The Gauhati High Court on 25th November comprising of a single Bench of Justice S. Hukato Swu stayed the Nagaland Government's decision dated 04.07.2020 to ban the commercial import and trade of dog meat and commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dining in restaurants.(Neizevolie Kuotsu Alias Toni Kuotsu and ors v. State of Nagaland and ors.).
The bench was hearing a plea moved by traders of dog meat in Kohima challenging the State government's order on import and sale of dog meat.
This Court has, on the previous date, i.e. 14.09.2020, given the opportunity to the respondents to file affidavit-in-opposition with the direction that interim would be considered thereafter. However, today, as submitted by the learned Government Advocate, there is no response from the State respondents.
Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has moved this Court basically on three grounds being:
1) that the concerned authority, Chief Secretary, who had issued the impugned notification dated 04.07.2020 was not statutorily empowered to pass such orders. The Food Safety Standards Act, 2006 confers this authority on the Commissioner of Food Safety under Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, the notification dated 04.07.2020, issued by the Chief Secretary banning the commercial import and trade of dog meat and commercial sale of dog meat in markets and dining in restaurants is illegal.
2) There are procedural steps that have to be followed prior to the issuance of banning the sale of meat under the Food Safety Standards Act which are provided under Sections 34, 36, and 38. The procedure requires that on observation if any food which is intended for sale appears to be not in conformity with standard rules would be subject to analysis scientifically and thereafter come to a finding that the particular food is either fit or unfit for consumption. Furthermore, notice is to be given to the party to be affected by orders under Food Safety Standards Act prior to issuance of the prohibition of the sale of any article of food which is in contravention of the provisions of the Act. All these procedural steps as mandated under the Act has been violated, therefore, there is a violation of the procedural law.
3) The learned counsel submits that executive order passed under Article 162 cannot stand the test of law if it violates Articles 14, 19 and 21.
Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners are traders dealing in importing and sale of dog meat within the jurisdiction of Kohima Municipal under a license issued by respondent No. 3. With the issuance of the impugned order their business and livelihood have been adversely affected added to the pandemic situation prevailing in the State. He has prayed that the impugned order be stayed pending the disposal of the present writ petition.
The Court considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and also, the submission made by the Government Advocate.
"Under the facts and circumstances placed before the Court, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 04.07.2020 may be stayed until the next returnable date and accordingly order so."
- Gauhati High Court.
In the meantime, the State respondents have been directed to make all efforts to file their affidavit-in-reply. The matter will now be listed after the winter vacation.
Picture Source :
