Hafizul Haque Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Heard Mr. G. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. No one appears for the respondent No. 3, as

¶19

Page No.# 2/3

¶20

no notice was issued to the said respondent.

¶21

2. The petitioner's case is that he is the owner of a licensed meat shop within the jurisdiction of Dolabari Gaon Panchayat in the district of Sonitpur, bearing DGP No. 72/2023-2024/139 dated 01.07.2023, which was renewed upto 31^st of June, 2025.

¶22

3. The petitioner's grievance is that while the petitioner was running his meat shop peacefully and in compliance with all the norms and regulations, some officials from the office of the Circle Officer, Tezpur Revenue Circle, accompanied by some police personnel, came to his business premise on 18.07.2024 and ordered him to close his shop immediately, without any written order being given to the petitioner.

¶23

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner has not been provided with a copy of the order of the closure of the petitioner's licensed meat shop and no reasons have been given to the petitioner, as to why he has to close his meat shop.

¶24

5. Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 had been asked to obtain instructions with regard to the closure of the petitioner's meat shop on the last court date.

¶25

6. Mr. J. Handique accordingly submits today that he has received instructions, to the effect that the petitioner's meat shop has not been closed by the official respondents and that the petitioner's shop had been visited by the officials, due to a complaint lodged by one Abdul Noor, student of Darrang College, which is to the effect that the petitioner was selling beef in his meat shop, without

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

having a proper licence for selling beef in his shop.

¶28

7. Mr. J. Handique submits that the selling of beef without a licence, is a violation of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 and as such, the petitioner cannot be allowed to sell beef, without having a licence for the same.

¶29

8. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner is not selling beef in his shop and if the petitioner intends to sell beef in his shop, he will have to apply for a licence for the same.

¶30

9. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and keeping in view the submission made by Mr. Handique that the petitioner's shop is still open and he can be allowed to sell meat, as per his licence, except for beef, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of at the motion stage itself.

¶31

10. Accordingly, the petitioner should be allowed to run his shop in terms of his licence. However, he shall not sell beef in his shop, without first obtaining a licence for the same, in terms of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021.

¶32

11. In the event, the petitioner applies for selling beef, the respondents shall consider the same and take a decision at the earliest and in terms of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021.

¶33

12. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Hafizul Haque v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hafizul Haque v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binoy Bikash Bora and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Keshab Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Raju Engjai Vs the Union of India and 16 Ors.

Sri Rajib Hazarika Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

Rishab Kumar Borah Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

M/S Pizza Palace Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited and 4 Ors.