Shakil Ahmed Patel And 8 Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And 6 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6436 Bom

                                                                               501-3164-2022.doc


       rkmore


         Digitally             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
         signed by

                                    ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
         RAJSHREE
RAJSHREE KISHOR
KISHOR   MORE
MORE     Date:
         2022.07.07
         17:34:14                        WRIT PETITION NO.3164 OF 2022
         +0530




                      Shakil Ahmed Patel & Ors.              ]     ..    Petitioners
                                   vs.
                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.        ]     ..    Respondents

Ms.Sana Mohd. Yusuf Shaikh i/b Ms.Maya Updeshe, a/w Feroz Sayyed, Pratik Thadani for Petitioners.

Mr.Rajesh Patil a/w Ms.Madhuri More, for Respondent-MCGM. Mr.Himanshu Takke, AGP for State.

                                                CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
                                                        M.G.SEWLIKAR, JJ

                                                DATE     :   7TH JULY, 2022.


                      P.C.

                      1]     By this Petition filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek writ of mandamus against the

Respondents to allow the Petitioners to perform Bakri Eid in Unnati

Co-Operative Housing Society, S.B. Road,Mahim (West), Mumbai-400

016 as per the Guidelines and directions issued by the Respondents by

following all Covid 19 guideline/Rules.

2] The learned counsel for the Petitioners invited our attention to the

Judgment delivered by this Court on 31st July, 2020 in Criminal Writ

501-3164-2022.doc

Petition No.227 of 2020 in the case of Lingum Battula & Ors. vs.

State of Maharashtra & Ors. and submitted that the Petitioners who

had filed the said Writ Petition were not the members of the Unnati

CHS. It is submitted that the Petitioners have already filed application

for permission to the Assistant Commissioner G North Ward, seeking

permission to carry out slaughtering in the society premises. She

submits that the said society has already granted NOC for carrying out

slaughtering on the occasion of Eid. Statement is accepted.

3] The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, on

instructions states that the said application filed by the Petitioners

would be considered by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, G North

Ward by 3.00 p.m. tomorrow in accordance with law. Statement is

accepted.

4] In view of this, we pass the following order :

a] The Respondent-Assistant Municipal Commissioner, G

North ward, shall consider the application filed by the Petitioners in

accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders by 3.00 p.m.

tomorrow .

b] Order that would be passed, shall be communicated to the

Petitioners immediately after passing the said order.

501-3164-2022.doc

c] It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any view

on the merits of the said application.

d] If permission is granted by the Municipal Corporation in

favour of the Petitioners, the policy framed by the Municipal

Corporation for slaughtering in the society premises shall be strictly

followed by the Petitioners.

e] Writ Petition is allowed in above terms.

      f]    Rule is made absolute.

      g]    All contentions of both parties are kept open.

      h]    All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.



[M.G.SEWLIKAR, J]                                      [R.D.DHANUKA,J]