Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent No.6 has been running a poultry business from his shop which is owned by Respondent No.6 at Juni Hatri. The grievance of the Petitioner was to the unhygienic conditions prevailing at the shop and the foul smell which is emanated from the said shop as a result of sale of dressed and undressed chicken by Respondent No.6.

3. Brief background of the case which would be relevant for the disposal of the case is the fact that Respondent No.6 had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court vide WPC No. 2157/2007 where they had questioned the rejection of the application for grant of licence to sell dressed and undressed chicken for the year 2006-07. The contention of Respondent No.6 was that they were operating the business of selling of dressed and undressed chicken from the said shop since about 40 years. The said writ petition finally stood allowed vide order dated 11.3.2008. It would be relevant to refer to certain findings of the writ Court in the said order, which read as follows:

"12. Respondent-Municipal Corporation has not filed any document to show that the corporation by any resolution, regulation or bye-laws has earmarked any specific area for the purpose of fish/meat market within the limits of municipal area. On the contrary, on the application of the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 the information regarding the details of earmarked area for dressed & undressed chicken was not furnished. From the report of the Court Commissioner also it is clear that there was no map available with the respondent corporation wherein particular area of corporation has been earmarked for the above purpose. The fact that the petitioner was granted license for selling dressed & undressed chicken from the shop in question vide Annexure P-5 and renewal fee was also obtained vide Annexure P-7 goes to show that the license to sell dressed & undressed chicken was being issued beyond the alleged earmarked area.
13. After careful examination of the Commissioner's report it is observed that number of other persons apart from the present petitioner are pursuing their business and trading in dressed & undressed chicken in the various parts of the respondent- Municipal Corporation area and in these circumstances the grounds taken by respondent No.6 for rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of license is not born out from the documents available on record. Refusal to give license would visit civil and pecuniary consequences to the petitioner, as the business cannot be carried on without license, and it would also affect the livelihood of the petitioner.
14. Since this Court has already held that the reasons assigned for refusal of the license are not made out from the documents available on record, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the order of Annexure P-18 dated 27.12.2006 whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of license to sell dressed and undressed chicken has been rejected cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed.
15. In the result, the petition is allowed, impugned order dated 27.12.2006 (Annexure P-18) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for grant of license to sell dressed and undressed chicken from the shop in question afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and keeping in view the observations made in this order."