SIRAJ M K Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court, feeling aggrieved by the orders issued by the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk and the Health Officer of the Corporation of Kochi, prohibiting the slaughtering of two camels, brought by them from outside the State. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioners, are the following :

(2.) The second petitioner is the licensee of a beef stall in Kaloor market. The first petitioner is an employee under him. They have brought two camels for slaughtering and selling their meat on the occasion of Id-ul-Fitr. They submit, there is no prohibition to slaughter camels anywhere in Kerala or in any part of the country. The 2nd respondent Tahsildar of Kanayannur taluk, who is also exercising the powers of the Executive Magistrate, under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. issued Ext.P3 order dated 29.10.2005, prohibiting the slaughtering of the two camels, brought by the petitioners. The first petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection to Ext.P3. The petitioners submit, Ext.P3 order, issued by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed. When, on an earlier occasion, a camel was brought for slaughtering and action was taken against it, this Court interfered and quashed the criminal proceedings against the person, who brought the camel. Ext.P5 is the Judgment of this Court in that case. Soon after the issuance of Ext.P3, the 4th respondent, who is the Health Officer of the Corporation of Kochi and also the Local Health Authority, issued Ext.P6 notice dated 01.11.2005, prohibiting the first petitioner from slaughtering the camels. According to the petitioners. Ext.P6 is also liable to be quashed as a notice, issued without jurisdiction. They submit, they are law abiding citizens and they are having a right to earn their livelihood by conducting any lawful trade. Slaughtering or butchering of camels is not a prohibited activity. Respondents 2 and 3 have acted on the basis of media reports only. So, they pray for quashing Exts.P3 and P6 and also seek consequential reliefs. The petitioners contend that there is no provision of law, prohibiting the slaughtering of a camel and the sale of its meat and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to slaughter and sell the meat of the two camels brought by them.

(3.) The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, supporting Ext.P3 order. It is submitted that the first petitioner has no licence or permit, obtained from the local authority, for butchering and sale of camel's meat. Exts.P1 and P2 would show that the second petitioner has got licence, only for sale of beef and the same will not authorise him to sell the meat of camel. The camels were not subjected to medical examination, to find out whether their meat is fit for human consumption. Trade or occupation or keeping of goods, which are injurious to the health and comfort of the community, can be prohibited and regulated by the competent authority and in exercise of that power and in good faith, Ext.P3 has been issued. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.