BABU Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD KHERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a butcher by profession. He slaughters cattle like he and she-buffaloes and sells their flesh and hides in the town of Mohammadi. According to the petitioner, the notified area committee of Mohammadi had constructed a slaughter-house for slaughtering cattle and had also provided for medical inspection of cattle before slaughter. The slaughter-house has teen closed down and is in a dilapidated condition. No medical facilities for inspection of cattle were also provided by the Notified Area Committee. He, therefore, began to carry on his trade of slaughtering the cattle at his own house. The petitioner's brother and certain other butchers were prosecuted in February, 1968, for an offence under Section 34 of the Police Act on the allegation that they sold flesh in an unexposed condition. The petitioner thereupon moved an application on 5th March, 1968, before the Town Area Committee, Mohammadi, which had since been succeeded by the first respondent, the Municipal Board, Mohammadi, requesting for the reconstruction of the slaughter-house, to enable him to carry on his profession. The petitioner sent several reminders, but he received no response. The petitioner further stated that the Notified Area Committee, Mohammadi had on 12th of December, 1955, issued an order that no cattle like she or he buffaloes, cows, bulls, calves etc., could be slaughtered in the town of Mohammadi and any one contravening the order would be prosecuted. The petitioner says that at present there is no slaughterhouse in the town of Mohammadi and the slaughter of the cattle has been banned in the town.

(2.) THE respondents have relied on a resolution passed by the Town Area Committee on 29th of March, 1948. According to this resolution, no one in the town area of Mohammadi can slaughter any cattle like he or she buffalo, cow, bull or calf under any circumstances. On the basis of this resolution the petitioner is not being permitted to carry on the profession of a butcher. The petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the present has raised some preliminary objections. The first objection is that a similar writ petition (No. 18 of 1956) filed by one Sati Ullah was dismissed by this Court on 12th February, 1960, and as such no second petition on the same point lies. I have gone through the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, a copy whereof has been annexed to the counter- affidavit as Annexure 'C'. The Court dismissed that petition on the ground that the petitioner in that case had suppressed some material facts and such was not entitled to the indulgence of this Court. This is clear from the following observation in the penultimate paragraph of the aforesaid judgment;