# Raja Ram & another v. State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 37
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raja-ram-another-v-state-of-u-p-others-39243
- **Pages:** 11

## Text

1All] Raja Ram & another V. State of U.P. & others
37
which has not been paid into the
Court before the date of such expiry but
the appellant has not been awarded
interest at the rate of 15%. The proviso to
Section 28 of the Act leaves no discretion
to the Court to award interest less than
15% per annum. The appellant is
therefore entitled to interest at the rate of
15% on the amount determined by the
Court.

16. The last submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that
the Court has not awarded cost without
assigning any reason. Sub-section (2) of
Section 27 of the Act provides that when
the award of the Collector is not upheld
the cost shall ordinarily be paid by the
collector unless Court is of the opinion
that the claim of the applicant was so
extravagant or that he was so negligent in
putting his case before the Collector that
some deduction from his cost should be
made or he should pay a part of
collector's cost. In this case the appellant
had submitted the claim before the
collector at Rs.15,000/- per bigha but he
was awarded at the rate of Rs.10,303.05
per bigha and it has been enhanced to
Rs.15,000/- per bigha by the Court below,
the Court should have awarded the cost to
the appellant.

17. In view of the above the appeal
is allowed. The order of the reference
Court dated 30.5.1987 is modified. The
amount
of
compensation
shall
be
calculated by the reference Court keeping
in view the observation made above and
the decree shall be prepared accordingly.

18. The cost of this appeal shall
however, be borne by the parties.

25,
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 6(37(0%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 6(37(0%(5
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( 6.-$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 6.-$,1 -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DMD 5DP DQG DQRWKHU «3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO RI WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL 0$ 6DUZDU .KDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL +5 0LVUD
6KUL $OL +DVDQ
6KUL 3UDYHHQ .XPDU
6&

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD ±
WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ VDIHJXDUGV SURWHFWLRQ
IURP KHDOWK KD]DUGV LW ZLOO EH LQ WKH
ILWQHVV
RI
WKLQJV
WR
UHVWUDLQ
WKHVH
SHUVRQV ZKRVH IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW XQGHU
$UWLFOH J PXVW \LHOG WR WKH
IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW XQGHU $UWLFOH RI WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI WKH ORFDOLW\
+HOG 3DUD
7KH FRQVWLWXWLRQ VDIHJXDUGV SURWHFWLRQ
IURP KHDOWK KD]DUGV LW ZLOO EH LQ WKH
ILWQHVV
RI
WKLQJV
WR
UHVWUDLQ
WKHVH
SHUVRQV ZKRVH IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW XQGHU
$UWLFOH J PXVW \LHOG WR WKH
IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW XQGHU $UWLFOH RI WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI WKH ORFDOLW\

By the Court

The petitioners have come up with
following prayers:-

(i) To quash the Order dated
26.3.1998
passed
by
the
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
Adyaksha/President, Nagar Panchayat,
Mariyahun refusing to shift the slaughter
house to any other place on the ground of
non-availability of any appropriate place
and permitting Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 to
slaughter Buffaloes only with certain
riders.

(ii) To restrain Respondents Nos.7
to 14 from slaughtering cattle in the
slaughter house in question till making of
Bye-laws and shifting of the slaughter
house to any other place.

(iii) To direct Respondent Nos. 7 to
14 to slaughter buffaloes as usual in their
localities.

(iv) To Command Respondent Nos.
2 to 4 to fix the slaughter house near the
Bone Godown where lands are available.

The Facts:-

2. The petitioners case is to this
effect:- There is an unlawful slaughter
house where the Respondent No.s 7 to 14,
who
are
butchers,
are
slaughtering
buffaloes and she-buffaloes in the vicinity
of
residential
premises
of
various
communities and nearby religious place
without any licence and under bye-laws
framed by the Nagar Panchayat/Zila
Parishad Board, District Jaunpur. The said
Respondents are spreading the remains of
slaughtered cattle in closed vicinity of the
residential houses and on path way
resulting in foul and offensive smell, filth
and infection causing damage to human
life and injuries to the health or physical
comfort of the people. Birds of all dinds
spread the remains of the slaughtered
cattle on the top of the houses and the
dogs at the doors, besides on the
'Shaheed-Ki-Ma..." and the ' Kabristan'.
Dure to this tense situation the petitioners
and a large number of inhabitants moved
vide Annexure-2 Respondent No. 4 the
Up-Ziladhikari, Mariyahun for removal of
the slaughter house and to fix another
place away from Abadi and religious
place. Respondent No. 3 the District
agistrate was also moved for a quick
action,
who
vide
his
letter
dated
10.8.1997
(Annexure-3)
asked
Respondent No. 4 to look at the matter
and
to
take
necessary
action
for
maintenance
of
peace.
The
Adhaykshya/President,Nagar
Panchayat,
Mariyahun also made his communication
21.8.1997 (Annexure-6) to Respondent
No. 3 that it is difficult for him to take
any decision in that regard as the
slaughter house is very old due to which
there is great filth all-around but whereever it will be shifted filth will be there
and thus appropriate action be taken at his
level.
After
getting
enquiry
reports
through Tehsildar and S.H.O., Kotwali as
contained in Annexure-4,Respondent
No.4 passed the order dated 29.8.1997
(Annexure-5) stopping slaughter of cattle
in the said slaughter house after holding
that Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 are illegally
operating the slaughter house which has
not
spread
filth
dangerously
totally
effecting the normal life and endangered
the Mohalla and thus it will be in the
public interest to do so. He also directed
the said Respondents not to kill cattle and
spread filth. Respondent Nos. 7 to 14
moved Respondent No. 4 against his
order dated 29.8.1997. Respondent No. 4,
however, drew up a proceeding under
Section 144 Cr. P.C. against him vide
order dated 30.8.1997 and restrained them
from slaughtering the cattle. Respondent
Nos 7 to 14 then moved this Court in
Criminal Revision No. 1136 of 1997
against the order dated 30.8.1997 without
1All] Raja Ram & another V. State of U.P. & others
39
impleading
the
petitioners.
In
the
meantime the Deputy Chief Medical
Officer, Jaunpur also submitted his report
after inspection to the C.M.O. that it is
better to keep the slaughter house closed,
which is 20 Meters away, and to shift
from abadi to prevent spreading of
infectious
diseases.
In the Criminal
Revision Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 filed
undertakings and it was disposed of vide
Order dated 10.9.1997 at the stage of
admission holding that there is no
illegality in the order but since the
revisionists had under-taken to clean the
area having remains of the butchered
animals and that they will not spread the
remains of the animals near the slaughter
house or in the Mohalla, where it is
situated, so as to create danger to human
life the order is modified to the extent that
it shall remain in operation till the
remains of the butchered animals already
lying at the spot are removed, and that the
revisionist will not in future spread the
said remains near the slaughter house so
as to create nuisance and danger to human
life. Pursuant to the order passed by this
Court in the Criminal Revision, the UP
Zila Adhikari Passed his order dated
18.9.1997
(Annexure
-10)
Directing
Respondent Nos 7 to 14 to run the
slaughter house after obtaining licence in
accordance with law without endangering
the health of human beings. Despite all
this
without
obtaining
licence
in
accordance with law Respondent No. 7 to
14 forcibly tried to run the said slaughter
house which was objected to by a large
number
of
inhabitants
resulting
in
initiation of proceedings under Sections
107/116 & 144 Cr.P.C. by the Up Zila
Adhikari stopping the slaughtering of the
cattle again in the slaughter house to
prevent riot between the two groups. The
Petitioners moved this Court by filing writ
petition bearing C.M. Writ Petition No.
32309
of
1997
as
Public
Interest
Litigation impleading Respondent Nos. 7
to 14 as parties, which was disposed of by
order dated 29.9.1997 holding that the
petitioners may approach the Nagar
Panchayat of making suitable regulation
and bye-laws for the purposes of health,
hygiene and sanitation or for prohibiting
the slaughter of animals within a certain
reasonable distance of a place of worship,
educational institution etc. and in the
event such an application is made the
same will be decided in accordance with
law and appropriate bye-laws will be
made within a month thereafter. The
Petitioners
approached
the
Nagar
Panchayat to comply with the directions
issued by this Court by making bye-laws.
Its President started dealing bad politics.
The
Petitioners
moved
the
District
Magistrate, Jaunpur for redressal of their
grievances. The District Magistrate called
for report from the Up Zila Adhikari and
Additional District Magistrate (Finance).
The Up Zila Adhikari called for a report
from the authority concerned. Inspection
was made by the Vetenary Medical
Officer and all concerned authorities and
even by the Up Zila Adhikari etc.. The
District Magistrate passed an order
stopping the slaughtering of the cattle till
the slaughter house is not shifted to any
other
place
and
further
directing
Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 to slaughter the
cattle in their localities. Against the
aforesaid order of the District Magistrate
Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 moved this
Court by filing C.M.W.P. No. 41473 of
1997 by suppressing and misrepresenting
facts which was disposed of by an order
dated 27.2.1998 holding that the place of
slaughter house shall be fixed by Nagar
Panchayat
after
hearing
the
parties
concerned within a month, but without
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
taking into consideration the order of the
District Magistrate Respondent Nos. 7 to
14 are slaughtering cattle in their locality
continuously for the last six months
without any problem. Thereafter the
impugned order was passed willfully
ignoring the reports of the authorities
which is manifestly erroneous, arbitrary,
discriminatory, malafide, unconstitutional
and without framing of the bye-laws till
date. Pursuant to this order Respondent
Nos. 7 to 14 are trying to slaughter on
disputed place without obtaining licence
and without framing of Bye-laws. Lands
are available to the Nagar Panchayat and
to Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 as pointed out
in Paragraph 36 but a false statement has
been made by Respondent No. 2 in the
order impugned that it is not available,
who is put to proof that the slaughter
house in question in 100 years old. In the
absence of any bye-law and licence
running of a slaughter house adjacent to a
Harijan Basti is in violation of the
mandatory provisions of Section 237, 241
and 298 R of the U.P. Municipalities Act,
1961 as well as the Provisions of SC &
ST ACT.

3. On 17.8.1998 the following order
was passed by the Court:-
" The main thrust of the submission
of Sri M. Sarwar Khan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the 2 petitioners is
that the plight of the petitioners and other
residents
of
Mohalla
Garhi,
Nagar
Panchayat
Mariyahun,
Post
Office
Mariyahun., District Jaunpur to have a
meaningful life, which stands guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, has been breached by Respondent
No. 2, Adhakshya/President, Nagar
Panchayat Mariyahun, District Jaunpur by
allowing Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 to run a
slaughter-house
where
they
are
slaughtering buffaloes and she-buffaloes
without any licence and under any byelaws framed by the Nagar Panchayat,
Mariyahun,
District
Jaunpur
despite
orders passed by this Court earlier in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 32309/97 and
41473/97. In the second writ petition the
Court especially directed Respondent No.
2 to fix the place of slaughter house but
without
applying
his
mind
and
formulating
any
bye-laws
he
has
permitted Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 to
continue the slaughter house at the old
site.

Shri Ali Hasan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos 7
to 14 contended that this slaughter-house
is coming on its place for about last 100
years and that in a suit filed by them they
have also obtained an injunction order
against these petitioners which is binding
on them and, accordingly, this writ
petition is not maintainable.

Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2
contended that Respondent Nos. 7 to 14
have been allowed to continue the
slaughter-house on the same spot in
consonance of the bye-laws.

The
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, in reply, contended that no
bye-laws have been framed till today and
that the stand of the learned counsel for
Respondent No. 2 is incorrect.

Put up this matter under the same
heading on 14th September, 1998.

We direct the District Magistrate,
Jaunpur, Respondent No. 3, to file an
affidavit before this Court after visiting
the place in question as to whether it will
1All] Raja Ram & another V. State of U.P. & others
41
be desirable to shift the slaughter-house at
its old locality keeping in his mind the
fundamental right guaranteed to the
citizens of India under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, which guarantees a
decent and meaningful life to its citizens
and obviously it includes environmental
protection as laid down by Supreme Court
in its several decisions.

The affidavit is required to be filed
by 11th September, 1998. The other
questions raised will also be considered
on the next date when a counter affidavit
if filed by Respondent No. 2 as well as
Respondent No.s 7 to 14.

Respondent No. 3 is further directed
to state in his affidavit as to whether
Respondent No. 2 has framed bye-laws or
not and whether it has been approved by
the competent authority or not.

The office is directed to hand over a
copy of this order to Sri H.R. Misra,
learned counsel, by tomorrow for its
communication to and follow up action by
Respondent No. 3."

4. Pursuant to the aforementioned
order the District Magistrate filed his own
affidavit dated 11.9.1998 on 16.9.1998
stating, interalia, that he visited the
locality on 5.9.1998 and found that
slaughtering of animals is being done on
Plot No. 188 which is causing nuisance
and is hazardous to the residents of the
locality, apart from the fact that the
maintenance of the slaughter house is in a
very bad condition; that Nagar Panchayat
Adhikari has not framed any bye-laws;
and that he had also taken statements of a
large number of residents who had
pointed out various difficulties on account
of the slaughter housel.
5. No Counter Affidavit has been
filed by Respondent No.s 7 to 14 to the
writ petition.

6. Counter Affidavit, however, has
been filed by Respondent No.s 2 and 6
(wrongly stating on behalf of Respondent
No. 3) and 8.10.1999 asserting, interalia,
that Civil Suit No. 1181 of 1997 has been
filed by the father of the petitioner no. 2
for restraining the Respondents from
slaughtering cattle before the Civil Judge,
Jaunpur denying the existence of the
slaughter house and thereby petitioners
have not come with clean hands; vide his
order dated 21.9.1997 licence was granted
along with site plan; it has been wrongly
stated that the slaughter house is in the
vicinity of the residential premises, rather
it is on open land and about hundred
meters away from the Shaheed-Kr-Mazar
and Kabristan and far away from
residential premises; inspection was made
by
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Mariyahun on 18.9.1997 but nothing
injurious to human life and health was
found the District Magistrate has been
informed that the Respondents are ready
to remove the slaughter house, if land is
provided by the administration; slaughter
house was to start its work after issuance
of
licence;
proceedings
have
been
initiated for framing of bye-laws; the
impugned order was passed correctly; the
statements made in Paragraph 36 are not
correct hence denied though the bone
godown is being shifted, as it is situated
near the office of the Forest department,
Degree College and the Intermediate
College, and the place, which is being
worshiped; the slaughter house is about
100 years old, which being a question of
fact and can it be shifted to some other
place, can only be decided by the Civil
Court; and that under the facts and
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
circumstances the writ petition is devoid
of any merit and is liable to be dismissed
with cost.

7. To the aforementioned Counter
Affidavit
the
Petitioners
filed
their
Rejoinder
on
12.5.2000
asserting,
therein,. Interalia, to the effect that in
order to linger the matter Suit No. 919 of
1997 was filed by Respondent No.s 7 to
14
impleading
their
own
men
as
Defendant No.s 10 & 11 in which with
consent of the Plaintiffs and Defendant
No.s 10 & 11, who are own men of the
Plaintiffs, an order was passed on
4.8.1997 by the Civil Court directing the
parties not to make any new construction
or destroy the existing ones till the date
fixed; Suit No. 1181 of 1997 was filed by
the father of Petitioner no. 2 on the basis
that he is owner and in possession of the
suit property and for restraining the
defendants from interfering with his
possession and thereby the relief sought
for therein is different from the relief's
sought for in this writ petition, which is
for the benefit of the public and thereby
maintainable; licence was not granted in
accordance with law rather the Chairman
in collusion with Respondent No.s 7 to 14
had only issued a receipt for running the
slaughter house, without approval of the
District Magistrate; it is Respondent No. 6
who has not come to this Court with clean
hands,
who
is
in
collusion
with
Respondent No.s 7 to 14, and is earning
huge money from them and for his own
benefit had willfully neglected the orders
passed by this Court.

The Submissions:-

8. Sri M.A. Sarwar Khan, learned
counsel for the petitioners, contended as
follows:-
From
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case it is apparent
that Respondent Nos. 2/6 had no regard to
the orders passed and the directions issued
by this Court in not framing Bye-laws;
that numerous materials on the record
including their undertaking given to this
Court in the Criminal Revision speak for
themselves as to what extent Respondent
Nos. 7 to 14 can go, breaching the
fundamental
right
guaranteed
under
Article 21 of the Constitution to the
people of the locality to lead a meaningful
life and environmental protection; the
stand of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 that there
is a slaughter house in existence for more
than 100 years and dubbing it to be a
question of fact, which can be decided
only by the Civil Court and not by this
Court is not relevant inasmuch as there
cannot be any question of waiver of
Article 21 of the Constitution nor such
plea has been taken either by Respondent
Nos. 2 and 6 in their Counter Affidavit
and consequently it is a fit case in which
Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 be restrained
from slaughtering cattle in the alleged
slaughter house which was also directed
to be closed by Respondent No. 4 vide his
order dated 29.8.1997 which was not set
aside.

9. Sri H.R. Misra, learned Standing
Counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5, contended
that nothing has bee (1)n brought on the
record by Respondent Nos. 2 and 6 that in
terms of the directions issued by this
Court, Bye-laws have been framed and
that the materials on the record justifies
shifting of the slaughter house and
passing
of
an
order
restraining
Respondent
Nos.
7
to
14
from
slaughtering cattle from the slaughter
house in question.
1All] Raja Ram & another V. State of U.P. & others
43
10. Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 7
to 24, contended that it was the duty of
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to shift the
slaughter
house
and
that
the
said
Respondents are not responsible for not
shifting the slaughter house in question;
that they should be allowed to continue
slaughtering of the cattle in the slaughter
house in question because it is their only
source of livelihood, besides Article 19
(1) (g) of the Constitution of India
confers fundamental rights in them to
carry on their profession of slaughtering,
which cannot be denied by invoking
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Our Findings:-

11. Sections 237,241 and 298 of the
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, which
controls places for slaughter of animals
for sale, and issuance of licence for sale
of animals, meat or fish intended to
human food subject to bye-laws, reads
thus:-

"237, Places for slaughter of animals
for sale,- (1) The municipality may, with
the approval of the District Magistrate, fix
premises, either within or without the
limits of the (municipal area), for the
slaughter of animals or animals of any
specified description for sale, and may,
with
the
like
approval,
grant
and
withdraw licences for the use of such
premises,.

(2) When such premises have been
fixed by the municipality beyond (the
limits of municipal area), it shall have the
same power to make bye-laws for the
inspection and proper regulation of the
same as if they were within those limits.

(3) When such premises have been
fixed, no person shall slaughter any such
animal for sale at any other place within
the (municipal area).

(4) Should anyone slaughter for sale
any such animals at any other place
within the (municipal area), he shall be
liable on conviction to a fine which may
extend to twenty rupees for every animal
so slaughtered."
X

X

X

X
"241, Licensing of markets and
shops for sale of certain articles -(1) The
right of any person to use any place,
within the limits of a (municipal area),
other than a municipal market, as a
market or shop for the sale of animals,
meat or fish intended for human food, or
as a market for the sale of fruit or
vegetable, shall be subject to bye-laws (if
any) made under heading F of Section
298.

(2) Provided that, where any bye-law
is in force requiring a licence for the
establishment or maintenance of a market
or shop for the sale of any article
mentioned
in
sub-section
(1),
the
municipality shall not-

(a) refuse a licence for the maintenance
of a market or shop lawfully established
at the date of such bye-law coming into
force, if application be made within six
months from such date, except on the
ground that the place where market or
shop is established fails to comply with
any conditions prescribed by, or under
this Act, or

(b) Cancel, suspend or refuse to renew
any licence granted under such bye-law
for any cause other than the failure of the
licensee to comply with the conditions of
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
licence or with any provision of, or made
under, this Act.

"298. Power of municipality to make byelaws.-(1) A municipality by special
resolution may, and where required by the
State Government shall, make bye-laws
applicable to the whose or any part of the
(municipal area), consistent with this Act
and with any rule, for the purpose of
promoting or maintaining the health,
safety and convenience of the inhabitants
of the (municipal area) and for the
furtherance of municipal administration
under this Act.

LIST I
BY-LAWS FOR ANY (MUNICIPAL
AREA)
F- Markets, Slaughter -house, sale of
foods, etc.

(a) Prohibiting, subject to the provision
of Section 241, the use of any place as a
slaughter-house, or as a market or shop
for the sale of animals intended for human
food or of meat or of fish, or as a market
for the sale of fruit or vegetables, in
default of a licence granted by the
municipality
or
otherwise
than
in
accordance with the conditions of a
licence so granted;

(b) Prescribing the conditions subject to
which and the circumstances in which,
and the areas or localities in respect of
which, licences for such use may be
granted, refused, suspended or withdrawn;
and

(c) Providing for the inspection of, and
regulation of the conduct of business in, a
place used as aforesaid, so as to secure
cleanliness therein or to minimize any
injurious offensive or dangerous effect
arising or Providing for the inspection of,
and regulation of the conduct of business
in, a place used as aforesaid, so as to
secure cleanliness likely to arise there
from;

(d) Providing for the establishment, and
(except so far as provision may be made
by bye-laws under sub-head © for the
regulation and inspection of markets and
slaughter houses, of lively stables, of
encamping grounds of sarais, of flour
mills, of bakeries, of places for the
manufacture
preparation
or
sale
of
specified articles of food or drink, or for
keeping or exhibiting animals for sale or
hire or animals of which the produce is
sold, and of place of public entertainment
or resort, and for the proper and cleanly
conduct of business therein;

(dd) prescribing the conditions subject to
which, and the circumstances in which,
and the areas or locality in respect of
which, licences for the purposes of subhead (d) may be granted, refused,
suspended, or withdrawn and fixing the
fees payable for such licences, and
prohibiting the establishment of business
places mentioned in sub-head (d) in
default
of
licence
granted
by
the
municipality
or
otherwise
than
in
accordance with the conditions of licence
so granted;

(e) in a (municipal area) where a
reasonable number of slaughter houses
have been provided or licenced by the
municipality, controlling and regulating
the admission within (limits of the
municipal area) for purposes of sale of the
flesh (other than cured or preserved meat)
of any cattle, sheep, goats or swine
slaughtered, at a slaughter house or place
1All] Raja Ram & another V. State of U.P. & others
45
not maintained or licenced under this
Act."

11.1 Section 3 and its sub-section
(ii)
of
the
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
atrocities) Act, 1989 reads thus:-

"3
Punishment
for
offences of
atrocities- (1) Whoever, not being a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe-

(ii) acts with intent to cause injury,
insult or annoyance to any member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by
dumping etc, waste matter, carcasses or
any other obnoxious substances in his
premises or neighborhood,"

The aforesaid provision restrains any
one of non-annoyance to any member of a
Scheduled Caste by dumping etc., waster
matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious
substances in his neighborhood.

11.2 Article 21 of the Constitution
of India reads thus:-

"21 Protection of life and personal
liberty:- No person shall be deprived of
his
life
or
personal
liberty
except
according to procedure established by
law."

12. Having refreshed the aforesaid
provisions now let us have a look firstly
of the location of the Slaughter House in
question. The plaint of Suit No. 919 of
1997 filed by Respondent Nos. 7 to 10,
(Annexure-II to the petitioner's rejoinder)
describes it bounded as follows North &
South- Fields of Jamal Akhtar, East-
Mazar then Field of Hira Lal (whose Son
is Petitioner No. 1 and West Kabristan.
The plaint does not show that the Suit was
under Order VIII Rule & C.P.C. It was
filed
for
injunction
restraining
the
defendants from taking possession of the
Slaughter House.

In their application filed before
Respondent No. 4, as contained in
Annexure-2 the petitioners describe their
house situated at the distance of 10 yards
from the slaughter house. The District
Magistrate in his communication dated
10.8.1997, as contained in Annexure-3,
describes its location as situated between
the Harijans and other Hindu abadi.

The S.H.O., Mariyahun reported to
Respondent No. 4 (contained in Annexure
-4) that it is situated at a distance of about
100 - 150 meters from the Harijan Basti,
Maurya Basti and Mulsim Basti.

The Deputy C.M.O. IV, Jaunpur
reported
to
C.M.O.,
Jaunpur
vide
Annexure-9 that it is at a distance of 20
meters away from the abadi.

The health inspector, Community
Centre, Kariyahu reported to the Medical
Superintendent (Vide Annexure-11) that
the house of Hira Lal and others is
situated towards East at a distance of
about 51 meters, on its West is Kabristan,
towards North house of Pyari Devi and
towards South at a distance of about 60
meters, there is Carpet Weaving Factory
in which about 100 people work.

As per the report dated 2.10.1997 of
Respondent
No.
4
submitted
to
Respondent No. 3 it stands on Plot No.
188 which in the Revenue Records stand
recorded in the name of Mohammad Shafi
son
of
Arman
as
Sankramaniya
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
Bhumidhar who was one of the objectors
and not of Noor Mohammad and others.

13. The aforesaid reports also
demonstrate the horrors of health hazard
which has not been considered by
Respondent No. 2

Respondent
No.
2
in
his
communication
dated
21.8.1997
(Annexure -6A) made to Respondent No.
3 had himself stated that a prayer has been
made by the residents of Mohalla Garhahi
that due to the slaughter house there is
great filth in the entire region, but
wherever the slaughter house will be there
will be great filth and it is difficult for
him to take a decision in regard to
removal of the slaughter house and thus
appropriate
action
be
taken
by
Respondent No. 3.

14. However, we are not required to
consider the title and ownership of the
land on which the slaughter house is
allegedly standing since 100 years as
alleged by Respondent Nos.2 and 5 nor
can it be decided conclusively in the Civil
suit filed by Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 for
grant of injunction.

15. The materials on the record, in
the form of various reports submitted
from time to time unequivocally shows
that the slaughter house in question is
located near the residences and place of
worship. The statement of Respondent
No. 6 that it is wrong to say that it is in
the vicinity of residential house and that
the 'Shaheed-ke Mazar' and 'Kabristan'
are far away are incorrect. The fact that
the dogs and birds spray the meat etc. of
the slaughtered cattle, has not been denied
by Respondent Nos. 7 to 14. The
Respondents have also not denied the
relevant facts staqted by the petitioners.
They have also not produced the final
injunction order passed by the civil court
which in any view cannot restrain this
Court to pass order 'Ex Debitio Justitiae'

16. Environmental protection and
the guarantee by the State too lead a
decent and meaningful life under Article
21 of the Constitution of India is of recent
origin. In fact in Buffalo Traders Welfare
Association Versus Maneka (1994) Supp.
(3) SCC 448 this Article was invoked
even for providing hygienic condition in
Idgah
slaughter
house
at
Delhi.
Safeguards are also available in the U.P.
Municipalities Act and SC & ST Act.
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure
there is, however, a temporary safeguard.

17. Utter callousness and negligence
has been shown by Respondent Nos. 2
and 6 in not framing the Bye-laws till
today. Even their learned counsel has not
appeared to contest, Thus, there was/is
apparent
oblique
motive
to
help
Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 in carrying out
the slaughter house, On the statements
made in the Counter Affidavit the alleged
licence was issued to Respondent Nos. 7
to 14 only on 21.9.1997 and not earlier
which the petitioners assert to be merely a
Receipt. The licence has also not been
produced. Allowing Respondent Nos. 7 to
14 to continue slaughtering in the alleged
slaughter house is bound to cause serious
infectious diseases endangering health
and hygiene of the persons of the locality
which is evident from various documents
appended. Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 had
not honoured their own undertaking given
to this Court in the Criminal Revision.
Thus
the
imposition
of
terms
on
Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 were merely an
eye
wash.
1All] Jagbeer Singh Maan V. Dy. Director of Education, Meerut & others
47
18. In fact, when (the Constitution
safeguards
protection
from
health
hazards, it will be in the fitness of things
to
restrain
these
persons
whose
fundamental right under Article 19(1) (g)
must yield to the fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of the
locality,) who had also breached their
own undertaking given to this Court in the
Criminal Revision. This Court cannot
wait indefinitely on account of nonframing of Bye-laws by Respondent No. 2
and must act in furtherance of achieving
the avowed object enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.

19. The fact asserted by the
petitioners
in
paragraph
26
that
Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 are slaughtering
cattle in their locality continuously for six
months without any problem has not been
countered by Respondent Nos. 2 and 6.
Respondent No.2 has erred in thinking in
his counter that the report of the S.D.M.
has stated nothing injurious whereas the
materials show to the contrary, besides
the impugned order does not even refer to
that alleged report.

20. In the counter Respondent Nos.
2 and 6 have pointed out that the Bone
Godown has already been shifted.
21. It is unbelievable that the Nagar
Panchayat has no land to which the
slaughter house can be shifted. At least
shifting of the Bone Godown shows the
availability of such a land.

22. For the reasons aforementioned,
we quash the impugned order and restrain
Respondent
Nos.
7
to
14
from
slaughtering any cattle in the slaughter
house
and
command
the
District
Magistrate, Jaunpur to close it at once
without any hitch and murmur. If
Respondent Nos. 7 to 14 so like they may
continue slaughtering in their locality
though subject to health safeguards of
others. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are also
directed to search out a suitable slaughter
place expeditiously lates within three
months where Respondent Nos. 7 to 14
may carry their trade in accordance with
law.

23. This writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated as above, but in the
peculiar facts and circumstance we make
no order as to cost.

24. The office is directed to hand
over a copy of this order, if possible by
tomorrow or latest within one week to Sri
H.R. Misra, learned Standing Counsel, for
its communication to and follow up action
by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur.

25. Mr. Mishra is also directed to
inform the substance of this order by Fax
and
/or
otherwise
to
the
District
Magistrate, Jaunpur.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/(
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
*3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 3' 65,9$67$9$
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 3' 65,9$67$9$
-
-

6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R RI

-DJEHHU 6LQJK 0DDQ
«$SSHOODQW
3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'HSXW\ 'LUHFWRU RI (GXFDWLRQ 5HJLRQ ,
0HHUXW DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL $ -DLVZDO
6KUL 6KDLOHQGUD