Partly allowed

Thiruvalla Municipality v. Abdul Kareem

Kerala HC14 Jul 2017WA/1425/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of appeals filed by the Municipality challenging a judgment that set aside an auction of animal waste rights. It held that offal is a waste item requiring a specific licence under Rule 2011 Rules. While vendors own their slaughtered animals, they cannot collect offals without a licence, allowing the Municipality to auction removal rights for abandoned waste.

What did the court decide?

The single Judge's judgment was modified to hold that licensed vendors may collect their own offals, while auction rights apply to abandoned offals.

Thiruvalla Municipality Vs Abdul Kareem — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2017/23RD ASHADHA, 1939

¶7

WA. No. 1425 of 2017 ()

¶8

(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01-06-2017 IN WP(C) NO.12599/2017.)

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT NOS.3 & 4 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶10

THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVALLA.

¶11

SECRETARY, THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, THIRUVALLA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENT NOS.1,2 AND 5 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶14

ABDUL KAREEM, PLANTHARA THAZHCHAYIL HOUSE, THUKALASSERY, THIRUVALLA P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶15

REJI THOMAS, MULAVELIL HOUSE, VENPALA P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶16

SAJI YOHANNAN, MULAVELIL HOUSE, VENPALA P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶17

SIBY THOMAS, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, THIRUMOOLAPURAM P.O, THIRUVALLA.

¶18

PAULOSE THOMAS, PLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUMOOLAPOURAM P.O, THIRUVALLA.

¶19

KISHORE KHAN N., TC31/1844, BOAT PURA HOUSE, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.

¶20

HARISH, TC 42/1447, SREE VARAHAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶21

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶22

R8 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEKCHAND R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-07-2017 ALONG WITH W.A. NO.1428/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

KRJ

¶25

C.R.

¶26

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J. & Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

¶27

¶28

W.A. Nos. 1425 & 1428 of 2017

¶29

¶30

Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2017

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶33

These two appeals by the Municipality are against the common judgment dated 01.06.2017 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. 9924 & 12599 of 2017. The issues are the same. We have heard learned counsel for the Municipality and learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents and with their consent, we are disposing of these appeals at this stage itself.

¶34

The issue is with regard to disposal of animal waste as a consequence of butchering. The Municipality had auctioned the right to collect, store and sell or deal in animal waste generated at the Municipal slaughter house/abattoir. The writ petitioners are licensed meat vendors who purchases livestocks like Cow, Buffalo, Goat and brings it to the Municipal Abattoir, where they are slaughtered and prepared/dressed for sale. In the process,

¶35

WA Nos.1425 & 1428 of 2017

¶36

entrails, intestines and other wastes such as hide, horn and hoof are generated. The petitioners submit that as Cow/Buffalo/goat are theirs, after slaughtering, all the entrails and other parts thereof including hide, horn and hoof are their property and they have a right to collect and sell them and that right cannot be taken away, otherwise, than upon adequate compensation. This

¶37

view found favour with the learned single Judge, who consequently set aside the auction done by the Municipality in respect of offals/animal waste.

¶38

The contention of the Municipality is that the writ petitioners, who are basically meat sellers, having brought the animals for slaughtering, they can only be interested in meat which they are permitted to sell on the meat stalls licensed to them by the Municipality. So far as entrails are concerned or for that matter, hide, horn or hooves, their dealing can only be on the strength of a license under the Kerala Municipality (Grant of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Other Trades and Factories) Rules, 2011 (for short 'Rules, 2011'). According to the

¶39

WA Nos.1425 & 1428 of 2017

¶40

-:3:-

¶41

Municipality, they cannot allow anyone to remove any of these things i.e. meat, hide, horn, hooves and offals without a licence under 2011 Rules. These are found in various Entries being Item Nos. 17, 44, 82, 84, 85, 108 and 123 of Schedule I to 2011 Rules and unless a person has a licence to deal with them, no person can be allowed much less the owners thereof can be permitted to take it away. It is therefore as a part of process of cleaning the premises by removal of waste that the Municipality has auctioned this right to collect slaughtering waste. The writ petitioners do not have a licence much less in respect of licence to deal in offals as contemplated by Entry 123 of Schedule I to 2011 Rules which is noted hereunder :

¶42

“ 123.Offal (waste, refuse, bran) - storing, packing, pressing, cleaning, preparing, manufacturing or selling by any process. ”

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioners states had if they

¶44

were noticed that they had to take a licence, they would certainly have obtained a licence . According to the learned counsel, as it is evident from the amount fetched at the time of auction of

¶45

WA Nos.1425 & 1428 of 2017

¶46

offals, these waste materials have a commercial value. It is pointed out that the the rights to the deal with the offals were auctioned for a sum of about Rs.14 lakhs. Petitioners further contend that even the auction purchasers did not have a licence either to deal in dungs or offals.

¶47

Learned counsel for the Municipality submits that offal is

¶48

the waste which is generated upon slaughtering of animals. It is not recommended to be eaten, rather according to the learned counsel, it can even lead to serious medical conditions including the 'mad cow disease'. Therefore, this part of transaction has to be closely monitored. Learned counsel submits that basically the intestines are used in pharmaceutical industries to make 'stent' to be used in surgical operations and as a casing for sausages. Great care has to be taken while processing the intestines. If care is not taken, then the people like the petitioner would sell it in the open market from their meat shops. People from the lower

¶49

strata of society would buy it as it would be dead cheap compared to other sources of protein. It is also contended that

¶50

WA Nos.1425 & 1428 of 2017

¶51

-:5:-

¶52

unscrupulous people may buy it and mix it with other sources of meat and people would unwittingly consume it, though it is generally not meant for consumption.

¶53

The question then raised by the petitioner was as regards the meaning of the expression 'offals' especially as used in 2011 Rules. We have been referred to Entry No.123 which has been quoted above. We have been referred to various dictionaries. Various dictionaries differently dealt with the meaning of word 'offal', but a reference to all of them would give a combined meaning as under :

¶54

“Depending on the context, offal may refer to those parts of an animal carcass discarded after butchering or skinning; it may also refer to the by-products of milled grains, such as corn or wheat. Offal not used directly for human or animal food is often processed in a rendering plant, producing material that is used for fertilizer or fuel; or in some cases, it may be added to commercially produced pet food.”

¶55

To us, it would basically mean a waste and seen in the context it would refer not only to animal waste but agriculture waste as well. In some circumstances it may be used by some

¶56

WA Nos.1425 & 1428 of 2017

¶57

section of the society to be eaten as a food item. In this part of the country it is not so normally used. It would thus be basically a waste item. Once the Municipality has taken over the responsibility of slaughtering by opening abattoir, it would equally be its responsibility to see that the waste is properly disposed of. The waste disposal has to be in accordance with law and it has to be completely hygienic and this has to be ensured by the responsible officers of the Municipality. Looking at the extended meaning of the word offal, we have no manner of doubt that it would be covered by Entry No.123 of Schedule No.1 of 2011 Rules and therefore, the Municipality is correct in taking its stand that it would not sell the same nor would it allow a person who does not have a licence to deal in offal to take them.

¶58

We may look at the proposition in a different angle. When the animal is brought for slaughtering by the writ petitioners, it is their property. They are right in contending that after slaughtering, every part including the waste is their property and they have a right to take it away. The Municipality

¶59

WA Nos.1425 & 1428 of 2017

¶60

has no quarrel with that proposition. But the problem arises when the writ petitioners though licensed to vend meat is not having the license to deal in offals. Some of them may leave it in the abattoir itself. Those who are not having a license as per Rules, 2011 cannot be permitted to take the offals. Thus, in such circumstances, they abandon the goods in which they had a right. Once that is done, their right in the goods ceases and then the Municipality being the custodian becomes the owner thereof, with the responsibility to arrange for its disposal. That is how the Municipality acquires the right to conduct auction. To that extent we cannot agree with the findings of the learned single Judge before whom Entry No.123 was not even referred to. Thus, in our view, we cannot doubt the steps taken by the Municipality to auction the right to collect and remove offals as has been done. But at the same time, we would like to clarify that in so far as the writ petitioners are concerned, if they obtain due licences in this regard, then it being their property, they would be entitled to collect it to the exclusion of the others. The auction right would

¶61

WA Nos.1425 & 1428 of 2017

¶62

-:8:-

¶63

then can only extend to the offal which is abandoned by the owner of the animal but not to that quantity where a person has a licence and is desirous of taking. Having said so, to that extent the judgment of the learned single judge stands modified.

¶64

Before parting we would like to caution the authorities. Offals generally is not meant to be eaten. We have been referred to various articles to show that it could be very dangerous to consume, as noted above, even leading to mad cow disease. It would then be the responsibility of the Municipality not only to enforce licensing in this trade but also to monitor as to what is done with the offals taken either by the auction purchasers or by the writ petitioners so that it may not find a way to the open market to be taken as a normal food item or mixed with other meat items and sold as normal meat. That would have serious repercussions on public health and it would be the responsibility of the Municipality to curb its user. Thus it would be the responsibility of the Municipality to ensure proper disposal of waste items without creating any further health hazard.

¶65

WA Nos.1425 & 1428 of 2017

¶66

-:9:-

¶67

Needless to observe, if writ petitioners apply for licence

¶68

to deal in offals, the Municipality would consider grant of the same, in accordance with law, keeping in view the various safeguards that we have indicated above.

¶69

With the observations above, these appeals stand

¶70

disposed of.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶75

ttb/17/07

Thiruvalla Municipality v. Abdul Kareem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thiruvalla Municipality v. Abdul Kareem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Sukumar Vs Dr.T.N.Prakash

Ummachutti Vs Jinesh

Biju.R Vs the Authorized Officer

M/S.Sharon Spices Vs the Chief Manager

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs Manoj S. Viswam

State of Kerala Vs C. Balakrishnan