Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Mohd. Shoaib S/O Shaikh Vajir Qureshi, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 6 December, 2017

Author: Z.A. Haq

Bench: Z.A. Haq

                                                    1                wp132.2017.odt

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                               Writ Petition No. 132/2017

 1] Mohd. Shoaib S/o Shaikh Vajir Qureshi, 
     A minor through his natural guardian
     Father Shri Shaikh Vajir S/o Shaikh 
     Ibrahim Qureshi, 
     Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, 
     Proprietor of AL WAAFI AGRO FOODS, 
     C/o Police Trap, Khamgaon- Akola 
     Bypass, Balapur, Tahsil Balapur, 
     Dist. Akola - 444 302                               ..... PETITIONER


                                ...V E R S U S...


 1] The State of Maharashtra,
      Through its Secretary, 
      Town Planning Department, 
      Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

 2] The Director, 
      Town Planning, Maharashtra
      State, Central Office, 
      Ground Floor, Pune, Tahsil, 
      and Dist. Pune

 3] The Municipal Council, 
      Balapur, 
      Through its Chief Officer, 
      Balapur, Tahsil Balapur, 
      Dist. Akola
                                                         ... RESPONDENTS

 =====================================
                   Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioner
                  Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
                  Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for the respondent no. 3
 =====================================

                                             CORAM:- Z.A. HAQ,J.
                                             DATED :- 6    December, 2017
                                                        th
                                                                          




::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017                            ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 00:50:39 :::
                                                2                   wp132.2017.odt


 ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2] The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council rejecting his application for conducting his business of preservation of meat, canning, processing of meat and similar foods like fruits and vegetables. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the respondent no. 2-Director by which the appeal filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 3] On examining the impugned order, I find that the authorities have misdirected themselves while considering the application submitted by the petitioner and have rejected it under the misconception that the petitioner is seeking permission for constructing a slaughter house and the site selected by the petitioner is in residential locality and therefore the operation of the slaughter house in that area cannot be permitted.

At the time of hearing, the learned AGP and the learned advocate for the Municipal Council tried to justify the orders urging that the processing of meat is not possible unless the activity is conducted in a slaughter house. The impugned orders do not show that the ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 00:50:39 ::: 3 wp132.2017.odt Subordinate authorities have undertaken the exercise to examine whether the canning and processing of meat is not possible unless the activity is conducted in a slaughter house. It is argued that for canning and processing of meat, deboning is required and that activity will have to be conducted in a slaughter house. The submissions made by the learned AGP and the learned advocate for the respondent no. 3- Municipal Council cannot be accepted as this reasoning is not recorded in the impugned orders. As the impugned orders are passed without considering the relevant aspects and without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case, they are required to be set aside.

Hence, the following order is passed:-

O R D E R 1] The impugned orders are set aside.
2] The matter is remitted to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Balapur for considering the application submitted by the petitioner afresh.
3] The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Balapur shall take decision in the matter after granting ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 00:50:39 :::

4 wp132.2017.odt an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his case and after hearing the petitioner. The decision shall be taken till 15/01/2018.

4] The petitioner shall appear before the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Balapur on 05/01/2018 and abide by further instructions/orders in the matter. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE A n s a r i ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 00:50:39 :::