FACTS OF THE CASE
Aayush Narania, Proprietor M/s Bharat Meat Shop, Mohammad Ashraf Qureshi, Proprietor M/s Mohammad Meat Shop and Mohammad Wasim, Proprietor M/s M Z Chicken Suppliers requested the State of Rajasthan and other municipal authorities to contest their civil writ petition. To address the issue, the petitioners faced a show cause notice dated 01.10.2024, an order dated 23.10.2024 issued by Nagar Nigam (Greater) Jaipur cancelling their licenses and an order of 11.03.2025 issued by the District Collector, Jaipur which dismissed their appeal under Section 269 (4) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. The fundamental problem was the revocation of licenses to operate meat stores. The cancellation was founded on the fact that the shops are located within a radius of 50 meters around a temple.
ISSUES
Whether the SoP was statutorily enforceable and could be held to support revocation of licenses especially Clause-4 which banned meat shops within 50 meters of a public temple or school.
The proximity of the petitioners to their shops had a temple which was a personal temple or a public temple, since this was an important distinction to use the distance limits.
The court had to determine whether the petitioners could grant relief without necessarily objecting and setting aside Clause-4 of the SoP as having been inserted.
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
The legal provisions and procedures that were critical in the case were as follows:
- The Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009:
Section 269(4) In which the petitioner of the appeal against the cancellation of the license was lodged and upheld by the District Collector.
Section 269 read with Section 340: These are the sections with which the respondents base the Standard Operating Procedure (SoP).
- Standard Operating Procedure issued on 22.03.21: Clause 4: This covers a ban on issuance of a license to operate a meat store within a 50 meters vicinity of a public temple or a school. It also gives powers to authorities to revoke licenses due to violation.
- Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations 2011: Chapter 2, regulation 2.1.2(1)(5) in Schedule-4 Provides that the distance between a licensed meat shop and a place of worship must not be less than 50 meters.
- Right to information Act, 2005: Petitioners referred to information which is received under this Act.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- The licenses of the petitioners to operate meat shops were revoked suddenly following a show cause notice of 01.10.2024.
- The cancellation was based on a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP) of 22.03.2021.
- There is no statutory effect on the SoP and it cannot be issued in defiance of the Act of 2009. The only criterion to be cancelled was that the shops were located with 50-meter distance of a temple.
- The Deputy Commissioner and District Collector did not take these facts into consideration. The petitioners also cited something they had access to under the RTI Act, 2005 that made them claim that the temple was not the one that belonged to a person, and that it was therefore not inexplicable to grant licenses.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The SoP was made in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2009 under Section 269 along with Section 340, that which provides it with legal support. According to the SoP, Clause-4 therein stipulates that there cannot be a license being granted to a meat shop within a 50-meter radius of a public temple or a school.
- The temple in question is not a kind of a personal temple, it is located in a market open place, not inside a house and is often used by the community to worship. Thus, it is supposed to be a communal shrine. The authorities who did it did not do anything illegal or even wrong in cancelling the licenses.
- The fact that has been received under the RTI Act, 2005, contradicts Clause-4 of the SoP dated 22.03.2021. Moreover, the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations 2011 also in Regulation 2.1.2(1) number 5 stipulates that there must not be less than a distance of 50 meters between a licensed meat shop and a place of worship.
COURT ANALYSIS
- The submissions and the material on record were taken into consideration by the High Court of Rajasthan.
- The Court pointed out that the SoP of 22.03.2021, which cancelled the licenses, was Clause-4, which forbids meat shops within 50 meters of a public temple.
- The District Collector appreciated this. The Court did not hold any substance on the petitioner’s argument that the information received under the RTI Act served their case since the act contradicted Clause-4 of the SoP. Based on this, the Court made it very clear that Clause-4 of the SOP does not allow any meat shops within 50 meters of any religious place (including public temples) or educational institutions in an attempt to establish harmony and respect. It also observed that violation gives powers to authorities to terminate licenses.
- The Court indicated that Reg.2.1.2(1)(5) of the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and registration of food business) Regulations 2011 has a distance of 50 meters by itself as a requirement to any place of worship. In terms of the character of the temple, the Court did not approve the petitioners that it was a private temple.
- The Court decided that a temple which is located in an open space and is open to the people is a public temple. The temple in this particular instance was in an open space in a market and is open to everyone, therefore it cannot be classified as a private temple. Thus, the Court determined that the petitioner’s meat shops fell in the 50-meter radius of a public temple which made the issuance of a license legally unacceptable and the cancellation of the license legally justified.
- The Court stated that the issuance of the SoP occurred under the provisions of Sections 269 and 340 of the Act of 2009. It claimed that in case the validity of Clause-4 of the SoP is not served, and no relief is available to the petitioners.
JUDGMENT
The writ petitions were held by the High Court as having no merits. The petitions were declined and also the stay applications and pending applications were dismissed. No order was made as to costs.
CONCLUSION
The High Court supported the cancellation of the licenses of the petitioners to operate a meat shop. Based on the reasoning, the Court established that the Clause-4 of the SoP dated 22.03.2021, and the Regulation 2.1.2(1) 5 of the Food Safety and Standards Regulations 2011, outlaws’ meat shops within a radius of 50 meters of a public temple. The Court decided that the temple under question, which was located in an open marketplace and could be accessed by people, was a genuine temple and thus the petitioner’s stores were in breach of the established norms regarding distance. The petitioners did not have a right to relief as they did not appeal and overturn the validity of the Clause-4 of the SoP.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY Manisha Kunwar
For reading more please click here: Aayush Narania v. State of Rajasthan
