is the duty of the Court to strive to so interpret the statute as to promote or advance the object and purpose of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary, the Court may even depart from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. There need be no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language. To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment. There need be no meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language. To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment. Ascertainment of legislative intent is the basic rule of statutory construction.” 49. In the case of Badshah Vs. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr. reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 , as has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “20. Thus, while interpreting a statute the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule, first propounded in Heydon case [(1584) 3 Co Rep 7a : 76 ER 637] which became the historical source of purposive interpretation. The court would also invoke the legal maxim construction of ut res magis valeat quampereat in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.” 50. Thus, the rule of interpretation is that if one interpretation of a statute leads to absurdity or conflict whereas another interpretation of the same leads to a harmonious reading, then an interpretation which leads to a harmonious reading must be adopted. An interpretation which advances the purpose of the Act and ensures its smooth and harmonious working must be chosen. Thus, the rule of interpretation is that if one interpretation of a statute leads to absurdity or conflict whereas another interpretation of the same leads to a harmonious reading, then an interpretation which leads to a harmonious reading must be adopted. An interpretation which advances the purpose of the Act and ensures its smooth and harmonious working must be chosen. A construction which would reduce the legislation to futility should be avoided and a bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result should be accepted. 51. The powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipalities have been provided under Article 243W of the Constitution of India which reads as under: “243W. Powers, authority and responsibilities of Municipalities, etc Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow (a) the Municipalities with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon Municipalities, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein, with respect to (i) the preparation of plans for economic development and social justice; (ii) the performance of functions and the implementation of schemes as may be entrusted to them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule; (b) the Committees with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to carry out the responsibilities conferred upon them including those in relation to the matters listed in the Twelfth Schedule.” 52. The Act, 2011 has been promulgated to consolidate and amend the laws relating to the municipal bodies in the State of Jharkhand in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution of India as amended by the Constitution (Seventy fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 and the objective sought to be achieved by the said Act is decentralization, autonomy and accountability of urban self-government at various levels, to introduce reforms in financial management and accounting systems, internal resource generation capacity and organizational design of municipalities, to ensure professionalisation of the municipal personnel, and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 53. 53. The Act, 2011 is applicable within the municipal areas and in view of Schedule XII of the Constitution of India, one of the functions of municipal bodies is “Regulation of Slaughter Houses and Tanneries” which is necessary for the planned development of any city and the same is also required for ensuring public health. To achieve the said purpose, the Act, 2011 provides for fixing of places and grant of licences for slaughtering animals for sale so that illegal slaughtering is checked. The persons who are engaged in the said business, have to adhere to the safety standard and the requirement as fixed under the Regulations, 2011, Rules, 2001 as well as the Act, 2011. The Act, 2011 bans slaughtering, except in the municipal slaughter houses or private slaughter houses to be established at the places fixed by the municipality. The Act, 2011 has broadly defined the slaughter house by including any place used for slaughter of cattle, sheep, goats, kids or pigs for the purpose of selling the flesh thereof as meat and if places are fixed by the municipality, the slaughtering is permissible only at such places and after getting license for the same from the municipal authorities. 54. Moreover, in view of the provisions of Rules, 2001, slaughtering of animals within the municipal area has been banned, except in the slaughter houses recognized or licensed by the concerned authority empowered under the law for the time being in force to do so. The ‘slaughter house’ has also been defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 2001 which speaks that it is the place wherein 10 or more than 10 animals are slaughtered per day and is duly licensed or recognised under a Central, State or Provincial Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder. 55. So far as the Act, 2006 is concerned, the same has been promulgated to consolidate the laws relating to food and to establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India for laying down science-based standards for articles of food and to regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import, to ensure availability of safe and wholesome food for human consumption and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The said Act is applicable pan India. The said Act is applicable pan India. The Act, 2006 and Regulation, 2011 are complete Code in themselves and the same have been framed in exercise of the power conferred under the concurrent list of the Constitution of India which are binding on the State and its authorities. Thus, the registration and the licensing provisions under the Act, 2006 read with Regulations, 2011 relating to slaughtering of animals for sale would cover the field. The Act, 2006 read with the Regulations, 2011 though provides for getting licences by the food business operators for commencing or carrying on food business, it exempts the ‘Petty Food Manufacturer’ from getting licence, rather there is a provision merely for taking registration for commencing its food business. 56. On conjoint reading of the provision of the Act, 2006, the Regulations, 2011, Rules, 2001 and the Act, 2011, it is quite evident that the slaughtering of animals for sale is permissible only in a regulated manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also in the case of Laxmi Narain Modi (Supra), after perusing the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand and hearing the counsel for the State, found that there were 245 unauthorized slaughter houses functioning in the State and observed that all those unauthorized slaughter houses be closed down immediately and be not allowed to operate unless they obtain necessary license, as per the prevailing rules and regulations. No licence should be granted to any of the slaughter houses, which does not fulfill the conditions as per relevant rules. It has further been observed that the authorities are bound to implement the Rules, 2001 and the relevant local municipality rules. 57. In the municipal area, there is a provision for construction of slaughter houses both by municipality as well as by private persons, who are willing to establish slaughter houses, however, all the slaughter houses shall have to follow the guidelines/rules/regulations framed time to time by the competent authorities and such slaughter houses shall be established after getting licences from the Municipality at the places fixed by it. Thus, the Municipality has to come out with a Regulation which will certainly be in supplement to what has been provided under the Act, 2006 and the Regulations, 2011. Moreover, the, municipality cannot have monopoly in the slaughtering business, rather the private persons are also to be allowed to get licences for slaughtering animals for sale. Thus, the Municipality has to come out with a Regulation which will certainly be in supplement to what has been provided under the Act, 2006 and the Regulations, 2011. Moreover, the, municipality cannot have monopoly in the slaughtering business, rather the private persons are also to be allowed to get licences for slaughtering animals for sale. 58. On comparative analysis of the provisions of the Act, 2006 read with the Regulations, 2011 vis-a-vis the Act, 2011, it would emerge that apart from issuing licenses, the Act, 2011, has also made provision for establishing and maintaining slaughter houses, fixing places to establish slaughter houses, fixing of fees for granting license, controlling or regulating the entry of meat of any cattle, sheep, goat or swine within the municipal area for purpose of sale which is slaughtered at any slaughter house or a place not maintained or licensed under the Act, 2011. 59. Section 307 of the Act, 2011 puts obligation on the municipal authority to construct municipal slaughter house. It is clear that fixing of places for slaughtering and establishment of slaughter houses does not cover the field of the Act, 2006. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Municipal bodies are totally denuded of their obligations to perform any such function after promulgation of the Act, 2006 and the Regulations, 2011. It cannot be construed that they have no role to perform in this field. Apart from that, the Act, 2011 also provides penal provisions which prohibit the slaughtering of animals at any other place than what are fixed by the local body concerned. 60. Now, coming to the question as to whether fixing of places for slaughtering of animals for sale by making Regulation would be contrary to the Act, 2006 or it will supplement to what has been provided under the Act, 2006 read with the Regulations, 2011. Perusal of the provisions of the Act, 2006 and the Regulations, 2011 leaves no scope for doubt that the same have been framed for ensuring hygiene and food safety relating to the animal food stuff, but fixing of places for slaughter house is the subject matter of the municipal authority. ‘No Objection Certificate’ is also to be obtained from the local authority before grant of license in terms with the provisions of the Act, 2006. ‘No Objection Certificate’ is also to be obtained from the local authority before grant of license in terms with the provisions of the Act, 2006. Moreover, Clause A(2) of Part-IV of Schedule-4 of the Regulations, 2011 also provides for the location of premises of slaughter houses which should be linked to a meat market located away from vegetable, fish or other food markets and shall be free from undesirable odour, smoke, dust or other contaminants. It has further been provided that the premises shall be located at elevated level in a sanitary place. Thus, slaughtering of animals cannot be allowed to be done at any place, except the places which satisfy the requirement of the Regulations, 2011 and as such any Regulation to be made by the municipality fixing the places for slaughtering of animals has to satisfy the requirement of the Regulations, 2011 and to be in consonance with the said Regulation. 61. In the matter of self-governance, the local bodies have been conferred Constitutional status under Part IX-A of the Constitution of India and therefore their roles cannot be diminished in the matter of governance to the extent the laws permit them to do so. It is also the duty of the local bodies to ensure hygiene, sanitation which is suitable for a human life. It is seen that the area of municipality is increasing day by day as mass migration from rural area to municipal area in search of livelihood is taking place and as such there is a need for planned development of the municipal area. More than half of the world’s population now live in urban areas resulting into increasing numbers of highly-dense cities. This transition has transformed the way people live, work, travel and build networks in the cities and towns. Due to urbanization, several problems emerge i.e. traffic congestion, overcrowding, housing problem which necessitate the municipal bodies to take effective measures for planned development of the cities. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the municipal authority has a role to play in fixing the places for setting up a slaughter houses and to that extent the provisions of Section 89 of the Act, 2006 as well as the Regulations, 2011 have to be read in harmony with Sections 315 & 327 of the Act, 2011. 62. 62. There is no substance in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State to the extent that if any regulation is made by the RMC, the same will be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 2006 read with the Regulations, 2011. This Court is of the view that the Act, 2011 provides for establishment of municipal slaughter houses as well as private slaughter houses, fixing the area of slaughtering, grant of license by the Municipality to any private slaughter houses, fixing fees for granting licenses and all these provisions cannot be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, 2006 read with the Regulations, 2011, rather these will supplement the provisions of the Act, 2006 and the Regulations, 2011. 63. This Court is also of the view that the purpose of the aforesaid Act/Rule/Regulation will be achieved only when the municipal authority comes out with a Regulation for the purposes mentioned under Sections 315 & 327 of the Act, 2011 by fixing the places for slaughtering of animals for sale and thereafter all the persons who are carrying on the said business, are to be directed not to do the act of slaughtering animals for sale at the places, except fixed by the Municipality. However, till that time, the petitioners including other mutton sellers will carry on their businesses in terms with the registration provided under the Act, 2006 read with the Regulations, 2011. 64. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present writ petition is disposed of in following manners: (i) The impugned public notice as contained in Letter No. 638/Swa. dated 01.10.2018 issued under the signature of the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi is hereby quashed. (ii) The RMC is directed to frame a regulation covering the subjects as mentioned in Sections 315 & 327 of the Act, 2011 including making provision to grant licence to private slaughter houses and to get approval on the same by the State Government as mandated under Section 594 of the Act, 2011. (iii) The RMC while framing the Regulation shall consider the provisions of the Act, 2006 and the Regulations, 2011. (iii) The RMC while framing the Regulation shall consider the provisions of the Act, 2006 and the Regulations, 2011. (iv) Till the Regulation is finally notified, the members of the petitioner No.1 as well as the other mutton sellers carrying on their business after obtaining licence/registration, as the case may be, under the Act, 2006 and the Regulations, 2011, shall not be compelled to get the animals slaughtered at the Municipal Slaughter House situated at Kanke, Ranchi. 65. Consequently, I.A. No. 2532/2022 also stands disposed of.