Ansari Mohammed Umar And 10 ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And 2 ORS

1. wpl 2272.17.doc Urmila Ingale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2272 OF 2017 Ansari Mohammad Umar and ors.

.. Petitioners Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

.. Respondents Mr.A.A. Siddiquie a/w Ms.Aparna Deokar i/b M/s.A.A. Siddiquie & Associates, for the Petitioners.

Mr.H.S. Venegaonkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader, for Respondents No. 1 & 3 - State.

Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Joel Carlos, Ms.Vandana Mahadik, Mr.Sagar Patil, for Respondent No.2 - MCGM. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND M.S.KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : 29th AUGUST, 2017 P.C. :

.

Mr.Sakhare - learned Senior Counsel for the respondent - Corporation makes a categorical statement that insofar as the smaller animals are concerned, permissions are being granted by the Corporation for temporary slaughtering under section 403(2)(e) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 apart from the slaughtering at Deonar. He categorically makes a statement that no such permission can be granted for bigger animals. 1/2

1. wpl 2272.17.doc 2.

Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel further submits that the prayer made by the petitioners for permission for temporary slaughtering for bigger animals has already been rejected by the Corporation. Apart from that, the report of the Expert's Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr.J.E.Ribeiro, the former Commissioner of Police of Mumbai and former Governor of Punjab would also reveal that the Committee has recommended the temporary slaughtering houses only for smaller animals and not for bigger animals.

3.

We find that the said report is also approved by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11/10/2013. 4.

In that view of the matter, when the Expert's Committee has found that slaughtering of bigger animals should not be permitted at temporary slaughtering houses and it should be permitted only insofar as smaller animals are concerned and when the said report is accepted by the Division Bench of this Court, no interference would be warranted. Petition is therefore rejected. (M.S.KARNIK, J.) (B.R.GAVAI, J.) 2/2