Bombay High Court
Gau Gyan Foundation vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 7 January, 2019
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari, Revati Mohite Dere
rsk 1/4 3-WP-710-17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.710 of 2017
Arun Dashrath Kabadi and Anr. ...Petitioners
vs.
The Commissioner of Police and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.401 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.710 of 2017
People who care for animal through
Abrar Ismail Qureshi ...Applicant
vs.
The Commissioner of Police and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1475 of 2018
Gau Gyan Foundation ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2789 of 2017
Shabbir Ahmed Matlub Ansari ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3825 of 2017
People who care for animal through
Abrar Ismail Qureshi ...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
----
Mr. Raju R. Gupta i/b M/s. Legal Vision for the petitioner in WP
No.710/2017.
Ms. Dhanalakshmi a/w Ms. Aarya Ambre for the petitioner in WP
::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:44:47 :::
rsk 2/4 3-WP-710-17.doc
No.3825/2017.
Mr. Subhash Jha a/w Ms. Sanjana Pardeshi for the Respondent.
Ms. Jaya Bagwe for the Respondent No.9 in WP No.3825/2017 and for the
respondent No.7 in WP No.1415/2018.
Mr.Karansingh Rajput a/w Mr. Kund Waghmare for the Respondent No.4
(BMC).
Smt. A. S. Pai, APP for the State.
----
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : 07/01/2019.
P.C.:
. Taken up for final hearing with consent. Heard learned counsel for the respective petitioners. Heard learned standing counsel for respondent No.4
2. We find that the controversy has been to certain extent covered by orders of this Court dated 6/3/2017 and 29/8/2017 The petitioners further submit that these orders are being observed more in breach. They are seeking time to produce before us the subsequent complaints which have remained unattended.
3. They also submitted that the animals are slaughtered under unhygienic condition at a place far away and then the meat is transported to those shops. The condition in which the meat is transported and time taken makes it unfit for human consumption and it may not qualify as food. No action against such slaughtering or then selling of that meat has been taken. They claim that these shops are mainly without proper license and authorization.
4. It is also pointed out that the provisions of IPC, Maharashtra Animal Protection Act 1976, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:44:47 ::: rsk 3/4 3-WP-710-17.doc Food Safety and Standards Act 2006 are blatantly violated.
5. Not only this the slaughter house rules and standard condition for transport are also violated. The contention is these violations are not taken note of and even after several complaints, the nuisance continues.
6. The learned APP upon instructions states that the complaints received have been verified and proper provisions of law have already been applied. It is further claimed that such shops come up temporarily and vanish. Learned counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation also reiterates the same. He submits that these shopkeepers are the encroachers and they run away whenever effort is made to collect samples.
7. From the reply of the respondent we find that the respondents are not opposing the contentions of the petitioners, on the contrary, their effort is to implement the legal obligations. In a particular case a particular legal provision could have been applied or has not been correctly applied are two case-specific issues, which cannot be gone into at this stage. However, when such shops open up and do business, police authorities or municipal authorities should not wait for a complaint. They have to immediately proceed further and take action as per law. The municipal authorities can verify whether these shop owners/shop keepers have got necessary authorizations and licenses. They could also seize meat and proceed further against the owner to see that offence is not repeated in future.
8. The petitioners and other citizens in such situation are not supposed to rush to police station or municipal authority on each occasions. The persons who are indulging in these type of activities must be choosing different areas or different spots for doing their business. It is just possible ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:44:47 ::: rsk 4/4 3-WP-710-17.doc that they may be doing business at some other place again and again. In one of the petition, the petitioner himself pointed out that in residential structure, business has been set up.
9. We therefore make rule absolute in terms of the order dated 6/3/2017 and 27/3/2017. Not only this we direct respondents to verify the facts of each complaint already received and whether relevant legal provisions have been made applicable or not. The respondents shall also maintain list of persons who are found frequently indulging in such unauthorized illegal business.
10. The respondent shall also curb illegal transport of such meat by providing appropriate check-posts at border so that meat itself cannot reach the city.
11. With these directions and keeping contentions of the petitioners open and with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court again, if any cause of action arises, we dispose of the present matters.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2019 05:44:47 :::