SUFIYABANU INAYTULLA ANSARI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Dhaval Barot appearing for the petitioner submits that the meat products are exempted from the requirement of obtaining license. He relies upon Rule 50 of the rules framed under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. He further submits that the petitioners have been running the shops since last ten years and in the interregnum the petitioners have been making applications from time to time but neither the applications are allowed nor rejected. In short, it appears that the applications are not at all attended by the respondent authorities and suddenly without any prior notice and intimation, the respondent authorities, on 7th June, 2008, visited the shops of the petitioners and have taken out the meat products stored in the shops and have sealed the shops. Even thereafter, no notice is issued or hearing has been given. Hence, the petitioners are constrained to prefer this petition on urgent basis.

(2.) IN view of such submission, issue notice returnable on 16th June, 2008. In the meanwhile, it will be open for the petitioners to request the authorities to permit the petitioners to atleast take out the meat products stored in the shops since the same is perishable item and may be more harmful in closed shop, if not removed urgently.

(3.) DIRECT service is permitted.