Dismissed¶52

V.Venkatesan v. the District Collector

Madras HC8 Jul 2026WP/5129/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ of mandamus; Article 226; removal of non-vegetarian biryani/beef shop near Hindu temple; Dharmakarta; Arulmigu Varasakthi Vinayagar Temple Krishnagiri; Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations 2011; 60 metres place of worship; trade licence; court-directed inspection Food Safety Department; Telangana High Court W.P. No.39344 of 2025 meat policy 100 metres; live kitchen kebab centre; foul smell animal waste allegations; peaceful co-existence mosque church; dismissal with liberty to challenge licence; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the trade licence granted to the 6th respondent, if so advised and permissible in law; no order as to costs. ¶52

V.Venkatesan Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the trade licence granted to the 6th respondent, if so advised and permissible in law; no order as to costs.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the authorities to take steps to remove the shop run by the 6th respondent, where non-vegetarian biryani is sold, situated near Arulmigu Varasakthi Vinayagar Temple, Krishnagiri. +2 more

¶30

Court's answer

On the inspection report's factual findings (hygienic maintenance, limited operating hours, no public complaints, peaceful co-existence of temple, mosque, prayer house and stall, valid trade licence unchallenged), the prayer for removal of the biryani stall cannot be granted.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011 have no application to the present case because the 6th respondent's licence is for running a non-vegetarian biryani stall, not a meat shop.

¶43

Key takeaways

In the absence of any statutory provision or binding policy imposing restrictions on the operation of a non-vegetarian biryani stall within the vicinity of a place of worship, no direction can be issued for removal of the 6th respondent's establishment; the Telangana High Court judgment merely directed the State to frame a policy and does not support removal.ratio¶51
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the trade licence granted to the 6th respondent, if so advised and permissible in law.obiter¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.; decision dated 08-07-2026) dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to respondents 1 and 3 to remove the non-vegetarian biryani shop ('Araf Beef Briyani') run by the 6th respondent about 6.5 metres from Arulmigu Varasakthi Vinayagar Temple, TM Link Road, London Petai, Krishnagiri. A court-directed inspection (04.04.2025) by the Food Safety Department and Krishnagiri Municipality found the stall hygienically maintained, operating only between 11.00 a.m.–4.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m.–10.00 p.m., equidistant from the temple, the Miracle Jesus Prayer House (about 15 metres) and the Aksha Masjid (about 6.5 metres), co-existing peacefully with no written complaints, and operating under a valid trade licence which the petitioner had not challenged. The Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011 (60-metre rule for licensed meat shops) were held inapplicable because the licence was for a biryani stall, not a meat shop. The Telangana High Court decision in W.P. No.39344 of 2025, directing the State to frame a policy on meat sales within 100 metres of places of worship, was distinguished as merely directing policy formulation; absent a statutory provision or binding policy restricting biryani stalls near places of worship, no removal direction could issue. Writ petition dismissed with liberty to challenge the trade licence; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 5129 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WP No. 5129 of 2025

¶7

V.Venkatesan

¶8

No. 95, Naidu Street, Londonpettai, Krishnagiri

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The District Collector Krishnagiri District

¶12

The Revenue Distrit Officer, Krishnagiri District

¶13

The Commissioner Krishnagiri Municipality, Krishnagiri

¶14

The Superintendent Of Police Krishnagiri

¶15

The Food Safety Officer Krishnagiri District 635 115.

¶16

Abubakar Prop Araf Beef Briyani T.B Link Road (opposite To Venkataswamy Naidu St London Pet -ii, Krishnagiri 635 001.

¶17

..Respondent(s)

¶18

__________ Page1 of 7

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

WP No. 5129 of 2025

¶21

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 3 to take immediate and effective steps wihina time frame fixed by this Honourable Court for removing the shop of the 6th Respondent viz, Abubakar prop Araf Beef Briyani T.B link Road (opposite to venkakataswamy naidu street London Pet -II Krishnagiri 635001 situated on the left side of Arulmigu Sree Varasakthi Vinayagar Thirukoil, Tn link Road, Londonpettai, Krishnagiri to some other place and pass orders.

¶22

For Petitioner: Mr. A. Lakshminarasimhan

¶23

For Respondents: Mr.M.Sivavarthanan, GA – R1,R2 & R5

¶24

Mr.A.Arun

¶25

For Dr.T.Seenivasan – R3

¶26

Mr.Durai Gunasekaran –GA(Crl.side) – R4

¶27

Mr. J. Pradeep – R6

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2

¶30

to take immediate and effective steps to remove the shop run by the 6th respondent, where non-vegetarian biryani is being sold.

¶31

The petitioner claims to be the Dharmakarta of Arulmigu Varasakthi

¶32

Vinayagar Temple situated at TM Link Road, London Petai, Krishnagiri. According to the petitioner, the temple has been in existence for over 500 years. It is contended that the 6th respondent has established a shop under the name “Arab Beef Biryani” at a distance of about 15 feet from the temple, where meat

¶33

Page2 of 7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

WP No. 5129 of 2025

¶36

of various animals, including beef, is sold. It is further alleged that live animals are butchered at the premises, resulting in foul smell due to the shedding of blood and accumulation of animal waste, thereby disturbing the peaceful atmosphere required for performing religious rituals and causing inconvenience to the devotees.

¶37

Pursuant to the directions of this Court, an inspection was conducted on 04.04.2025 at 11.00 a.m. by officials of the Food Safety Department and the Krishnagiri Municipality. The inspection report states that the biryani stall is maintained in a hygienic manner in conformity with the applicable food safety regulations and is not causing any disturbance to the devotees of the temple. It further records that the stall operates only between 11.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. and between 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m., and that no written complaints have been received from the general public regarding any disturbance caused by the establishment.

¶38

The report also notes that the biryani stall is situated at a distance of approximately 6.5 metres from the temple, about 15 metres from the Miracle Jesus Prayer House, and approximately 6.5 metres from the Aksha Masjid. It is further recorded that the 6th respondent is carrying on the business pursuant to a valid trade licence issued by the competent authority, which continues to remain in force. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the grant of the said trade licence.

¶39

Page3 of 7

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

WP No. 5129 of 2025

¶42

The inspection report further records that the temple, mosque, Christian prayer house, and the biryani stall have been peacefully co-existing without any reported issues. In view of the above factual findings, the prayer of the petitioner seeking removal of the biryani stall cannot be granted.

¶43

The petitioner has placed reliance upon the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011, contending that a licensed meat shop should not be located within 60 metres of a place of worship. However, in the present case, the 6th respondent has not been granted a licence to operate a meat shop; rather, the licence is for running a nonvegetarian biryani stall. Therefore, the said Regulations have no application to the facts of the present case.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the High Court of Telangana in W.P. No.39344 of 2025 , wherein directions were issued to the State authorities to frame an appropriate policy regulating the sale and consumption of meat and non-vegetarian food within a distance of 100 metres from places of public worship, educational institutions and hospitals, keeping in view the religious sentiments of devotees, hygiene, serenity, law and order, and traffic considerations.

¶45

Learned counsel further relied upon paragraph 15 of the said judgment,

¶46

wherein the Telangana High Court observed that, based on the photographs

¶47

Page4 of 7

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

WP No. 5129 of 2025

¶50

placed on record, a live kitchen counter (popularly known as a kebab centre) had already been installed by the petitioner therein under the name “NRI Live Kitchen”, which, in all probability, could be used for cooking and selling meat and other non-vegetarian food.

¶51

A reading of the aforesaid judgment makes it clear that the Telangana High Court merely directed the State authorities to frame an appropriate policy governing the sale and consumption of meat and non-vegetarian food near places of worship and other specified institutions. In the absence of any statutory provision or binding policy imposing restrictions on the operation of a non-vegetarian biryani stall within the vicinity of a place of worship, no direction can be issued for removal of the 6th respondent’s establishment.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the trade licence granted to the 6th respondent, if so advised and permissible in law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

08-07-2026

¶54

Index: Yes/No

¶55

Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ak

¶56

Page5 of 7

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

WP No. 5129 of 2025