← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/9920/2013disposed offdismissed for default

Mohd. Younus Mohd. Ibrahim And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2016-08-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice K. K. Sonawane2 pages

1 wp9920.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9920 OF 2013 Mohd. Younus S/o. Mohd. Ibrahim and others .. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department and others .. Respondents Shri Y. M. Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.

Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7. Respondent No. 2 deleted.

Shri Sadashiv S. Shete, Advocate for Respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 6 served.

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2016.

PER COURT :- 1.

We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned advocate for the Municipal Council so also the learned A. G. P.

2.

According to the Petitioners the Respondents are not taking any steps to construct the proposed slaughtering house and the mutton market. They may be directed to expedite the construction of the same. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioners in absence of the slaughter house and the mutton market the Petitioners are facing problems with their source of livelihood itself.

2 wp9920.13 3.

The Municipal Council has filed an affidavit which reads as under - "The deponent submit that, as there is ban on slaughtering, therefore the slaughter house which is already in existence at the old Kannad city, Pandhari Mohalla, Ward No. 3, reservation No. 20 the slaughter house is in existence. The deponent further submit that, if the present petitioners desire the Municipal Council will make this slaughter house available to the petitioners subject to certain conditions."

4.

The Petitioners are ready to shift the slaughter house as is stated in para 5 of the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No. 5. 5.

In view of the above, the parties may take further steps as stated in para 5 of the affidavit in reply filed by Respondent No. 5 Municipal Corporation through its Chief Officer, expeditiously. 6.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. [ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] sam/Aug.16