Partly allowed

Md.Meraj and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC26 Sept 2012CWJC/9242/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought restoration of meat shop licences cancelled due to unhygienic conditions. The High Court ordered respondents to provisionally allow petitioners to run shops for one month to make necessary improvements.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of with direction to respondents to allow petitioners to run shops provisionally for one month and renew licences if statutory requirements are satisfied.

Md.Meraj and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9242 of 2012

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Md. Meraj S/O Md. Salamuddin R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali

¶4

Md. Izhar S/O Md. Isha R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.Mahua, District- Vaishali

¶5

Md. Islam S/O Late Md. Idrish R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali

¶6

Md. Mumtaz S/O Late Akhtar Hussain R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali

¶7

Md. Manan S/O Late Abdul Wahid R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali

¶8

Md. Israil S/O Late Md. Ibrahim R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali

¶9

Md. Nesar S/O Md. Nizam R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.Mahua, District- Vaishali

¶10

Md. Salam S/O Md. Yaquoob R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali 9. Md. Hasnain S/O Kamrul Zama R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali

¶11

Md. Sabir S/O Late Abdul Quaiyum R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali

¶12

Md. Israfil S/O Late Md. Ibrahim R/O Village- Ghauspur Chak, Mujahid, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali

¶13

Md. Shamim @ Md. Shamim S/O Wali Mohd. R/O At Chak, Kajee, Nizam, P.S.- Mahua, Distt.- Vaishali

¶14

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State Of Bihar through Its Health Secretary Secretariat, Patna

¶17

The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Vaishali (Hajipur)

¶18

The Designated Officer, Tirhut Division

¶19

The Food Security Officer-Cum-Registration Authority Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur

¶20

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

¶21

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Firoz Raza, Adv.

¶22

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, AC to GP-26

¶23

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶24

3 26-09-2012 By Annexure-1 series, the licences of the petitioners for running meat shop have been cancelled. The reasons assigned in the order is that they are running the meat shop in unhygienic

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.9242 of 2012 (3) dt.26-09-2012

¶26

2 / 3

¶27

condition with a bad upkeep causing danger to the health of the consumers.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to improve the conditions of their shops as required in law. He submits that earlier 15 days time was granted to them to improve the condition of the shops and make necessary arrangements as required in law which was too short. He submits that the petitioners had earlier requested for 45 days time which

¶29

was not allowed and after 15 days their licences have been cancelled. He submits that as on today also petitioners are ready to improve upkeep and ready to ensure sale of meat from the shops in hygienic condition. He submits that the petitioners may be given some time for this and after they complete the same their licences may be restored.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to this submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the lincences of the petitioners were cancelled only because the shops were not conforming to the requirements of law in respect of hygienic and upkeep and other requirements according to law.

¶31

This Court is of the view that, since the petitioners were in the business of selling meat since long, one opportunity should

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.9242 of 2012 (3) dt.26-09-2012

¶33

3 / 3

¶34

be given to them by the respondents to improve condition of the shops make it more hygienic and make necessary changes to conform the requirements of law for running the meat shops. Meanwhile, they should be provisionally allowed to run the shops so that their business may not suffer.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that within one month all the petitioners will make necessary improvements in the shops to conform the requirements of law and take all other steps in this regard.

¶36

The writ application is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to run their shops provisionally for one month and, if the petitioners satisfy the requirements of law in running their business, they are further directed to renew their licences.

¶37

Arvind/-

¶38

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

Md.Meraj and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Meraj and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheo Kumar Sah Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Janki Construction Pltd. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Usha Devi Vs The Central Bank Of India and Ors.

Ram Bahadur Pd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Gautam Prasad Vs Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank