BAVANKA INUSBHAI JAMALBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the petitions, common question arise for consideration, the same are being considered by this common judgement. Rule. Mr. Umang Oza learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Chhaya learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

(2.) WITH the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matters are finally heard today.

(3.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioners, who are residents of Shihor, are claiming that the municipality should establish the market for non-vegetarian community. It is the contention of the petitioners that no steps are being taken by the municipality, and municipality is preventing the business of meat and other non-vegetarian food and the municipal area and therefore, the petitioners have approached to this Court for the appropriate directions to the municipality to provide suitable space for carrying the trade, business and occupation of non-vegetarian food. It is also prayed by the petitioners to direct respondent municipality to provide and construct the suitable market place in accordance with the earlier resolution of the General Board of the municipality dated 4. 9. 1997. The petitioners have also challenged the decision on the part of the municipality for prohibiting the business of non-vegetarian food by the petitioners without obtaining prior licence from the respondent municipality, hence, the order annexure-E communicating to one of the petitioner is also under challenge in the present petitions. Mr. Champanery learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners does not press the challenge to the decision of the municipality as per annexure-A, in view of the fact that after filing of the petitions, the municipality has not interfered with the activities of the petitioners in doing the business of the non-vegetarian food. Hence, the said aspect is not required to be considered. Heard Mr. Champanery learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Umang Oza learned AGP for the State Authorities and Mr. Chhaya learned Counsel for the municipality and its officers. The contention of the petitioners that in any case, it will be required for the municipality to establish market or slaughter house for non-vegetarian food deserves consideration. Similar question came to be considered by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13365 of 2007, and allied matters on 5. 9. 2008 and it was inter alia observed at paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7 as under: