HANIF Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Sen, C. J. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State and have perused the record.

(2.) IN the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the Government Order dated 1- 4-2000 being Annexure 2 to the petition and the consequential order dated 5-5-2000 being Annexure 3 issued by Mukhya Pashu Chikitsa Adhikari Jyotiba Phule Nagar. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ mandamus directing the State of U. P. and Mukhya Pashu Chikitsa Adhikari, Jyotiba Fhule Nagar, not to restrain the Pashu Chikitsa Adhikari from conducting the health examination test or from issuing certificates of fitness for slaughter in respect of animals which are eligible for slaughter in accordance with the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioners have further made a prayed for directing the Pashu Chikitsa Adhikari, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, to issue certificates in Form B when applicants are made to him in respect of animals which are eligible for slaughter in accordance with the Act and rules framed thereunder.

(3.) IT appears from the averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs that it is the contention of the deponent of the said counter-affidavit that there was no prohibition on the working of the Veterinary Officer as Meat Inspector in the slaughter houses of the local authorities. IT was also clarified in the said affidavit that the Veterinary Officer who has been notified as competent authority by the notification dated 24-8-1962 continues to act and exercise the powers and functions of the competent authority under the said Act. The letter dated 1-4-2000 of the Secretary. Animal Husbandry Department, Government of U. P. to the Director of the department, however, in our view, imposes a complete ban since it specifically mentions that the Veterinary Officers shall cease to function and discharge their powers of health examiners in slaughter rural and urban areas. In our view it is not permissible to impose such a ban on the authority of the competent officers who have been empowered by the statute to discharge specific functions except by a legislative function. The process adopted in the instant case appears to us to be quite peculiar. The letter refers to a direction of the State Government which has neither been produced before us nor has been referred to in the counter-affidavit. IT has also not been annexed to the counter-affidavit. Apart from the fact that the direction contained in the letter imposes a bank to the extent that it declares that the Veterinary Officers shall cease to discharge their function which is not permissible in law in the manner it has been done, we are also the view that such internal correspondence cannot have any binding effect on any authority or public at large. In that view of the matter, it is directed that the said letter dated 1-4-2000 which is impugned the writ petition shall not have any effect at all and the consequential directions issued on 5-5-2000 by respondent will also not have any effect. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. Such Veterinary Officers who are competent authority under the Act shall continue to discharge their function as provided under the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and the bar imposed by the letter dated 1-4-2000 of the Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department in their discharging the said function will not be operative.