Recently, the Bombay High Court held that a municipal authority cannot refuse to issue a statutory No Objection Certificate (NOC) for a slaughterhouse merely because a civil appeal against a decree is pending when no stay has been granted. The Court emphasised that administrative authorities cannot treat a subsisting decree as non-existent simply because it has been challenged, observing that “until stayed, the decree remains operative and binds the parties.”
Brief Facts:
The case concerned a municipal slaughterhouse situated on Gut No.123 at Dondaicha, District Dhule, Maharashtra, land donated in 2008 to the municipal council for public purposes. Pursuant to a Government Resolution dated 19 January 2009, the State constructed a slaughterhouse on the land in 2010 and placed it under the control of the local Nagar Parishad. As the municipal body lacked resources to run it, the facility was leased through a public tender.
The petitioner partnership firm emerged as the highest bidder and took possession on 3 January 2011, executing a five-year lease agreement on 17 January 2011. The lease tenure was later extended to 30 years through a Standing Committee resolution dated 15 April 2011, followed by a fresh agreement on 24 May 2012. The petitioner claimed to have made substantial investments and obtained several regulatory approvals including pollution control consent, factory licence, food safety licence, and certifications required for export compliance. However, disputes arose amid political opposition and complaints regarding the slaughterhouse. In 2017, the municipal council passed Resolution No.61 cancelling the 30-year agreement and withdrawing earlier permissions while a civil suit filed by the petitioner seeking protection of possession was pending. The slaughterhouse was subsequently sealed.
Following multiple rounds of litigation, the High Court in Writ Petition No.5580 of 2018 ordered restoration of status quo ante and protected the petitioner’s possession pending the suit. Eventually, on 31 January 2022, the civil court decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner granting a perpetual injunction protecting its possession. Despite the decree and absence of any stay in the pending civil appeal, the municipal authorities refused to issue an NOC required for appointment of veterinary doctors and regulatory inspections, leading to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The petitioner argued that the refusal to issue the NOC was arbitrary and contrary to the binding civil court decree. It was submitted that under Section 49(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, municipal bodies are obligated to ensure facilities such as slaughterhouses are properly regulated. Since the decree protecting the petitioner’s possession had not been stayed, the municipal authorities were bound to act in accordance with it. The refusal to issue the NOC, the petitioner contended, effectively prevented compliance with statutory requirements such as the appointment of veterinary doctors for ante-mortem inspection and inspection by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA).
Contentions of the Respondent:
The municipal council argued that its Resolution dated 1 March 2017 cancelling the lease remained valid as it had not been challenged through the statutory remedy under Section 308 of the 1965 Act. It also contended that the civil court decree merely protected possession and did not confer a right to operate the slaughterhouse. According to the respondents, the 30-year agreement was unregistered and allegedly violated Section 92 of the 1965 Act, which regulates leasing of municipal property. The respondents further cited public opposition, environmental concerns, and complaints from neighbouring villages to justify the refusal of the NOC.
Observations of the Court:
The High Court held that the writ petition was maintainable since the issue involved the performance of a statutory public duty, not merely a contractual dispute. Reiterating established principles from Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the Court observed that the rule of alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where administrative action is arbitrary.
On the effect of the pending civil appeal, the Court referred to Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which states that filing an appeal does not automatically stay the operation of a decree. Citing Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., the Court emphasised, “Until stayed, the decree remains operative and binds the parties.” Accordingly, the municipal authorities could not ignore the decree merely because an appeal had been filed. Questions regarding the validity of the 30-year lease agreement or compliance with Section 92 of the 1965 Act were matters to be decided in the pending appeal, and could not justify administrative refusal.
The Court further held that the reasons for refusing the NOC were legally unsustainable. Relying on Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, it reiterated that a public order must stand or fall on the reasons recorded in it and cannot later be supplemented. The Court also rejected reliance on vague public opposition, observing that administrative decisions must be based on legally relevant considerations and due process, as explained in Tata Cellular v. Union of India.
The Court additionally noted that under Section 49(2) of the 1965 Act, municipal authorities have a duty to ensure regulated civic facilities such as slaughterhouses. Issuance of an NOC enabling veterinary supervision is part of the public health regulatory framework. Referring to Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, the Court reiterated that mandamus is a wide remedy available to enforce public duties and prevent injustice.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the municipal council’s communication dated 17 February 2025 refusing issuance of the NOC. The Court directed the municipal authorities to issue the NOC within two weeks to enable appointment of veterinary doctors and to process renewal or restoration of municipal licences and permissions required for regulated operation of the slaughterhouse.
Case Title: Tapi Valley Agro Food Products Company Dondaicha, vs. Dondaicha Warwade Nagar Parishad, Dondaicha, & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 11247 Of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Vibha Kankanwadi, Hon'ble Justice Hiten S. Venegavkar
Advocate for the Petitioner: . Senior Adv. Nitin Pradhan, Adv. Shubhada Khot, Adv. Hemantkumar F. Pawar, & Ors.
Advocate for the Respondent: . Senior Adv. V.D. Hon, Adv. Manish V. Bhamre, AGP. Abhijeet M. Phule, & Ors.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
