THANGCHUNGHNUNG Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR
LAWS(MANIP)-2021-2-6
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Decided on February 10,2021

Thangchunghnung Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MANIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Kh.Chonjohn, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.Kumarjit, learned Advocate General for the State respondents.
(2.) The PIL has been filed challenging the Annexure-A/4 which reads as follows:- 'DISTRICT COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION Office of the AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL, CHURACHANDPUR O R D E R S Churachandpur, the 28th September, 2020 No. 8/16/ADCC/99:/103 In supersession of all previous orders issued in this regard, the Executive Committee, Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur in its sitting held on 22.09.2020 hereby revised the rate of meat as below for strict compliance by all butchers/meat sellers operated within the jurisdiction of Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur and general public: I. BEEF: a. Flesh: Rs. 450/- per kg. b. Mix: Rs. 380/- per kg. II.PORK: Rs. 380/- per kg. 2. All Vendors/peddlers are also instructed not to charge more than Rs. 10/- per kg from the above rates. Butcher/meat seller selling meats higher than the revised rate within the jurisdiction of Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur shall be punishable as per section 49 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971. 3. All butchers/meat sellers shall obtain license from ADCC Town Office after getting 'NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE' from the concerned Village Authority. No butcher shall be allowed to sell meat without obtaining valid license from ADCC. 4. Further, all butchers/meat sellers shall sell meats at locations permitted by the concerned Village Authority only for the purpose. This order shall come into force with immediate effect. (Lalthazam, MCS) Chief Executive Officer, Autonomous District Council, Churachandpur Churachandpur, The 28th September, 2020'
(3.) The grievance of the PIL primarily appears to be that the costs of food items mentioned therein are very exorbitant and therefore, it has to be regulated by the orders of the Court. Be that as it may, prior to issuance of the impugned order, a representation dated 14th August, 2020 has been given to the concerned authority. However, after the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.6, there is no representation to the higher authority to reconsider the issue on the lines expressed by the petitioner. The petitioner is an Advocate and is well aware of the rules relating to filing of a PIL. In any event, liberty is given to the petitioner to seek remedy to approach the higher authority before approaching this Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.