Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/864/2021 on 22 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 864 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Abdul Majeed and others. .......Petitioner
(By Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate
for the petitioners)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & others. .....Respondents
(By Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. Devesh
Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2,
Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Advocate for respondent no. 3 and Mr. Ravi Bisht,
Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Advocate for respondent
no. 4)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties
through video conferencing.
2. Petitioners are residents of District
Bageshwar. By means of this Writ Petition, petitioners
have sought the following reliefs:-
"I. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1, 2 and
3 to install the Effluent Treatment Plant in the
existing slaughter house which is available near the
Meat Market at Kanda Road, Bageshwar, District
Bageshwar and complete the other formalities of
NOC from Pollution Control Board, within the
stipulated period which may be fixed by this Hon'ble
Court, as per the norms of Food Safety and
Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food
Businesses) Regulation, 2011.
II. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1, 2 and
3 to construct a slaughter house on the land which
was allotted to the respondent no. 3 in the year
2015, situated at Kanda Road, Tehsil and District
Bageshwar and complete the construction of the
same within a stipulated period as may be fixed by
this Hon'ble Court as per the norms of 2001 Rules
and Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and
Registration of Food Businesses) Regulation, 2011.
III. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1, 2
and 3 not to compel the petitioners to slaughter their
animals in the proposed slaughter house of the
respondent no. 5 and to permit the petitioners to
slaughter their animals in the old slaughter house
situated near the meat market of Bageshwar.
IV. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus to construct the separate slaughter
houses in each Nagar Palika Parishad and each Nagar
Panchayat in the district of Bageshwar, so that there
may not be a load for slaughtering the animals from
other Nagar Panchayat and Nagar Palika Parishad
upon the slaughter house which may be
constructedby the Nagar Palika Parishad, in the city
of Bageshwar at Tanda Road, Bageshwar.
V. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to
renew the licences of the petitioners for selling the
mutton in their respective shops situated at Meat
Market, Tanda Road, Bageshwar."
3. According to the petitioners, a slaughter
house was constructed by Nagar Palika Parishad within
the municipal limits of Bageshwar, however, instead of
permitting the petitioner to slaughter animals in the
said slaughter house, the municipal authorities are
compelling petitioners to go to some other privately
operated slaughter house situate outside the municipal
limits.
4. On 21.05.2021, learned counsel appearing
for Nagar Palika Parishad, Bageshwar had assured the
Court that his client will apply to Uttarakhand Pollution
Control Board for 'consent to establish' the slaughter
house at Bageshwar within ten days. He had further
assured the Court that he shall furnish all supporting
documents, including site plan, land papers,
environmental feasibility report etc., along with the
application. Learned counsel appearing for Uttarakhand
Pollution Control Board had assured the Court on
21.05.2021 itself, that the application to be submitted
by Nagar Palika Parishad would be processed within
three weeks and team of Uttarakhand Pollution Board
would be sent for inspection of the proposed slaughter
house.
5. Thereafter, on 08.07.2021, learned counsel
appearing for Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board had
made a statement that the site of the slaughter house
was inspected by the officers of Pollution Control Board
on 02.07.2021. He further made a statement that the
report submitted by inspection team has been sent for
approval to the Head Office.
6. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, learned counsel
appearing for Nagar Palika Parishad submits that the
Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board has refused
'consent to establish' slaughter house in the existing
building on the ground that it is not suitable for the
purpose. He further submits as many as four reasons
have been indicated for refusing consent to establish
slaughter house.
7. Since Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board is
a specialized agency dealing with the issue of air and
water pollution, therefore, this Court cannot sit in
appeal over the decision taken by the Board.
8. In such view of the matter, relief no. 1, as
claimed in the writ petition, cannot be granted.
9. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners submits that a piece of
land was allotted to Nagar Palika Parishad for
establishing slaughter house in the year 2015; but, due
to laxity on the part of the municipal authorities, no
steps have been taken for constructing slaughter house
over the said land.
10. Learned counsel appearing for Nagar Palika
Parishad, however, disputes this submission and he
submits that the said land is under encroachment and
the efforts made by municipal authorities to evict the
encroachers have failed to bear any result. This,
according to him, is mainly due to non-cooperative
attitude of the district administration. However, this
submission has been disputed by learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to
the petitioners to approach District Magistrate,
Bageshwar, by making a representation for
constructing slaughter house over the land allotted to
Nagar Palika Parishad in the year 2015, within two
weeks from today. If such representation is made
within the stipulated time, District Magistrate shall look
into the matter and take appropriate decision, in
accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later
than four months from the date of receipt of
representation along with copy of this order.
12. It goes without saying that while taking any
decision, District Magistrate shall hear all the
stakeholders, including the residents of the locality.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
