Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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.