Skip to content


Mohamed Sheriff Vs. the Chickmagalur Town Municipal Council and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 1161 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Kant125; AIR1967Mys125; (1966)1MysLJ760
ActsMysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 - Sections 2, 3, 5, 7 and 19; Mysore Town Municipalities Act, 1951 - Sections 87; Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantMohamed Sheriff
RespondentThe Chickmagalur Town Municipal Council and anr.
Appellant AdvocateO.S.N. Sheriff, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Gundappa, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....in by the landlord held, the requirement of the landlord to be presumed. there is no place for considering comparative hardship under the act. where the landlord claimed that he has inherited the property under a will and there was no challenge by other legatees or claimants, the tenant cannot challenge the genuineness of the will. - section 19 authorises the state government to make rales among other matters in regard to the powers and duties of the competent authority, the form of the certificate to be issued under section 5 and the like. 3. 5. from this discussion what emerges is that before any slaughter which is permitted by the mysore prevention of cow slaughter and cattle preservation act, 1964 could be made, there should be the appointment of a competent authority, the..........addressed a letter to the president of the town municipal council, chikmagalur, calling upon the municipal council to issue a licence to him to slaughter cattle and to sell beef subject to such reasonable directions as the municipal council may impose. the municipal council informed the advocate that since rules and bye-laws have yet to be framed and sanctioned by the government with respect to grant of licences for the slaughter of cattle, and the sale of beef, the question of granting a licence could be considered only after those rules and bye-laws were framed and approved by government. on february 26, 1965 the petitioner was further informed by the municipal council that the council had resolved in their meeting conducted on february 19, 1965 that a licence to slaughter bullocks,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The petitioner before us is a beet butcher of Chickmagalur town. On December 21, 1964 his Advocate addressed a letter to the President of the Town Municipal Council, Chikmagalur, calling upon the Municipal Council to issue a licence to him to slaughter cattle and to sell beef subject to such reasonable directions as the Municipal council may impose. The Municipal Council informed the Advocate that since rules and bye-laws have yet to be framed and sanctioned by the Government with respect to grant of licences for the slaughter of cattle, and the sale of beef, the question of granting a licence could be considered only after those rules and bye-laws were framed and approved by Government. On February 26, 1965 the petitioner was further informed by the Municipal Council that the Council had resolved in their meeting conducted on February 19, 1965 that a licence to slaughter bullocks, bulls and buffaloes in Chikmagalur town could not be issued.

2. It is in this situation that the petitioner asks us to issue a writ of mandamus to the Municipal Council and its Chief Officer who are the respondents before us that they should take immediate steps to provide a slaughter house for the slaughter of animals defined by Section 2 of the Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964. He also asks us to quash the resolution of the Municipal Council passed on February 19, 1965.

3. The Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 came into force on August 14, 1964. Section 4 prohibits the slaughter of a cow or a calf of a she-buffalo. Section 5 prohibits the slaughter of the animals referred to in it without a certificate from the competent authority. Section 7 states that no animal in respect of which a certificate is granted by the competent authority shall be slaughtered in any place other than a place specified by the authority or officer appointed by the State Government in that behalf. Section 3 provides for the appointment of a competent authority, whose certificate is necessary under Section 5, by the State Government. Section 19 authorises the State Government to make rales among other matters in regard to the powers and duties of the competent authority, the form of the certificate to be issued under Section 5 and the like.

4. It is clear from these provisions that although S. 87(i) of the Mysore Town Municipalities Act under which the Chikmagalur Town Municipal Council is constituted, makes It the obligatory function of a Municipal Council to construct and maintain slaughter houses generally, the slaughter house in which an animal on a certificate from the competent authority could be slaughtered, is the slaughter house to be specified under Section 7 of the Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 and not the slaughter house to be provided by the Municipal Council under Section 87(i) of the Town Municipalities Act. It is equally clear that before any animal could be slaughtered in that slaughter house the person who wishes to make the slaughter should obtain a certificate from the competent authority under Section 5. The slaughter house to which Section 7 refers has to be specified by the authority or officer to be appointed by the State Government. Likewise, the competent authority has to be appointed by the State Government by notification under S. 3.

5. From this discussion what emerges is that before any slaughter which is permitted by the Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 could be made, there should be the appointment of a competent authority, the specification of a slaughter house under Section 7 by the officer or authority appointed by the State Government, and, the bringing into being of rules under Section 19 defining the powers and duties of the competent authority, the form of the certificate under Section 5 and the like.

6. It is not disputed that no competent authority has yet been appointed under Section 3 and that no slaughter house has been specified under Section 7 by any one appointed by the Government in that behalf. It is also admitted that no rules have been made by the State Government under S. 19 so far.

7. That being the position, we cannot issue a mandamus to either the Municipal Council or its Chief Officer that they should provide or maintain a slaughter house for the purpose of the Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 under Section 87 (i) of the Town Municipalities Act. The slaughter house for that purpose has to be established under the special provisions of the special Act and not under the general provisions of the Town Municipalities Act. It is not part of the duty of the Municipal Council to provide under the Town Municipalities Act, a slaughter house which has to be provided under the Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964. What the petitioner should do is to approach the Government for the appointment of a competent authority under S. 8 and for the appointment of an officer or authority for the specification of the slaughter house to which It refers.

8. Since the question as to whether the licence has to be granted to the petitioner for slaughter of cattle or for the sale of beef can arise only after the establishment of a slaughter house and the appointment of a competent authority, and those preliminary steps have not yet been taken under the provisions of Mysore Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964, we should dismiss this Writ Petition as having been prematurely presented. We dismiss it accordingly.

9. No costs.

10. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //